DETAILED ACTION
The papers submitted on 14 Aug. 2026, amending claim 1 and 11 and canceling claim 3 are acknowledged.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US20200298187) and further in view of Isomura et al. (US20140331860).
Regarding claim 1, Choi et al. Discloses a heterogeneous zeolite membrane that has two zeolite
structures of CHA and DDR, each capable of selectively separating carbon dioxide from N2 and CH4 even
under wet conditions (paragraph 0002). The heterogeneous zeolite membrane is prepared by forming a
seed layer of CHA zeolite particles on a support, and performing hydrothermal synthesis on the CHA
seed layer in the presence of a DDR precursor solution to produce a DDR@CHA heterogeneous zeolite
membrane (paragraph 0011). Choi et al. also discloses the heterogeneous zeolite membrane can be
prepared in the opposite order, that is, forming a seed layer of DDR zeolite particles on a support, and
performing hydrothermal synthesis on the DDR seed layer in the presence of a CHA precursor solution
to produce a CHA@DDR heterogeneous zeolite membrane (paragraph 0041). The first embodiment
(DDR@CHA) is preferred because CHA seed particles are easier to synthesize (paragraph 0047—052).
Choi et al. discloses the gaps between the zeolite seed particles are filled through hydrothermal
treatment (paragraph 0044). The hydrothermal treatment is done in a DDR precursor solution
(paragraph 0044), so the gaps between the CHA zeolites are filled with DDR structure which would make
a first layer including CHA and DDR structure. An embodiment that creates the membrane with this
method uses SSZ-13 as the CHA zeolite seeds and a ZSM-58 precursor solution as the DDR part
(paragraph 0079).
In this embodiment, when the secondary growth of the hydrothermal reaction is carried out for
6 days (DDR@CHA_6d), the SSZ-13 (CHA) seed layer and the DDR structure part co-exist in a lower part
and upper part of the membrane (paragraph 0079). The SSZ-13 seed layer is effectively covered
(paragraph 0079). Therefore, a first layer including CHA structure and DDR structure is present, and a
second layer including a DDR structure exists on top of the first layer. When the secondary growth is
done for 6 days (DDR@CHA_6d), the resulting total thickness of the CHA-DDR zeolite membrane is 4.3
PNG
media_image1.png
414
493
media_image1.png
Greyscale
micrometers (FIG. 2E) (paragraph 0079).
Choi et al. does not disclose the thickness of the individual layers in the membrane.
Isomura et al. discloses a ceramic separation membrane that includes a porous substrate, and a separation layer formed on the substrate, wherein the separation layer is a laminate having an outermost layer positioned on the most surface side, and a base layer positioned in a lower layer than the outermost layer and made of zeolite (paragraph 0013). The base layer of the ceramic separation membrane is made of chabazite (CHA) zeolite (paragraph 0014). The outermost layer is made of DDR type zeolite (paragraph 0016). The thickness of the outermost layer is preferably from 0.5 to 10 micrometers and is result-effective (paragraph 0044). When the thickness of the outermost layer is smaller than 0.5 micrometers, it is difficult to uniformly form a film of the outermost layer and the performance of the separation membrane deteriorates. When the thickness is greater than 10 micrometers, the pressure loss in the outermost layer is large (paragraph 0044).
The thickness of the base layer is preferably 1-20 micrometers (paragraph 0050), or double the thickness of the outermost layer (paragraph 0043). The thickness of the base layer is result effective. When the thickness of the base layer is smaller than 1 micrometer, it is difficult to uniformly form the base layer and the separation performance of the separation membrane deteriorates (paragraph 0050). When the thickness is greater than 20 micrometers, the pressure loss in the base layer is large and the water permeation speed of the membrane is slow (paragraph 0050).
The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select the portion of the prior art’s range which is within the range of the applicants’ claims because it has been held prima facie case of obviousness to select a value in a known range by optimization for the results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to optimize the thickness of the two layers in Choi et al. with the teachings of Isomura et al. because of the high separation performance and fast water permeation (paragraph 0020). The high separation performance and water permeation of the membrane can be attributed to the optimized thickness of the base layer (paragraph 0050) and the outermost layer (paragraph 0044).
Additionally, because of the teaching of 4.3 micrometer total thickness in Choi et al. (paragraph 0079) and the teaching in Isomura et al. that the thickness of the base layer is double the thickness of the outermost layer (paragraph 0043), it would have been obvious to get the claimed individual layer thickness of the present invention. This is because these teachings limit the combination of possible thicknesses of the individual layers, and the thicknesses of individual layers would be within the claimed range because Choi et al. teaches the total thickness.
Regarding claim 2, Choi et al. discloses XRD characterization of the CHA@DDR_6d sample (Fig. 11E) (paragraph 0075). The CHA@DDR_6d is an embodiment that has DDR crystals deposited and 6 days of hydrothermal synthesis in a CHA precursor. The XRD pattern of the CHA@DDR membrane includes the 101 peak of the DDR seed layer (paragraph 0075). This means the surface of the membrane includes DDR type zeolite and the first layer would have DDR seeds with CHA filling the gap, so the CHA@DDR_6d embodiment satisfies claim 1. In this zeolite membrane, diamond-shaped all-silica DDR particles were synthesized and deposited on the alumina disc (paragraph 0075). The disclosure of the present invention uses diamond and pyramid shaped interchangeably (specification page 32, lines 22-24). As a result, it can be concluded that the diamond-shaped DDR particles are the same as the pyramid-shaped in the present invention.
PNG
media_image2.png
429
542
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
564
833
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Additionally, looking at XRD of DDR@CHA_6d, we also see a 101 peak. See FIG. 2F below.
Regarding claim 4, Choi et al. discloses the CHA precursor solution is composed of an organic-structure directing agent, SiO2, H2O, Na2O, and Al2O3 at a molar ratio of 1 to 100:100:1000 to 20000:1 to 50: 0 to 10, and the organic-structure-directing agent may include one or more of TMAdaOH, TMAdaBr, TMAdaF, TMAdaCl, TMAdaI, TEAOH, TEABr, TEAF, TEACl, TEAI, dipropylamine, and cyclohexylamine (paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 5, Choi et al. discloses the DDR precursor solution is composed of SiO2, organic-structure-directing agent, Na2O, H2O, and Al2O3 at a molar ratio of 100:1 to 1000:0 to 500:10 to 100000: 0 to 10, and the organic-structure-directing agent may include one or more of methyltropinium iodide, methyltopinium bromide, methyltropinium fluoride, methyltropinium chloride, methyltropinium hydroxide, quinuclidinium, ethylenediamine, and adamantylamine (paragraph 0054).
PNG
media_image4.png
454
584
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Choi et al. discloses Fig. 17F which shows the permeance vs the secondary growth time. The 6-day membrane which fulfills the size limitation of claim 1, and has a CO2 permeance of roughly 1*10-7 as seen below.
Regarding claim 8, no specific structure is required for the CHA-DDR type zeolite membrane to have a carbon dioxide recovery of 10% to 100% and a purity of 50% to 100%, and a methane recovery of 50% to 100% and a purity of 30% to 100% when carbon dioxide and methane are fed with a molar ratio of 50:50 besides the CHA-DDR disclosed by Choi et al. and Isomura et al. Thus, the examiner concludes the CHA-DDR type zeolite membrane is capable of performing the intended use of separating carbon dioxide and methane with the claimed recoveries and purities.
Regarding claim 9, no specific structure is required for the CHA-DDR type zeolite membrane to have a carbon dioxide recovery of 10% to 100% and a purity of 20% to 100%, and a nitrogen recovery of 30% to 100% and a purity of 30% to 100% when carbon dioxide and nitrogen are fed with a molar ratio of 15:85 besides the CHA-DDR disclosed by Choi et al. and Isomura et al. Thus, the examiner concludes the CHA-DDR type zeolite membrane is capable of performing the intended use of separating carbon dioxide and nitrogen with the claimed recoveries and purities.
Regarding claim 10, no specific structure is required for the CHA-DDR type zeolite membrane to separate a mixture of gas and gas, gas and liquid, and liquid and liquid besides the CHA-DDR disclosed by Choi et al. and Isomura et al. Thus, the examiner concludes the CHA-DDR type zeolite membrane is capable of performing the intended use of separating different mixture of states of matter. Additionally, Choi et al. discloses the separation of gas mixtures.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. in view of Isomura et al. as applied to claims 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-10 above, and further in view of Carstensen et al. (CN107107030A).
Regarding claim 7, modified Choi et al. discloses the heterogeneous zeolite membrane mainly includes DDR zeolites but does not give a specific weight ratio of CHA and DDR structure zeolites.
Carstensen et al. discloses adsorbent materials with high adsorption capacity and increased selectivity for gaseous pollutants such as CO2 (paragraph 0013). The adsorbent material comprises a core and at least one coating grown on the core (paragraph 0013). The adsorbent material comprises a core containing CHA zeolite and a coating that comprises DDR zeolite (paragraph 0015). The coating and core may be present in a coating:core weight ratio of approximately 1:2 (paragraph 0073). This correlates to 2 parts by weight of CHA structure based on 3 parts by weight of the total structure falling within the claimed range (67 wt% CHA).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use the amounts of CHA and DDR structure taught in Carstensen et al. in the homogeneous membrane of Choi et al. and Isomura et al. because kinetic selectivity and diffusivity of the adsorbent coating enable the rapid transport of CO2 to the nucleus while hindering the transport of CH4 allowing selective separation of CO2 from a mixture of CO2 and CH4 (paragraph 0102). The core has a higher adsorption capacity of CO2 compared to the coating (paragraph 0102). If the incorrect amount of DDR zeolite is used, then the selective separation of CO2 and CH4 will not be possible because CH4 will also diffuse through the coating. If the incorrect amount of CHA zeolite is used, then there will not be enough capacity to adsorb CO2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the structural composition of the layers in Isomura is fundamentally different from the claimed invention because Isomura discloses a base layer made purely of chabazite and thus the optimization parameters cannot be used for a CHA-DDR first layer. Even though the base layer is different in Isomura, applicant’s reply fails to address how there is a lack of motivation from Isomura to optimize Choi. The fundamentally different base layer of Isomura still has the reasons to optimize an individual layer thickness that would apply to zeolite membranes. Isomura provides evidence that both layers are result effective and one having ordinary skill would have been motivated to optimize the thickness of these layers. These motivations can be seen in the rejection of claim 1. As a result, the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that applying Isomura’s teaching would result in a membrane that falls outside the scope of claim 1. Applicant’s reply does not consider the entire range taught by Isomura which would result in a membrane that falls inside the scope of claim 1. The outermost thickness is preferably from 0.5 to 10 micrometers (paragraph 0044), and the base layer is preferably 1-20 micrometers (paragraph 0050), or double the thickness of the outermost layer (paragraph 0043). Picking the lower end of the outermost thickness (0.5 micrometers) and doubling to get the base layer thickness would give 1 micrometer for a total of 1.5 micrometers; inside the claimed total thickness of claim 1. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
Applicant argues that Isomura teaches away from a significant portion of the claimed range. Applicant’s reply fails to address the portion of the claimed range that Isomura does teach. Additionally, even if Isomura did not teach a portion of the claimed range, Isomura provides sufficient evidence to optimize the parameters of Choi and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that Isomura’s teaching of result-effective outer layer and base layer thickness would not have motivated a person of ordinary skill to arrive at the claimed combination of sub 2 micrometer first and second layer average thicknesses. Examiner disagrees because Isomura provides reasons and motivation for thickness optimization of individual layers in both directions i.e. when the layer is too thick, and when the layer is too thin (see rejection 1 statement). Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID A CALDERON whose telephone number is (571)272-9866. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christina Johnson can be reached at 5712721176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID ANDREW CALDERON/Examiner, Art Unit 1742
/BENJAMIN A SCHIFFMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights