US 11402314

I'll search for authoritative records on this specific patent number.

Patent record: US 11,402,314 B2

Bottom line up front: I could locate the patent's prosecution/issuance record and family data, but I found no evidence of any CAFC 2026 appeal or other litigation involving US 11,402,314. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docket data is behind PACER/CM-ECF authentication, which I cannot query directly; my searches of public web sources (including courtlistener-hosted material and IPR/PTAB filings) returned zero hits tying this patent number to any PTAB trial, district court case, or Federal Circuit appeal. Treat "no litigation found" as absence of evidence found by search, not as a positive assertion that none exists. Uncertain.

Important search-integrity note: the only seemingly relevant hit that mentioned a "'114 patent" in an IPR sur-reply concerned a different patent (an unrelated '114 in a Delaware dispute involving Vosteen/Downs-Boiler references) and must not be attributed to US 11,402,314.

---

Bibliographic data (from the patent text and Google Patents record)

Abstract (as issued)

"A method for inspecting a separation membrane structure includes an assembly step of sealing a separation membrane structure that includes a porous substrate and a separation membrane into a casing, and an inspection step of applying pressure to an inspection liquid that has filled a first main surface side of the separation membrane."

---

Independent claims — plain-language overview

There are three independent claims: 1, 10, and 11. Claims 2–9 depend from claim 1.

Claim 1 — method of inspecting a separation membrane structure (porous substrate + separation membrane).
Two substantive requirements:

1. An inspection step: apply pressure to an inspection liquid that has filled the first main surface side of the separation membrane (i.e., the feed/retentate side — the inner bore of the cells in the described monolithic embodiment), and
2. A characterizing limitation on the liquid itself: the inspection liquid must be one for which the He permeation rate reduction of the separation membrane is ≤ 10% after the structure has been immersed in that liquid for 60 minutes and then dried for 24 hours at 150 °C.

In plain terms: instead of pressurizing gas (expensive, per JPH 5-157654) or using an arbitrary liquid that may plug the pores (per JP 2014-46286), you first screen candidate liquids by an immersion/dry/permeance test and then use only a "non-fouling" liquid as the pressurized leak-test medium. Note: claim 1 as issued does not recite an assembly step, even though the abstract and the "Solution to Problem" passage both describe one. A literal reading is that the granted claim 1 is a structure-level inspection method; the assembly step appears only in claim 10.

Claim 10 — method of manufacturing a separation membrane module.
An assembly step (sealing the porous-substrate-plus-separation-membrane structure into a casing) followed by the same pressurized-inspection-liquid step, subject to the identical ≤ 10% He-permeation-reduction characterization of the liquid.

Claim 11 — method of manufacturing a separation membrane structure.
A separation membrane formation step (forming the membrane on a surface of a porous substrate) followed by the pressurized-inspection-liquid step, again with the identical ≤ 10% characterization. This corresponds to the specification's "Other Embodiments" passage applying the method to a strength test of the structure itself, where formation of the structure is complete upon completing the inspection step. Claim 11 notably omits any casing/assembly step.

Dependent claims 2–9 (quick map):

• 2 – leak inspection determined from pressure change in the inspection liquid.
• 3 – inspection liquid pressurized by a pressure booster; leak determined from discharge amount, compression amount, and/or elapsed time to complete pressurization.
• 4 – leak inspection via foaming in the inspection liquid when gas filling the second main surface side is pressurized.
• 5 – inspection liquid vapor pressure ≥ 1.0 × 10³ Pa at 25 °C (so it evaporates quickly after testing).
• 6 – inspection liquid is a fluorinated liquid.
• 7 – drying step at ≤ the heat-resistance limiting temperature of the O-rings, after inspection.
• 8 – separation membrane is a zeolite membrane with SiO₂/Al₂O₃ ≤ 200.
• 9 – water content ratio in the inspection liquid < 20% (depends on claim 8).

---

Disclosure highlights relevant to claim construction

• Working examples use Fluorinert (0% reduction), Galden (−2%), and KF96L silicone liquid (−8%) as suitable; ion exchange water (−28%) was unsuitable. The specification states the inspection liquid may be selected from fluorinated liquids and silicone liquids, with Fluorinert preferred.
• The examples report "reduction rate" values as 0%, −2%, −8%, −28% while describing the calculation as "dividing the He gas permeation rate measured after immersion … by the He gas permeation rate measured before immersion." The arithmetic convention in the specification is internally ambiguous — dividing after/before (e.g., 107/148) yields ≈0.72, not −0.28 — so the numeric sign convention in the tables should not be relied on without care. The consistent practical meaning is a ≤10% loss of permeance.
• The claimed ≤ 10% criterion is expressed as a property of the inspection liquid rather than as an affirmative process step, which is analytically unusual for a method claim and is a natural focal point for any future validity or infringement dispute.
• Cited/prosecuted prior art of note: JPH 5-157654 (Asahi Chemical, gas-pressurized leak inspection), JP 2014-46286 (NGK, strength inspection by pressurizing liquid), JP 2001-242066, JP 2004-286635, WO 2010/090049, and US 10,265,660 (Battelle).
• Later citations to this family include LG Chem US 2021/0178332 A1 / US 11,992,810 B2 (separation membrane element defect detection, priority 2018-10-18) and a related NGK document, US 11,872,520 B2 ("Method for inspecting separation membrane module…"), which appears in the "Similar Documents" list.

---

Caveats

1. No CAFC 2026 activity located. Public searches returned nothing for "11402314" in Federal Circuit or PTAB contexts. I cannot rule out an unindexed or sealed proceeding; direct CM-ECF/PACER verification was not possible with the tools available.
2. Filing/priority dating. The US filing date is 2019-09-06 as a § 120 continuation of PCT/JP2018/005263 (filed 2018-02-15), with earliest priority 2017-03-30. I am reporting these literally as they appear; I have not independently confirmed the priority chain against the JP or CN family members.
3. Claim-set discrepancy. The Google Patents page reproduces the claim set twice — once in a "Definitions" block and once under "Claims (11)". I have treated the "Claims (11)" text as authoritative; where the two differ (the assembly step in claim 1), I flagged it rather than reconciled it.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 11402314. Let me run several targeted searches.

No relevant hits yet. Let me try more targeted sources.

Let me query litigation-specific databases directly.

Summary answer

I found no litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 11,402,314. Based on the searches I was able to run, there is no publicly indexed district court case, CAFC appeal, ITC investigation, or PTAB proceeding in which US 11,402,314 is identified as an asserted, challenged, or otherwise litigated patent.

Searches performed and what they returned

Important caveats (please read)

• A negative result is not proof of absence. I could not complete the full set of targeted database queries I intended (I was cut off before running direct CourtListener, Docket Navigator, and Docket Alarm queries on the literal string). There may be litigation that is not indexed by general web search.
• Coverage gaps to be aware of: complaints filed under seal or recently filed cases may not yet be publicly indexed; ITC Section 337 investigations; state-court actions; and foreign proceedings (the family includes JP 7096234 B2, CN 110430935 B, DE 112018001736 T5, and WO 2018/179959 A1) would not appear in the U.S. litigation sources I searched.
• Verification method suggested: the authoritative check is the USPTO Patent Center "Patent Litigation" / assignment tab for US 11,402,314, plus a paid Docket Navigator or Lex Machina search on the exact patent number, and a Westlaw/Lexis "docket" search restricted to the exact string.

About the patent (for context, not litigation)

US 11,402,314 B2, "Method for inspecting separation membrane structure, method for manufacturing separation membrane module, and method for manufacturing separation membrane structure," is assigned to NGK Insulators, Ltd., filed 2019-09-06 as US 16/562,671 (a continuation of PCT/JP2018/005263), priority 2017-03-30, granted 2022-08-02. This provenance (a large, diversified operating company asserting a process/inspection patent that is essentially a manufacturing QC method) is consistent with there being no NPE-style assertion campaign around it — but that is an inference, not evidence.

Bottom line: I have no high-confidence record of any litigation involving US 11,402,314. State this as "no known litigation found," not as "no litigation exists."

I'll verify the empty structured list with independent searches before reporting.

Let me run additional targeted searches to corroborate the empty structured list.

Proceedings overview

Zero. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block for US 11,402,314 B2 reports no AIA trial proceedings — no IPR, PGR, or CBM petition has ever been filed against this patent as reflected in the USPTO Open Data Portal ingest, and my independent searches (PTAB petition documents, PTAB/Board decision text, and NGK Insulators PTAB dockets) surfaced nothing contradicting that. I therefore have no proceeding number, panel, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or appeal to report — and I will not manufacture one.

Bottom-line defensive posture: the patent is intact and undisputed at the PTAB. There is no canceled claim to leverage, no FWD to cite, and no petitioner estoppel to exploit. A defendant facing assertion of US 11,402,314 today has a fully live claim set (claims 1–11, all untested before the Board) and must build an invalidity case from scratch — the Board has never construed a single term of this patent. Conversely, the absence of any IPR is itself weak evidence that the patent has not been a high-value assertion target to date (see caveats below), so a defendant may find the art-of-record and prosecution history underexplored rather than well-mined.

Proceeding-by-proceeding detail

There are no proceedings to enumerate. Rather than fabricate entries, here is what the null result means and how it was reached.

• Type: n/a
• Filed: n/a
• Status: n/a — the patent's only recorded post-grant administrative events are routine: patent grant 2022-07-13 (STCF) and 4th-year maintenance fee paid 2026-01-21 (MAFP, large entity) per the file's legal-events record. The patent remains active with an adjusted expiration of 2039-07-24.
• Judge panel: none assigned
• Petition grounds: none
• Institution decision: none
• Final Written Decision: none
• Settlement / termination: n/a
• Appeal: n/a
• Defensive value: An IPR-based defense offers a clean slate — no § 325(d) "already considered by the Office" estoppel from a prior Board record, no prior claim construction to reconcile under § 42.100(b), and no § 315(e)(1) estoppel burden. But also no free win: nothing has been canceled, so any non-infringement or invalidity position must be developed independently.

Adjacent activity worth noting (not a proceeding against this patent)

Two "neighbor" data points from the record, offered as context only:

1. A sibling family member was cited by a later LG Chem filing. LG Chem's US 2021/0178332 A1 and its continuation US 11,992,810 B2 ("Method of detecting defects in separation membrane element") post-date and cite this family. That is a citation signal of a crowded inspection-methodology space, not a challenge to this patent.
2. NGK continues to build the portfolio around this technology. Later NGK filings appear in the same landscape, including US 11,872,520 B2 ("Method for inspecting separation membrane module and method for manufacturing separation membrane module"), US 2023/0078309 A1 ("Method for drying separation membrane…"), and JP 7592846 B2 ("Separation membrane module evaluation method"). This is relevant to a defendant on two fronts: (a) the asserted patent may be one of several in a family you could face, and (b) design-around and invalidity analysis should account for the broader family, not just this one grant.

Strategic summary

Claim status: 100% untested, 0% canceled. All of claims 1–11 are alive and unadjudicated. Claim 1 is the sole independent inspection-method claim, and its distinguishing limitation is a characterization of the inspection liquid itself — "a reduction rate of an He permeation rate of the separation membrane is less than or equal to 10% when the separation membrane structure has been dried for 24 hours at 150 degrees C. after immersion in the inspection liquid for 60 minutes" (claims 1, 10, 11). That is a functional/parameter limitation measured against a defined test protocol, which is where a defendant's claim-construction fight will live. The dependent claims layer on detection modalities (pressure change, § 2; booster discharge/compression/time, § 3; foaming from second-main-surface gas pressurization, § 4), liquid properties (vapor pressure ≥ 1.0×10³ Pa, § 5; fluorinated liquid, § 6), a drying step below the O-ring heat-resistance limit (§ 7), and a zeolite-membrane-specific aqueous constraint (SiO₂/Al₂O₃ ≤ 200, § 8; water content < 20%, § 9). Note the specification's own Table 1 and Sample Nos. 1–7 as intrinsic evidence for how "less than or equal to 10%" is met — and note that Sample No. 7 (ion exchange water, −28%) is the patent's self-identified non-qualifying liquid.

Estoppel landscape: essentially empty, which cuts both ways. Because no petitioner has ever been before the Board on this patent, no one is carrying § 315(e)(2) estoppel. A defendant today is free to raise any § 102/§ 103 ground based on patents and printed publications, plus any § 112 or other ground in district court that IPR could not reach (§ 311(b) limits IPRs to patents and printed publications). The flip side: because nothing has been litigated, there is no Board-tested construction to import, no institution record to mine for admissions or expert concessions, and no FWD reasoning to build on. The prosecution history and the cited references (JPH05157654, JP2014046286, JP2004286635, WO2010090049, WO2016158583, US10265660, among others) are the primary art-of-record starting points — JPH05157654 and JP2014046286 are the two references the patent itself describes as the closest prior approaches, so they are the natural § 103 anchors.

Pattern signals: no campaign, no aggregator. There is no repeat petitioner, no defensive aggregator (Unified Patents or similar) in the chain, and no NGK PTAB appeal activity tied to this patent. One caution against over-reading the null result: PTAB practice shows that asserted patents eventually attract IPRs, so the absence of any petition is consistent with (a) the patent being used defensively or in licensing/supply relationships rather than in litigation, or (b) the patent being young (granted 2022-08-02) with a low enough assertion profile to date. This is an inference, not evidence — the same caveat applies here as to the companion litigation section.

One consistency check across the generated sections. The earlier litigation summary concluded "no known litigation found." That is consistent with this PTAB finding, and it matters: with no district court complaint served on a would-be petitioner, the § 315(b) one-year clock has not started for anyone, so any competent challenger retains a full IPR runway. If a future defendant is served, the § 315(b) deadline is one year from service, and the § 315(a)(1) bar applies if that party previously filed a DJ action of invalidity.

Recommended next steps

Since there is no FWD to link or quote, the actionable steps are about verification and about building the case from zero:

1. Verify the null result on the authoritative systems before relying on it. Confirm directly at USPTO PTAB E2E (https://ptab.uspto.gov) and via the PTAB API / USPTO Open Data Portal for application 16/562,671 and patent 11,402,314; cross-check with Unified Patents' litigation and PTAB portals (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com) and a CourtListener docket search on the exact patent string. I could not complete every one of these queries in this session, so "no PTAB activity found" is the honest characterization — not "no PTAB activity exists."
2. Confirm no Certificate of Correction or reexamination certificate has altered the claims. No such certificate appears in the record, but the claims you must attack are the ones of record as of the grant; check the Patent Center "Documents" and "Transaction History" tabs for any post-grant certificate.
3. If you are contemplating filing an IPR, note the timing posture is favorable but not unlimited. The patent is a post-AIA first-to-file case with priority 2017-03-30 and a WO publication (WO 2018/179959 A1, published 2018-10-04); its effective filing predates SAS/Fintiv-era doctrine in any relevant sense, and IPR remains available for the life of the patent so long as you are not time-barred or estopped. Statutory deadlines once instituted: institution decision within 6 months of a complete petition (§ 314(b)) and FWD within 12 months of institution (§ 316(a)(11)), extendable for good cause.
4. Do not rely on the IPR as your only vehicle. Because the key limitation is a performance characteristic tied to a defined test protocol, § 112 enablement/written-description and indefiniteness challenges — unavailable in IPR — may be your most productive theory, and they belong in district court or a PGR (the latter now foreclosed by timing).
5. Sweep the rest of the family before you commit to a strategy. US 11,872,520 B2, US 2023/0078309 A1, and JP 7592846 B2 cover adjacent inspection/evaluation/drying methods from the same assignee. A design-around that avoids claim 1 of this patent may still read on a sibling, and a single prior-art theory may be reusable across the family.

Sources: USPTO Open Data Portal PTAB ingest (structured block, empty for this patent); https://patents.google.com/patent/US11402314/en (claims, specification, legal events, citation records); USPTO PTAB E2E and USPTO Patent Center for verification of the negative result. No proceeding number, panel, or Board decision is cited because none exists on the record available to me.

I'll research the assignment record for US 11,402,314 across the USPTO Assignment Center and cross-referenced sources.

I've hit my search-tool step limit, so the following is built on the authoritative patent record you supplied plus the searches completed. Where a field could not be retrieved, I say so rather than guessing.

Inventors

Four named inventors, all listed as assignors on the sole recorded assignment (reel 050290/0633):

• The employer attribution is supported by the fact that all four executed an assignment to NGK INSULATORS, LTD. (reel 050290/0633) and by PatentLeaderboard aggregation showing Miyahara (~41 patents) and Ichikawa (~26 patents) as NGK Insulators inventors (patentleaderboard.com/ngk-insulators/makoto-miyahara/102180, .../makiko-ichikawa/262339).
• Caveat on Hagio: a PatentLeaderboard page lists a "Takeshi Hagio — 54 Patents at Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba" (.../kabushiki-kaisha-toshiba/takeshi-hagio/304655). This is either a namesake or an inventor who moved between Toshiba and NGK. For this patent he is an NGK assignor; I cannot confirm his employment history beyond that.

Unusual-pattern check — no red flags. There is no evidence any inventor departed NGK near filing. The execution dates (2019-08-26 → 2019-08-30) sit inside the US national-stage entry window, which is the normal time for a foreign applicant to perfect the inventor-to-company assignment. This is consistent with a routine corporate employer assignment, not a pre-sale cleanup.

Original assignee

NGK INSULATORS, LTD., 2-56 Suda-cho, Mizuho-ku, Nagoya-shi, Aichi 467-8530, Japan — the assignee on the issued patent.

• Primary line of business: a large, publicly listed Japanese diversified ceramics manufacturer (Tokyo Stock Exchange, code 5333). Core segments include automotive/industrial ceramics (honeycomb substrates, GPF/DPF, sensor elements), power-related ceramics (NAS battery, insulators/bushings), and — directly relevant here — ceramic separation membranes and zeolite membrane modules. NGK markets membrane products (e.g., DDR-type and other zeolite dehydration/separation modules), so the claimed subject matter is core commercial product rather than a paper asset.
• Did they ship a product embodying the claims? NGK is an operating manufacturer of inorganic separation membranes and membrane modules; the patent protects a manufacturing QC / inspection method inside that business rather than a standalone product. I have high confidence NGK practices the method internally; I do not have a document that ties this specific patent to a specific shipped SKU.
• Current status: operating, not acquired, not dissolved, not in bankruptcy.
• Corroborating signal of continued ownership: a 4th-year maintenance fee payment recorded 2026-01-21 (original event code M1551, large entity) appears on the patent's legal events. Paying the 4th-year fee is strong evidence NGK still holds and values the patent.

Assignment timeline

Only one assignment is recorded against US 11,402,314. Sources: the patent's own legal events block (Google Patents / USPTO assignment data) and the USPTO Assignment Center index.

• 2019-08-26 to 2019-08-30 (executed) / recorded 2019-09-06 — Reel 050290/0633
  • Conveyance: Assignment (ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST)
  • Assignor: MIYAHARA, MAKOTO; ICHIKAWA, MAKIKO; YAJIMA, KENJI; HAGIO, TAKESHI (signing dates 20190826–20190830)
  • Assignee: NGK INSULATORS, LTD., Japan
  • Correspondent: not disclosed in the records I was able to retrieve. The legal-events extract does not expose the correspondent of record, and my search steps were exhausted before I could pull the Assignment Center detail view. I will not invent a firm name. This is the single most important unresolved field — see the verification note below.
  • Context: Ordinary inventor-to-employer assignment at US national-stage entry of PCT/JP2018/005263 (continuation of the 2017-03-30 JP priority). Not a fire-sale, reorg, securitization, or transfer-to-asserter.

No subsequent assignment, security agreement, license, merger, change-of-name, or release is recorded for this patent in the sources I could access.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11402314
    2017 : Priority application filed in Japan
    2018 : PCT application filed
    2019 : US national stage continuation filed
         : Inventors assign to NGK Insulators Ltd
    2022 : US patent granted
    2026 : Fourth year maintenance fee paid

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Cross-reference note: NGK's own later family filings remain under its name — e.g. JP 7592846 B2 ("Separation membrane module evaluation method," NGK, priority 2021-03-30) is listed as citing this family, and US 11,872,520 B2 ("Method for inspecting separation membrane module…") appears among similar NGK documents. These are citation/continuation relationships, not assignments, but they reinforce that NGK retained and built on the portfolio.

Verdict

Insufficient data — in the sense defined by your taxonomy: the record contains only the original assignment (reel 050290/0633, executed 2019-08-26/30, recorded 2019-09-06), from the four inventors to NGK Insulators, Ltd., with no further recorder entries.

Justification: the single reel/frame entry is a routine inventor-to-employer assignment to an operating ceramics manufacturer, executed contemporaneously with US national-stage filing, and the patent's most recent legal event is a 2026-01-21 4th-year maintenance-fee payment by NGK as large entity — the opposite of an abandoned or fire-sold asset. None of the eight NPE signals is present, so this is not an NPE matter; the "Insufficient data" label reflects only that there is a single assignment link and I could not retrieve the correspondent of record, not any suspicion about ownership.

Verification / gap to close. The one substantive hole in this reconstruction is the correspondent of record on reel 050290/0633, which I could not extract before exhausting my search steps. Also confirm no post-2022 assignment exists:

1. Open the USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (legacy index: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html) — search by patent number 11402314 and, separately, by reel/frame 050290/0633, and read the "Correspondent" field.
2. Confirm current owner via USPTO Patent Center / ODP for application 16/562,671.
3. Spot-check RPX and Unified Patents member/asserter directories for "NGK Insulators" to rule out any undisclosed transfer.

I did not fabricate any assignment beyond the one the patent record actually shows.

I'll verify US 11,402,314's record and then research each cited reference.

I have good detail on three. Let me research the remaining cited references.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 11,402,314 B2

0. Patent record confirmed

The record you supplied matches independently retrieved sources. US 11,402,314 B2 ("Method for inspecting separation membrane structure, method for manufacturing separation membrane module, and method for manufacturing separation membrane structure"), NGK Insulators, Ltd.; App. No. 16/562,671; filed 2019-09-06 as a continuation of PCT/JP2018/005263; priority 2017-03-30; granted 2022-08-02. Verified via Google Patents, Justia, and the granted-PDF copy. Claims: 11 total (1–9 inspection method; 10 module manufacture; 11 structure manufacture).

Critical structural point that governs the entire §102 analysis. The single novel element that appears in every independent claim (1, 10, 11) is a functional limitation on the inspection liquid itself:

"the inspection liquid is characterized in that a reduction rate of an He permeation rate of the separation membrane is less than or equal to 10% when the separation membrane structure has been dried for 24 hours at 150 degrees C. after immersion in the inspection liquid for 60 minutes."

Because claims 2–9 depend from claim 1 (claim 9 via claim 8), that limitation is incorporated into every claim. A reference can only anticipate a claim under §102 if it discloses that limitation. None of the cited references does. So the honest headline answer is below; the per-reference work follows.

---

1. The cited references (the §102 candidate set)

The patent's own IDS lists 11 unique patent citations (13 rows), plus 2 "family cites." I verified bibliographic data where I could; where I could not complete retrieval I say so.

---

2. Per-reference §102 analysis

Reference A — JPS6058530A (Fujisawa). Method/apparatus for testing a membrane filter. Verified counterpart: US 4,872,974 (same family, EP 0 139 202 A1).
Potential §102 relevance: none as to any claim. It pressurizes with a gas against a liquid-wetted filter (bubble-point / pressure-hold), the reverse of the claimed "inspection liquid that has filled a first main surface side" being pressurized. No functional He-reduction characterization.
Closest claim elements touched: the general concept underlying claim 2 (leak inspection by a pressure change).

Reference B — US 4,872,974 A (Fujisawa), pub. 1989-10-10. "Apparatus for testing membrane filters, and for sterilizing liquids with use of membrane filter." Verified at Google Patents and FPO. Increases primary-side pressure of a liquid-wetted membrane filter with a gas at a controlled rate and checks whether primary-side pressure stays in a judging range.
Potential §102 relevance: none as to any claim. Same deficiency as A: gas pressurization, no inspection-liquid functional limitation.
Note: B and A are essentially the two sides of one 1983 Fujisawa family; they recur across many membrane-integrity patents.

Reference C — JPH05157654A (Asahi Chemical Industry), pub. 1993-06-25. Verified at Google Patents. Fills one side of the membrane with a liquid/other gas, pressurizes the other side with gas, and measures pressure rise/decay on the leak side. This is the reference the patent itself characterizes in its Background Art as teaching "supplying a gas under pressure to a second main surface side in a configuration in which a filtrate has filled a first main surface side."
Potential §102 relevance: none as to claims 1, 10, or 11. It comes closest of all the references to the overall inspection context, but (i) it pressurizes with gas, not an inspection liquid, and (ii) it contains no He-permeation-reduction characterization of a liquid.
Closest claim elements touched: claim 4 (foaming/gas technique), claim 1's "first main surface side" language.

Reference D — JP2001242066A (Toyobo), pub. 2001-09-07. Verified at Google Patents. Immerses an asymmetric porous membrane in a leak-test liquid with wettability to the membrane material, removes that liquid, pressurizes the support-layer side with gas, and detects gas leaking to the selective-separation-layer side.
Potential §102 relevance: none as to any claim. This is bubble-point-type gas leak testing. Note it teaches a wettability requirement for the test liquid — conceptually adjacent to, but not the same as, the claimed non-clogging / ≤10% He-reduction requirement, and in fact points the opposite way (it wants the liquid to wet/fill the pores).

Reference E — JP2004286635A (NGK), pub. 2004-10-14. Pore-size measuring method for a porous filter (bubble-point/perm-porometry family). Caveat: I was unable to complete retrieval of this reference's full text before my search budget was exhausted; description here is based on the patent's own citation table and the title.
Potential §102 relevance: none as to any claim. It is a characterization tool, likely cited to support the pore-diameter measurement discussion (e.g., ASTM F316 air-flow method in the specification).

Reference F — JP2007017171A (Toray), pub. 2007-01-25. Hollow-fiber membrane module leak detection method and apparatus. Caveat: full text not retrieved within budget.
Potential §102 relevance: none as to any claim. Hollow-fiber module leak detection, gas-based; no inspection-liquid He-reduction limitation.

Reference G — WO 2010/090049 A1 (NGK), pub. 2010-08-12 and Reference I — US 2011/0287261 A1 (NGK), pub. 2011-11-24. DDR-type zeolite powder and process for production (G and I are family members). These support the DDR zeolite starting material used in the patent's Examples (Sample No. 1 DDR membrane prepared with reference to WO2011105511).
Potential §102 relevance: none as to any claim. These are membrane-material references, not inspection references. They are relevant background to the DDR-type zeolite membrane recited in dependent claim 8's context (zeolite membrane with SiO2/Al2O3 ≤ 200).

Reference H — US 2011/0167897 A1 (Manjing Univ. of Technology), pub. 2011-07-14. Method of determining surface pore-mouth diameter distribution of porous material. Caveat: full text not retrieved within budget.
Potential §102 relevance: none as to any claim. Characterization technique; supports the average-pore-diameter discussion.

Reference J — JP2014046286A (NGK), pub. 2014-03-17. Verified at Google Patents. Introduces liquid into cells of a monolithic separation membrane structure in which separation membranes are formed on cell inner walls, then pressurizes the liquid to pressure the structure and inspect strength. This is the reference the patent's Background Art identifies as disclosing "a method of performing an inspection of the strength of a separation membrane by pressurizing a liquid that has been filled onto a first main surface side of a separation membrane."
Potential §102 relevance: This is the single most important reference. It is the closest §102/§103 art to claim 1 and claim 11, because it discloses pressurizing a liquid that fills the first-main-surface (cell inner-wall) side of the separation membrane of a monolithic separation membrane structure — i.e., every element of claim 1 except the characterizing functional limitation on the inspection liquid.

• As to claim 1 / claim 10 / claim 11: does not anticipate, because the inspection-liquid He-reduction (≤10%) limitation is entirely absent. Under §102, a reference that lacks one claimed element cannot anticipate. J's own liquid is water-containing (claimed range in its claim 4), which the patent's Sample No. 7 shows would fail the ≤10% test (−28% He reduction for ion-exchange water).
• As to claim 7 (drying at ≤ O-ring heat-resistance temperature) — not disclosed by J.
• Realistically, J is a §103 lead, not a §102 reference: the inventive step in US 11,402,314 lies in selecting/characterizing a low-clogging inspection liquid, not in the liquid-pressurization mechanics that J already shows.
• Note the patent lists J as cited art in both the "Patent Citations" and "Cited By" tables — the same document appears as JP2014046286A and in the citing family for EP2233908A2. Same reference, not two.

Reference K — WO 2016/158583 A1 (NGK), pub. 2016-10-06 and Reference L — US 2017/0368509 A1 (NGK), pub. 2017-12-28. Zeolite membrane structure and method for producing same (K and L are family members). Support for the structure/substrate architecture.
Potential §102 relevance: none as to any claim. Structure/production art; no inspection-liquid limitation.

Reference M — US 10,265,660 B2 (Battelle Memorial Institute), pub. 2019-04-23, priority 2009-05-21. Thin-sheet zeolite membrane and methods for making the same. Caveat: full text not retrieved within budget.
Potential §102 relevance: none as to any claim. It is the only non-NGK operating-entity reference of any breadth and is a membrane-fabrication reference. Its 2019-04-23 grant postdates this patent's 2017-03-30 priority; even its 2009 priority only makes it prior art for its own disclosure, which is membrane fabrication, not liquid inspection.

References N and O (family cites).

• N — JP2007237073A (NGK), 2007-09-20, "Flaw detection method of separation membrane." §102 relevance: none as to any claim; defect-detection art.
• O — KR20120044079A (Korea Water Resources Corp.), 2012-05-07, filtration-membrane damage detection via transmembrane pressure. §102 relevance: none as to any claim; gas/transmembrane-pressure based.

---

3. Bottom line on §102

No cited reference anticipates any claim of US 11,402,314 — not claims 1, 10, or 11, and therefore not dependent claims 2–9. The reason is structural, not marginal: every claim incorporates the requirement that the inspection liquid itself be characterized by an He permeation-rate reduction of ≤10% after 60-minute immersion and 24-hour/150 °C drying. No reference in the cited set discloses or even addresses that property.

The prior art divides into three buckets, none of which reaches the characterizing limitation:

1. Gas-based membrane-integrity/leak testing — A, B, C, D, F, O. These pressurize with gas against a wetted membrane. They do not use a pressurized inspection liquid on the first main surface side.
2. Liquid-pressurization integrity/strength testing — J (JP2014046286A) is the key one; it discloses the claimed pressurization mechanics but not the liquid-selection characterization. It is the strongest §103 reference, not a §102 reference.
3. Membrane material / structure / pore characterization — E, G, H, I, K, L, M, N. Background only.

So the realistic posture of this patent family is that the cited art supports the problem (liquid inspection reduces permeation characteristics because liquid attaches to pores — acknowledged against JP2014-46286/J), while the claimed solution (a functionally defined inspection liquid) is what distinguishes it. That framing is consistent with the patent's own Background Art/Solution sections and with the granted claim set.

---

4. Caveats you should carry forward

• Retrieval gaps. I fully verified A, B, C, D, and J from primary/aggregator sources. I could not complete full-text retrieval for E, F, H, M, and the family cites N/O before my search budget closed; my descriptions for those rest on the patent's own citation table and titles, and should be re-checked against the source documents before being relied on in a filing or opinion.
• §102 vs. §103. Nothing here is a §102 reference against the independent claims. The meaningful fight is whether J (JP2014-46286) + a liquid-selection teaching (e.g., D's wettability discussion, or the known fluorinated-liquid art) renders claim 1 obvious. I flag that as the operative issue; I am not opining on the outcome.
• The prior-art date caveat. Most references are pre-2017 and are §102(a)(1)/(a)(2) art. Reference M's grant (2019) is after the 2017 priority date, so only its earlier-published application content could count, and only for its own disclosure.
• No auto-correction performed. JPS6058530A, JPH05157654A, and JP2004286635A are reproduced exactly as they appear in the patent's citation table, including the pre-2000 Japanese numbering conventions.

I'll ground this analysis in the prior-art references listed on the patent page. Let me pull more detail on the key references.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 11,402,314 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

0. Scope, sources, and a critical caveat

This analysis uses the prior-art references listed in the Prior Art / Citations section of the US 11,402,314 ("the '314 patent") Google Patents page, supplemented by full-text retrieval of the four most material references. I retrieved and read the text of:

• JP 2014-46286 A (NGK Insulators; pub. 2014-03-17) — https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2014046286A/en
• JP H05-157654 A (Asahi Chemical Industry; pub. 1993-06-25) — https://patents.google.com/patent/JPH05157654A/en
• JP 2001-242066 A (Toyobo; pub. 2001-09-07) — https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2001242066A/en
• JP 2007-017171 A (Toray; pub. 2007-01-25) — https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2007017171A/en

For the remaining references I have only title/assignee/date metadata from the patent page. Where I rely on a title alone, I flag it. I do not have the full Japanese text of JP 2004-286635, JP 2007-237073, JP 60-58530, US 4,872,974, KR 2012-0044079, WO 2010/090049, WO 2016/158583, or US 10,265,660, and I will not attribute specific disclosures to them beyond what their titles state.

---

1. The claims at issue and the decisive limitation

The granted claims (11 total) break into three independent claims plus dependents.

Two observations that frame the whole §103 analysis:

1. The claims are "process + material-property" claims. The only arguably novel technical content is the "characterized in that" clause — a numerical performance parameter of the inspection liquid. The physical steps (fill a liquid onto the first main surface of a monolithic membrane structure and pressurize it; seal into a casing; detect leaks by pressure change) were all in the art before the 2017-03-30 priority date.
2. Note the discrepancy with the specification/abstract. The abstract and the "Solution to Problem" describe the invention as including an "assembly step of sealing … into a casing." Granted claim 1 does not recite an assembly step at all — it is directed to the inspection step alone and is therefore broader than the summary. Any invalidity analysis should pin claim 1 to this broader scope. (This is an internal inconsistency in the document worth flagging, though not itself a §103 issue.)

---

2. Person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA)

A PHOSITA here is a person with a bachelor's degree in chemical, materials, or ceramic engineering (or equivalent) and about 2–4 years of experience developing or quality-testing inorganic (ceramic/zeolite) separation membranes and membrane modules. That person would know: (a) how to pressurize a liquid inside a monolithic honeycomb membrane structure to leak- or strength-test it; (b) that ceramic/zeolite membranes are brittle and defect-sensitive; (c) that liquid wetting a micro/mesoporous membrane can block pores and depress permeance; and (d) that fluorocarbon and silicone fluids are low-surface-tension, inert, high-vapor-pressure liquids routinely used where non-wetting, non-flammable, easily-removable fluids are needed.

---

3. The primary reference — JP 2014-46286 (NGK)

This is the closest prior art and it is cited on the face of the '314 patent.

• It discloses a method of strength-inspecting a monolithic separation membrane structure in which a separation membrane is formed on the inner wall surfaces of the cells: the method "introduc[es] liquid into a cell …; pressuriz[es] the liquid to thereby pressurize the monolith type separation membrane structure …; and inspect[s] the strength." (Abstract, https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2014046286A/en)
• Its claim 1 covers pressurizing the liquid inside the cell — i.e., on the inner surface of the separation membrane, which is the '314 patent's "first main surface."
• Its claim 4 expressly states "the liquid contains water" (「前記液体が水を含む」, per the JP full text PDF).

Mapping to claim 1: JP 2014-46286 discloses every physical element of claim 1 (porous substrate, separation membrane, inspection liquid filling the first main surface side, applying pressure). The only thing it does not disclose is the negative numeric property of the liquid — and, in fact, by teaching a water-containing liquid it points toward a liquid that (as the '314 patent's own Sample No. 7 shows: −28% He reduction) fails the ≤10% clause.

This is important in both directions, and I discuss both below in §§6–7.

---

4. The secondary references and what each contributes

---

5. The decisive question: is the "≤10% He-reduction" clause obvious?

Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), and its progeny, the inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious, with the PHOSITA permitted to combine references in light of known problems and predictable solutions. The claim's only novel feature is a performance parameter of the inspection liquid — a result-effective variable. The doctrine of the result-effective variable (see In re Boesch; In re Antonie; In re Applied Materials) holds that where a property is recognized to affect the result sought, selecting a value/class that achieves the result is within ordinary skill. Here the "result" (no loss of permeation) is definitionally what the parameter measures, so the applicant cannot escape on the theory that the parameter was unrecognized — indeed, the applicant itself acknowledges the problem in the '314 patent's Background: the JP 2014-46286 liquid "has the problem that attachment of the liquid to the pores of the separation membrane reduces the permeation characteristics of the separation membrane after inspection."

That sentence is effectively an admission of the problem in the prior art. It supplies the motivation and the "known problem" that KSR requires.

5.1 Combination A — JP 2014-46286 + JP H05-157654 (+ routine selection of the liquid)

• JP 2014-46286 supplies the substrate + membrane + liquid on the first main surface + pressurization step.
• JP H05-157654 supplies the leak-inspection-by-pressure-change framework (claim 2) and the recognition that a membrane separating a pressurized region from a liquid-filled region will reveal defects by anomalous pressure change.
• Motivation to combine: Both are directed to inspecting a liquid-filled membrane separation device for defects. A PHOSITA testing a module would naturally adapt the pressurization technique of JP 2014-46286 into a pressure-monitored leak test in view of JP H05-157654 (both deal with pressurized-fluid inspection of a membrane device). KSR: combination of two references directed to the same field, addressing the same problem (defect detection), is predictable.
• Result: Claims 1 and 2 are rendered obvious if the claimed liquid property is treated as an obvious design choice (see §5.3).

5.2 Combination B — JP 2014-46286 + JP 2001-242066 (Toyobo)

• JP 2001-242066 teaches that the leak-test liquid is a deliberately chosen material selected for its physical properties, and expressly states the liquid (i) must wet/fill the pores, (ii) must be easily removable by evaporation/water washing, and (iii) must be safe. The "easily removable/evaporable + safe" motivation directly supports claim 5 (vapor pressure ≥ 1.0 × 10³ Pa), because a PHOSITA seeking a liquid that evaporates after testing is directed to higher-vapor-pressure fluids.
• Caveat / possible teaching away: Toyobo requires the leak-test liquid to have "wettability to the film material" — the opposite of the '314 patent's requirement that the liquid not attach to the pores. I address this in §7.2. Note, however, that Toyobo's leak test is a bubble-point-type test (the liquid must fill the pores so that gas breakthrough at a defect is detectable), whereas the '314 claims are directed to a first-main-surface pressure/leak test in a casing; the "wettability" teaching is a function of the bubble-point method, not of liquid-pressurization leak testing.

5.3 The selection of a non-attaching, higher-vapor-pressure, inert liquid — the core obviousness argument

Even without an express reference, the claimed characterizing clause is vulnerable because:

1. The problem was known and admitted. The '314 Background states that the JP 2014-46286 liquid's attachment to the membrane pores reduces permeation — the exact problem the claim addresses.
2. The solution is a predictable, finite class. The specification itself identifies the suitable liquids as fluorinated liquids (Fluorinert®, Novec®, Galden®) and silicone liquids (e.g., KF96L), and states that water (Sample 7) fails. A PHOSITA looking for a liquid that (a) doesn't wet/attach to a hydrophilic zeolite/silica pore, (b) is inert to the membrane and stainless casing, (c) is non-flammable, and (d) evaporates readily would be led squarely to perfluorinated fluids and silicone oils, which are the standard commercial "non-wetting, inert, volatile, non-flammable" fluids. That is the very definition of a predictable solution over a finite set — KSR's "obvious to try."
3. Claim 6 (fluorinated liquid) is therefore obvious over JP 2014-46286 in view of the ordinary knowledge that fluorocarbon fluids are low-surface-tension, non-wetting, inert, high-vapor-pressure liquids, and in view of the Toyobo motivation to choose a removable/safe leak-test liquid.
4. Claim 5 (vapor pressure ≥ 1.0 × 10³ Pa) is a result-effective variable (evaporation rate after test) motivated expressly by Toyobo's "easily removed by evaporating" teaching. The numeric threshold is a routine optimization of a recognized variable.
5. Inherency alternative: If any prior-art leak/bubble-point test of a ceramic or zeolite membrane used a fluorinated or silicone liquid, then the ≤10% He-reduction property is an inherent characteristic of that liquid for that membrane, and claim 1 would be anticipated (or at minimum obvious) as to that liquid. I have not confirmed such a disclosure in the listed art, so I do not assert anticipation.

5.4 Combinations for the dependent claims

Claims 10 and 11 are independent manufacturing-method claims whose only additions over claim 1 are (10) a casing-sealing assembly step and (11) a membrane-formation step. Both were routine in the industry (see the module-assembly art and the zeolite-membrane-formation art listed above) and add nothing to the §103 analysis beyond claim 1.

---

6. Secondary considerations — a rebuttal-oriented review

The record does not present strong objective indicia of non-obviousness:

• Unexpected results — weak. The examples show water fails (−28%/−31%) and fluorinated/silicone liquids pass (0 to −8%). But a PHOSITA would expect water to be problematic for a hydrophilic low-silica zeolite (the specification itself says so: "moisture attaches to the pores and the permeation rate tends to fall"). Predictable, not unexpected.
• Long-felt but unmet need — weak. The gap between the primary reference JP 2014-46286 (2014) and the '314 priority (2017) is roughly three years, which is too short to establish a long-felt need, and the solution required no new apparatus.
• No copying, industry praise, or licensing evidence appears in the file.
• The claimed numerical threshold (≤10%) is a property of the liquid for a given membrane — i.e., a natural, inherent characteristic of the material the claim selects, not a figure of merit generated by the claimed process.

---

7. The two strongest non-obviousness defenses (and why they likely fail)

7.1 "The prior art never measured He permeation reduction, so the parameter is not disclosed."

The parameter is not itself a step; it is a characterization of the liquid. Under the result-effective-variable cases, where the prior art teaches a class of materials and the claimed parameter correlates with the desired result, choosing a member of the class that satisfies the parameter is obvious. Here, the applicant's own Background admits the problem the parameter quantifies. A patentee arguing that the parameter was "unrecognized" is contradicted by its own specification.

7.2 "Toyobo teaches wettability — the art teaches away from non-attaching liquids."

This is the best available argument but it is narrow. JP 2001-242066 teaches that the leak-test liquid must wet the film because its method is bubble-point-based (the liquid must fill pores so gas breakthrough at a defect produces a measurable pressure drop). That requirement is a function of the bubble-point method, not a general mandate that leak-test liquids must wet the membrane. A PHOSITA adapting the pressurized-liquid leak test of JP 2014-46286 would not be bound by Toyobo's bubble-point-specific wettability teaching. Under In re Gurley, a reference teaches away only if it criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the claimed approach; Toyobo merely states a need of its own method. So while a patentee could argue teaching away, the argument is unlikely to carry the day — especially since Toyobo's removability/safety teachings support the claimed fluorinated/volatile liquids.

---

8. Conclusion

Claims 1, 10, and 11 are, in my assessment, reasonably strong candidates for an obviousness rejection, and the dependent claims are weaker still, based on:

1. JP 2014-46286 as the primary reference — it discloses the entire physical method (liquid filled onto the first main surface of a monolithic membrane structure and pressurized for inspection), with an express "liquid contains water" teaching.
2. The applicant's own admission in the '314 Background that this prior liquid degrades permeation by attaching to pores — supplying the motivation.
3. JP H05-157654 for pressure-change leak detection (claims 1–2); JP 2001-242066 for deliberately selecting a leak-test liquid by physical properties including evaporability (claims 5–6); JP 2007-017171 for gas-pressurization/bubble leak detection (claim 4).
4. Routine optimization for claims 3, 7, 8, 9.

The weakest link in the rejection is the numeric "≤10% He-reduction" clause: no listed reference expressly discloses that parameter, so the rejection depends on (a) treating the parameter as a result-effective variable / inherent liquid property, and (b) the KSR "obvious to try" rationale over the finite class of non-wetting, inert, volatile fluids (fluorocarbons/silicones). If the patentee can show the parameter is a critical, previously-unrecognized limit producing an unexpected result, non-obviousness becomes arguable — but the specification's own examples undercut that, because the pass/fail pattern (water fails; fluorocarbons/silicones pass) is predictable for a low-silica zeolite.

Confidence: Moderate-to-high that claims 1/10/11 (and dependents 2, 5, 6) would be found obvious on these combinations; moderate specifically as to the result-effective-variable treatment of the numeric parameter, which is the pivotal issue.

---

9. Caveats and verification steps

• I did not have full text for JP 2004-286635, JP 2007-237073, JP 60-58530, US 4,872,974, KR 2012-0044079, WO 2010/090049, WO 2016/158583, or US 10,265,660. Any of these could contain a more direct teaching (e.g., an express fluorinated-liquid membrane leak test) that would strengthen the anticipation/obviousness case, or a teaching-away statement that would weaken it. These should be pulled and read in full before finalizing a rejection.
• JP 2014-46286's claim 4 ("the liquid contains water") is a potential teaching-away hook the patentee may raise; I have treated the applicant's own Background admission as overcoming it, but that is a judgment call.
• Anticipation vs. obviousness: I did not identify a single reference that discloses all elements of claim 1 including the ≤10% clause, so I frame this as §103, not §102.
• Claim scope note: as flagged in §1, granted claim 1 omits the assembly step recited in the abstract/summary — confirm the as-granted claim text against the USPTO Patent Center record before relying on that observation.
• Prior-art dates are all before the 2017-03-30 priority date, so §102(a)(1)/(a)(2) prior art status is not at issue for the references discussed.

If you'd like, I can produce a formal element-by-element (claim-chart) obviousness table mapping each limitation of claims 1–11 to specific reference passages, or a draft §103 rejection for the two strongest combinations.