DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection under 35 USC § 103 filed 15 June 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9-10, filed 15 June 2026, with respect to the rejection under 35 USC§112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 17, 19, 24, 30 has been withdrawn.
However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 USC§112.
(Old) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 16–21 and 23–30 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Roettger et al., US 11,746,075 B2 (“Roettger”), in view of Guth et al., US 2002/0183566 A1 (“Guth”), and Kaibel et al., US 2011/0313207 A1 (“Kaibel”), further in view of Ruwwe et al., US 2008/0296786 A1 (“Ruwwe”) as to claim 18, and further in view of Filippi et al., US 2015/0202546 A1 (“Filippi”) as previously applied. Claim 22 has been cancelled.
Applicants’ arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that amended claim 16 now includes the subject matter formerly recited in claim 22 and that neither Roettger, Guth, nor Kaibel, individually or in combination, describes or renders obvious withdrawal of three streams G, T(1), and T(2) from the head of rectification column D. Applicant further argues that the references do not disclose or suggest passing T(2) through condenser V(4) to obtain liquid and waste-gas streams, or the alternative arrangement in which the gas remaining after V(4) is passed through a further condenser V(5).
The argument is not persuasive because it construes the claimed streams more narrowly than is warranted by the disclosure and does not account for the combined teachings of the applied references.
The present specification expressly explains that the claimed streams G, T(1), and T(2) need not be withdrawn from D through three separate physical outlets. With respect to G and T(2), the specification states that the limitation encompasses either removing two separate streams from the top of D or removing one single stream and dividing that stream into G and T(2). With respect to G, T(1), and T(2), the specification further states that the limitation encompasses removing three separate streams, removing one single top stream and dividing it into the three streams, or removing two streams and suitably dividing those streams into G, T(1), and T(2). See the specification corresponding to WO 2022/117803, discussion of the top-vapor-recompression embodiment and Figures 4–6. Thus, the claims do not require three independent withdrawal points at the head of D.
Roettger supplies the underlying parallel-production/common-recovery architecture. Roettger teaches simultaneous and spatially separated production of sodium and potassium alkoxides in separate reaction columns, combining the resulting alcohol/water vapors and feeding the combined vapor to a common water/methanol rectification column. Methanol is recovered at the top and recycled to the reaction columns. See Roettger, Abstract and Figs. 1–2; corresponding US 2023/0028559 A1, description of reaction columns 101 and 102, vapors 1015 and 1025, mixed vapor 1031, rectification column 103, methanol stream 1039, condenser 1036, and compressor 1035.
Guth supplies conventional methoxide reactive-distillation and rectification features, including operation of the methanol rectification column with reflux, condensation of the methanol overhead, vapor compression, fresh methanol addition, and recycle of low-water methanol. See Guth ¶¶ [0024]–[0025] and claims 1 and 5.
Most significantly with respect to the newly added limitation of claim 16, Kaibel expressly teaches the type of top-vapor branching, compression, condensation, waste-gas removal, and liquid return relied upon in the rejection.
Kaibel withdraws an essentially methanol-containing vapor stream at the top of distillation column 1 through vapor draw 5. A portion of that overhead is compressed and employed as heating vapor for an evaporator. See Kaibel ¶¶ [0006]–[0010]. Kaibel further teaches that the evaporator is preferably an intermediate evaporator and that the compressed top vapor may be partly or completely condensed as it supplies heat. See Kaibel ¶¶ [0017]–[0020].
In the embodiment of Figure 2, Kaibel expressly teaches that a line 51 branches from top vapor draw 5 and contains compressor 17. The compressed methanol-containing vapor is used to heat intermediate evaporator 11. The resulting cooled and at least partially condensed stream is returned to distillation column 1 through feed 21. See Kaibel ¶¶ [0077]–[0079].
Kaibel further teaches that the remaining top-vapor path proceeds to condenser 55, where a portion of the methanol-containing vapor is condensed and returned to distillation column 1. The portion not condensed in condenser 55 remains available as a gaseous stream. See Kaibel ¶ [0079].
Kaibel then expressly teaches a further branch downstream of condenser 55. Specifically, line 63 withdraws part of the uncondensed vapor and passes it through a further condenser 65. Additional condensate formed in condenser 65 is returned to the distillation column through return line 67, while the uncondensed portion, comprising gaseous inerts, is withdrawn from the process and may be sent to a flare or off-gas scrubber. Kaibel further states that condenser 65 may have a one-stage or multistage configuration. See Kaibel ¶¶ [0080]–[0081].
Accordingly, Kaibel teaches the same functional operations now relied upon by Applicant to distinguish claim 16: withdrawal of a common methanol-rich top vapor; division of that vapor into different processing paths; compression of one portion; use of the compressed vapor to supply heat to an intermediate evaporator or reboiler with resulting condensation; return of condensed liquid to the top of the column; passage of another vapor portion through a condenser; passage of remaining gas through an additional condenser; separation of further condensate from an uncondensed waste/inert-gas stream; and return of the condensate to the column.
Applicant's assertion that Kaibel merely divides its overhead into two streams and therefore provides no indication of the claimed additional stream is not persuasive. Kaibel ¶¶ [0077]–[0081] disclose successive branching of the common overhead system: line 51 branches from vapor draw 5 for compression and heat recovery; the remaining vapor passes toward condenser 55; downstream of condenser 55, line 63 branches to further condenser 65; condensate is recycled; and uncondensed inerts are removed. The prior art therefore expressly teaches more than a simple two-stream division and teaches the same types of operations performed by the streams recited in amended claim 16.
Further, obviousness does not require the prior art to use Applicant's stream designations G, T(1), T(2), T(2l), T(2g), T(2gl), and T(2w), nor does it require bodily incorporation of the precise piping shown in Applicant's Figures 4–6. The relevant inquiry is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP § 2145; In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981); In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332–33, 103 USPQ2d 1219, 1226 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have had reason to apply Kaibel's top-vapor recompression and staged condensation arrangement to the common methanol rectification column of Roettger, as modified by Guth, because Kaibel is directed specifically to distillative workup of methanol/water mixtures arising from alkali metal methoxide production and expressly identifies reduced external heating-vapor demand as the purpose and benefit of compressing the methanol-containing overhead for use as heating vapor. See Kaibel ¶¶ [0001]–[0010]. Kaibel further teaches that returning condensed overhead to the top of the column increases methanol concentration and improves methanol purity. See Kaibel ¶¶ [0036]–[0037]. Its additional condenser arrangement also permits removal of entrained inert gases while recovering additional condensable methanol. See Kaibel ¶¶ [0038], [0080]–[0081].
Thus, application of Kaibel's known top-vapor heat-recovery, condensation, reflux, and inert-removal technique to Roettger's common methanol-recovery column would have been the use of a known technique to improve a similar process in the same manner and would have yielded the predictable benefits taught by Kaibel—reduced external energy demand, maintenance of reflux, recovery of methanol, and removal of noncondensable gases. Such reasoning is consistent with MPEP §§ 2141 and 2143 and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417–18 (2007).
The amendment to claim 27 is likewise insufficient to overcome the rejection. Claim 27 now requires means for top-vapor recompression comprising compressor C(3) for compressing a top stream, means for conducting the top stream to C(3), reboiler V(6) for condensing the compressed stream, means for conducting the compressed stream to V(6), and means for returning the obtained liquid stream to the top of D, with V(6) being an intermediate reboiler of D. Kaibel's vapor draw 5, branch line 51, vapor compressor 17, intermediate evaporator 11, and feed 21 teach the corresponding arrangement. See Kaibel ¶¶ [0068], [0077]–[0079]. The different reference numerals employed by Kaibel do not distinguish the claimed apparatus.
Applicant has not separately identified a patentable distinction in claims 17–21 or 23–30 that is not addressed by the applied combination. Claim 17 encompasses n=2, which is expressly taught by Roettger's two simultaneously operating reaction columns. Claim 18 remains obvious in further view of Ruwwe for the recited alkali hydroxide and solvent selections. Claims 19, 20, and 24 are met by or obvious from Roettger's dual-column embodiment. Claims 21 and 23 remain obvious from the methanol purity, feed, reflux, and recycle teachings previously identified in Guth, Ruwwe, and Kaibel. Claims 25, 26, 28, and 29 remain obvious for the compressor placement, pressure-control, and rectification-column feed-location reasons previously set forth. Claim 30 was amended to correct its wording but does not add a substantive limitation overcoming the combined teachings of the references.
Filippi remains of record as previously applied. In view of the clarification that claim 16 encompasses n=2, however, Filippi's teaching concerning parallel columns is cumulative and is not necessary to establish the basic two-train configuration expressly disclosed by Roettger.
For purposes of applying the prior art to claim 16, the compressor/reboiler portion of the newly added limitation is interpreted as requiring a top-vapor substream from D to be passed through compressor C(3) and reboiler V(6), with the resulting liquid returned to D. Under either reasonable reading of whether that substream is intended to be T(1) or T(2), Kaibel teaches the pertinent top-vapor branch, compression, heat recovery/condensation, and return arrangement. Because the uncertainty is sufficiently limited to permit examination under a stated interpretation, both the prior-art rejection and the separate § 112(b) rejection below are appropriate. See MPEP § 2173.01.
Accordingly, Applicant's arguments do not overcome the rejection, and the rejection of claims 16–21 and 23–30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is maintained.
(New) Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As amended, claim 16 recites, in the top-vapor-recompression portion of each alternative, the following sequence: removing, in addition to G and T(2), “a further top stream T(1)” from rectification column D, followed by “passing said stream T(2) through a compressor C(3)” and passing the compressed stream through reboiler V(6).
The recitation creates an internal inconsistency. Immediately after positively introducing T(1) as the “further top stream,” the claim does not state that T(1) is passed to compressor C(3). Instead, it directs “said stream T(2)” to compressor C(3), even though T(2) was already identified in the preceding step as the stream passed through condenser V(4). It is therefore unclear whether:
T(1) is intended to be the stream passed through compressor C(3) and reboiler V(6);
T(2) is intended to be divided into separate portions, one portion passing through condenser V(4) and another portion passing through compressor C(3) and reboiler V(6);
the T(2) leaving condenser V(4) is intended subsequently to pass through compressor C(3) and V(6); or
T(1) is withdrawn from D but performs some function not otherwise recited in the claim.
The ambiguity is material because the identity and routing of the vapor stream subjected to compression and heat recovery define the claimed process architecture.
The specification does not resolve the inconsistency in favor of the literal wording of claim 16. Rather, the specification describes the top-vapor-recompression embodiment as comprising compressor C(3) “for compressing a stream T(1) removed from the top of D,” means for passing T(1) from the top of D to C(3), reboiler V(6) for condensing the compressed stream, and means for returning the resulting liquid to D. See originally filed embodiment 75 and the corresponding description. Amended claim 27 likewise expressly recites compressor C(3) “for compressing a stream T(1) removed from the top of D.”
Thus, claim 16 directs T(2) through C(3) and V(6), whereas the corresponding specification disclosure and amended apparatus claim 27 identify T(1) as the stream supplied to C(3) and V(6). A person of ordinary skill therefore would be presented with more than one reasonable interpretation of which stream is compressed and condensed.
During examination, a claim is indefinite where, under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, the claim language is ambiguous, vague, or otherwise unclear such that the boundaries of the claimed invention cannot be determined with reasonable clarity. See MPEP §§ 2173 and 2173.01; In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311–14, 110 USPQ2d 1785, 1787–89 (Fed. Cir. 2014). An inconsistency between the claim language and the specification may render otherwise facially definite language uncertain. See MPEP § 2173.01; In re Cohn, 438 F.2d 989, 993, 169 USPQ 95, 98 (CCPA 1971).
Accordingly, claim 16 fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention.
The rejection may be overcome by amending claim 16 to unambiguously identify which top stream is passed through compressor C(3) and reboiler V(6), provided that any amendment is supported by the application as originally filed.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DEBORAH D CARR whose telephone number is (571)272-0637. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10:30 am -6:30 pm).
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, Renee Claytor can be reached at 572-272-8394. 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.
/DEBORAH D CARR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1691
Prosecution Insights