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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 4 February 2026 is acknowledged. Upon reconsideration of the remarks and the present claims, the lack of unity requirement is withdrawn because the claimed subject matter is directed to a single general inventive concept and the claims are linked by the same or corresponding special technical features.
Claims 16–26 are directed to an integrated process in which a single rectification column D generates a methanol stream G that is divided into plural substreams G(i) and supplied to plural reactive distillation columns K(i), with the resulting top streams W(i) returned to the same rectification column D. Claims 27–30 are directed to the corresponding chemical production unit and the use of that unit for simultaneously producing mixtures of alkali metal methoxide and methanol using the same integrated configuration of rectification column D and plural reactive distillation columns K(i).
The remarks persuasively establish that the rectification column D, in combination with the plural reactive distillation columns K(i) and the coordinated division and recycle of the methanol stream, constitutes a common technical relationship among all claims. The cited reference to Hofen does not negate this shared contribution, as Hofen is directed to methanol recovery in the context of propylene oxide production and does not describe or suggest the claimed integrated arrangement in which a single rectification column supplies methanol to multiple parallel reactive distillation columns for the simultaneous preparation of different alkali metal methoxide mixtures, nor does it disclose the low-water methanol required by the claims.
Because the apparatus and use claims are specifically configured to carry out the same integrated process recited in claims 16–26, the claims remain linked by the same special technical features. Accordingly, the lack of unity requirement is withdrawn and the claims will be examined together.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 16–30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Roettger et al. (US 11,746,075, hereafter “US ’075”) in view of Guth et al. (US 2002/0183566, hereafter “US566”) and Kaibel et al. (US 2011/0313207, hereafter “US207l”), further in view of Ruwwe et al. (US 2008/0296786, hereafter “US’786”) as to claim 18, and further in view of Filippi et al. (US 2015/0202546, hereafter “US ’546”) as to claims 16 and 17.
US ’075 teaches simultaneous and spatially separated sodium- and potassium-alkoxide production in separate reaction columns, with the vapors combined and fed to a common water/methanol column for methanol recovery. US’566 teaches the conventional methoxide reactive-distillation arrangement, including aqueous alkali hydroxide feed at the top of the reaction column, methanol feed to the lower region, rectification of the methanol/water overhead, introduction of fresh methanol at the top of the rectification column, and recycle of low-water methanol to the reaction column.
US’207 teaches compression of an essentially methanol-comprising top vapor, use of the compressed vapor as heating vapor in an evaporator, recycle of condensed methanol into the column, top-of-column methanol make-up, and location of methanol feed up to 10 theoretical plates below the top of the distillation column.
US’786 teaches lithium, sodium, and potassium hydroxides, aqueous/alcoholic hydroxide solutions, methanol/water feed introduction into the lower half of the rectification column, upper-column fresh alcohol addition, and vapor-compressor-assisted recycle between the reaction and rectification portions of the plant.
US ’546 teaches that, for a given distillation stage, it is known to use a single column or many columns in parallel as needed.
Claim 16. US ’075 teaches two simultaneously implemented but spatially separated reactions of an alcohol with NaOH and KOH, with the resulting vapors combined and fed to a common distillation for recovery of methanol. See US ’075, Abstract; FIG. 1 description, spec. lines 557–559; FIG. 2 description, spec. lines 464–466. US’566 teaches the specific alkali methoxide reactive-distillation feed arrangement, namely aqueous alkali metal hydroxide fed to the top of the reaction column, methanol fed in vapor form into the lower region, bottom withdrawal of alkoxide, work-up of the top methanol/water stream in a rectification column, fresh methanol introduction at the top of the rectification column, and recycle of low-water methanol to the lower region of the reaction column. See US’566 ¶ [0024], spec. lines 299–300; ¶ [0025], spec. line 301; claim 1, spec. lines 358–366.
It would have been obvious to implement the simultaneous common-distillation process of US ’075 using US’566’s known methoxide reactive-distillation feed and rectification/recycle arrangement because both references are directed to continuous alkali methoxide production from aqueous alkali hydroxide and methanol, and the combination predictably would have yielded simultaneous production with common methanol recovery and recycle. To the extent claim 16 requires more than two parallel reactive distillation columns, US ’546 teaches that, for each distillation stage, “it is possible to use a single column or many columns in parallel, if necessary.” See US ’546, spec. lines 294–297. Routine scale-up of the two-train arrangement of US ’075 to additional parallel trains would therefore have been an obvious capacity and product-flexibility modification.
Claim 17. US ’546 teaches the use of many columns in parallel where needed. See US ’546, spec. lines 294–297. Once the art taught a shared methanol-recovery architecture serving parallel trains, selecting the number of trains within a finite range, including from 2 to 10, would have been a matter of routine engineering optimization according to desired plant capacity and product mix.
Claim 18. US’786 expressly teaches that the possible alkali metal hydroxides include sodium hydroxide, potassium hydroxide, and lithium hydroxide, and that the alkali metal hydroxides may be used “in the form of an aqueous solution, alcoholic solution or an aqueous solution which comprises the alcohol used as a further solvent.” See US’786, spec. lines 259–260; see also claim 16, spec. line 340. It would have been obvious to select lithium, sodium, and potassium hydroxides and to use water, methanol, or a water/methanol mixture as the solvent medium for the hydroxide stream in the process of claim 16.
Claim 19. US ’075 teaches the two-train embodiment corresponding to the claim: separate NaOH and KOH feeds, separate methanol feeds 1021 and 1022, separate reaction columns 101 and 102, separate methoxide products 1013 and 1023, and vapors 1015 and 1025 combined and fed as mixture 1031 to common water/methanol column 103. See FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 descriptions, spec. lines 464–466, 557–559. US’566 teaches the corresponding reactive-distillation feed arrangement in which aqueous alkali hydroxide is fed at the top of the reaction column and methanol is fed to the lower region, with the top methanol/water stream worked up in rectification. See US’566 ¶ [0024], spec. lines 299–300; claim 1, spec. lines 358–366.
It would have been obvious to use US’566’s conventional feed configuration in the simultaneous dual-column process of US ’075.
Claim 20. US ’075 teaches that vapors 1015 and 1025 from the two reaction columns are mixed and supplied to the common rectification column 103. See US ’075, spec. lines 557–559; see also spec. lines 310–314. Those streams are expressly vapor streams and therefore correspond to gas streams fed into the rectification column.
Claim 21. US’566 teaches that fresh methanol is introduced at the top of the rectification column and that a low-water methanol recycle is obtained from that column. See US’566 ¶ [0024], spec. lines 299–300; claim 5, spec. lines 371–373. US’786 teaches that fresh alcohol is added into the upper part of the rectification column, especially together with reflux, and particularly to the condenser or condensate vessel on the rectification column; US’786 also teaches that the alcohol metered into the reaction column preferably has an average water content of not more than 1000 ppm. See US’786, spec. lines 270–273 and 287–288. US’207 teaches that methanol consumed in the reaction column is added via a methanol feed at the top of the distillation column and that the methanol feed may also be arranged up to 10 theoretical plates below the top. See US’207, spec. lines 519–521.
It would have been obvious to use substantially pure methanol having not more than 2000 ppm water and to feed that stream into the upper part of the rectification column. The feed temperature, from ambient to the boiling point of methanol at the column pressure, is a routine operating condition not patentably distinguishing over the known top-feed arrangement.
Claim 22. US’566 teaches a rectification column operated at a reflux ratio of at least 0.5, preferably 0.8 to 1.4, with recycle of low-water methanol via a partial condenser and vapor compressor. See US’566 claim 5, spec. lines 371–373. US’207 teaches withdrawing an essentially methanol-comprising vapor stream from the top of the distillation column, condensing at least part of that top vapor, compressing at least a portion of the essentially methanol-comprising vapor stream, using the compressed vapor stream as heating vapor to an evaporator, and returning condensed methanol to the distillation column. See US’207, spec. lines 149–154, 395–396, 441–445, 512–517, and 518–521. US’207 further teaches an intermediate evaporator arrangement and side draw/side feed positioning around that evaporator. See US’207, spec. lines 419–423.
It would have been obvious to use US’207’s condenser/compressor/reboiler heat-integration arrangement in the common rectification column of the US ’075/US’566 process in order to reduce external energy demand while maintaining methanol purity and reflux, thereby yielding the recited top-stream, condenser, compressor, reboiler, and recycle features.
Claim 23. US’566 teaches that the methanol obtained from the methanol/water mixture in the rectification column has a water content of from 20 to 100 ppm. See US’566 claim 5, spec. lines 371–373. It therefore would have been obvious to obtain recycled stream G comprising methanol and water with a water content at most 200 ppm.
Claim 24. US ’075 teaches separate methanol feeds 1021 and 1022 to the separate reaction columns 101 and 102. See US ’075, spec. lines 303–305, 464–466, and 557–559. Dividing recycle methanol into two streams for delivery to the two parallel reaction columns would have been an obvious implementation of the expressly disclosed dual-column arrangement.
Claim 25. US ’075 teaches recycle of methanol to the reaction columns via compressor 1035 and shows return of recovered methanol to reaction columns 101 and 102. See US ’075, spec. lines 311–314 and 559. US’566 and US’786 both teach vapor-compressor-assisted recycle between the reaction and rectification portions of the plant. See US’566 claim 5, spec. lines 371–373; US’786, spec. lines 250–252 and 280–282; claim 26, spec. line 356.
It would have been obvious, in the parallel system of US ’075, to place compressors in the individual G(1) and G(2) branches upstream of K(1) and K(2) to permit independent control of pressure drop and vapor delivery to the separate trains. Selection of a pressure increase such as 0.1 to 0.8 bar(abs) would have been routine optimization of a result-effective variable once vapor compression for recycle was known.
Claim 26. US’566 teaches compression of the methanol/water top stream via vapor compressor 10 and transfer to the rectification column. See US’566 claim 5, spec. lines 371–373. US’786 teaches that the vapor stream from the reaction column may be conducted via a vapor compressor into the rectification column, and alternatively that vapor from rectification may be compressed back into the reaction column. See US’786, spec. lines 250–252 and 280–282. In the dual-column arrangement of US ’075, it would have been obvious to place compression in the separate W(1) and W(2) branches before those streams are delivered to the common rectification column, rather than compressing only after complete combination, because separate branch compression is a predictable engineering alternative for parallel trains and permits branch-specific flow and pressure control. The claimed pressure range would have been routine optimization.
Claim 27. US ’075 teaches the essential plant architecture of separate reaction columns feeding a common water/methanol column with common methanol recovery and recycle. See US ’075, Abstract; FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 descriptions, spec. lines 464–466 and 557–559; spec. lines 311–314. US’566 teaches the reaction-column/rectification-column arrangement for alkali methoxide manufacture, including upper hydroxide feed, lower methanol feed, rectification of the methanol/water overhead, fresh methanol feed to the top of rectification, and vapor-compressor-assisted recycle. See US’566 ¶ [0024], spec. lines 299–300; claim 1, spec. lines 358–366; claim 5, spec. lines 371–373. US’207 teaches the distillation column with top vapor draw, condenser, compressed-vapor heating to an evaporator, condensed methanol recycle to the column, and top methanol make-up. See US’207, spec. lines 149–154, 395–396, 512–517, and 519–521.
It would have been obvious to provide the corresponding plant hardware—rectification column, condenser(s), bottom reboiler, stream-dividing device, conduits for G(i) and W(i), parallel reactive distillation columns K(i), and one or more compressors—as the ordinary structural implementation of the combined process.
Claim 28. For the reasons stated for claims 25 and 26, it would have been obvious to provide compressors upstream of K(i) for compressing streams G(i), or downstream of K(i) and upstream of D for compressing streams W(i), as predictable branch-wise implementations of the known compression/recycle arrangements disclosed by US’566, US’786, and US’207. See US’566 claim 5, spec. lines 371–373; US’786 claim 26, spec. line 356; spec. lines 250–252 and 280–282; US’207, spec. lines 395–396 and 518–521.
Claim 29. US’786 teaches that the methanol/water feed is introduced into the lower half of the rectification column, preferably from the 2nd to the 15th tray above the evaporator, and that fresh alcohol is added to the upper part of the rectification column, especially together with the reflux, particularly to the condenser or condensate vessel. See US’786, spec. lines 161–163 and 286–288. US’207 teaches that methanol consumed in the reaction column is added at the top of the distillation column and may also be arranged up to 10 theoretical plates below the top. See US’207, spec. lines 519–521.
It therefore would have been obvious to locate the W(i) feed into D between the bottoms and the 15th theoretical stage and to locate stream M in the upper part of D.
Claim 30. US ’075 expressly teaches simultaneous production of sodium and potassium alkoxides in separate reaction columns with common distillative alcohol recovery. See US ’075, Abstract; FIG. 1 and FIG. 2 descriptions, spec. lines 464–466 and 557–559. Once the process of claim 16 and the plant of claim 27 would have been obvious for the reasons set forth above, use of that process/plant for simultaneous production of plural methoxide/methanol mixtures would likewise have been obvious.
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.
Claims 17, 19, 24, 30 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.
Claim 17 is indefinite because it depends from claim 16, but claim 16 requires that “n is an integer with n > 2,” while claim 17 recites that “n is in the range of from 2 to 10.” Thus, claim 17 introduces subject matter in which n may equal 2, which is excluded by claim 16. It is therefore unclear whether claim 17 is intended to remain limited to n greater than 2, or instead to broaden claim 16 to include n equal to 2. The metes and bounds of claim 17 are therefore not clear.
Claim 19 is indefinite because it depends from claim 16, but claim 16 requires n > 2, whereas claim 19 recites “at least 2 mixtures P(i)” and then defines only the two-mixture/two-column embodiment using P(1), P(2), G(1), G(2), K(1), K(2), W(1), and W(2). As written, claim 19 is reasonably read to cover an n = 2 embodiment that is inconsistent with the parent claim, while at the same time it depends from claim 16. It is therefore unclear whether claim 19 includes or excludes embodiments in which n = 2.
Claim 24 is indefinite because it depends from claim 16, which requires that stream G be divided into n streams G(i) where n > 2, but claim 24 recites that “the stream G is divided into the two streams G(1) and G(2).” Thus, claim 24 appears to redefine the parent claim to a two-stream embodiment inconsistent with the express requirement of claim 16. The scope of claim 24 is therefore unclear.
Claim 30 is indefinite because it recites: “A method comprising providing the chemical production unit according to claim 27 or and simultaneously producing ….” The phrase “according to claim 27 or” is grammatically incomplete and leaves the claim unclear as to what alternative, if any, was intended. It cannot be determined with reasonable certainty whether claim 30 was intended to refer only to claim 27, to claim 27 or another claim, or to some other alternative formulation.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 17, 19, 24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 17 is of improper dependent form because it depends from claim 16, but claim 16 requires n > 2, while claim 17 recites a range “from 2 to 10,” thereby encompassing n = 2. Claim 17 therefore does not include all of the limitations of claim 16 and does not merely further limit the parent claim. Instead, it broadens the parent claim.
Claim 19 is of improper dependent form because it depends from claim 16, but sets out an embodiment for simultaneously preparing at least 2 mixtures and expressly defines only two streams and two reactive distillation columns. To the extent claim 19 encompasses n = 2, it omits the parent claim’s limitation that n > 2 and therefore does not include all of the limitations of claim 16.
Claim 24 is of improper dependent form because it depends from claim 16, which requires division of stream G into n streams where n > 2, but claim 24 recites division into only “the two streams G(1) and G(2).” Claim 24 therefore fails to include all of the limitations of claim 16 and does not further limit the parent claim in proper dependent form.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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