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. Detailed Action This office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on 2/4/26. Claims 1 , 3-14, 16-17 and 19-23 are pending in this application . Applicant's election with traverse of Group 1, claims 1-7 and 15-20, in the reply filed on 2/4/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims relate to a single inventive concept. This is not found persuasive because the claims of the various groups do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical feature due to the art found on applicant’s claims, as discussed within this Office Action. The further traversal is on the ground(s) that the Office Action has not established that it would pose an undue burden to examine the full scope of the claims. This is not found persuasive because the claims of the various groups are divergent in subject matter and are classified separately. Claim s 8-14 are withdrawn from consideration being drawn to the non-elected invention. Applicant’s election of the following compound is acknowledged herewith: Thus, additionally, claims 5-14, 16 and 21-23 are hereby withdrawn from consideration being non-readable on the elected species. As a result, claims 1, 3- 4 , 17 and 19-20 are being examined in this Office Action. Priority The applicant claims benefit as follows: 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. Claims 1, 3-4, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 1 is indefinite because of the recitation of “L acid content” and “L acid and B acid contents”. These descriptions are not term s of art. A lso, a pplicant has not provided a definition in their specification for “L acid content” and “L acid and B acid contents”. For the purposes of examination, the examiner interprets these terms as reading on the catalyst containing an acid . The dependent claims are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim. 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 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . 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 1, 3-4, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wulff- Doring et al. (referred to as Wulff et al. herein) (US 5916838, June 29, 1999) in applicant’s IDS filed 1/6/25 , in view of Lee et al. (WO 2019012278, pub date 01/17/2019). Determination of the Scope and Content of the Prior Art (MPEP §2141.01) Wulff et al. teaches amination catalyst s for aminating compounds such as alkylene oxides, alcohols, aldehydes and ketones to give organic amines. For example, Wulff et al. exemplifies the amination of the alcohol, monoethanolamine , with ammonia to give ethylenediamine. Wulff et al.’s catalysts are mechanically stable over a long time and show no decrease in activity. (abstract; column 4, lines 13-50) The amination catalyst can contain 0.1 to 6% by weight of cobalt on a porous carrier of alumina or titanium dioxide (aka titania) or a mixture thereof . The other metals, such as ruthenium or copper can contain 0.001-25% or 0-10% by weight in the catalyst, respectively. The catalyst can also contain 0% sodium. Furthermore, Wulff et al. teaches additional doping of the catalyst carriers, so one can control the selectivity of the catalyst. The catalyst carrier can be coated with the metals by any desired suitable method, such as spraying, kneading or precipitating the metals onto the carrier. ( column 1, lines 58-69; column 2, lines 5-11, 26-57) It is particularly preferred not to impregnate the carrier with halogen or halide compounds, such as metal halides or hydrochloric acid, which can lead to poorer mechanical properties of the catalyst or corrosion problems. The catalyst is preferably halogen-free, especially with no chlorides. (column 3, lines 3-33) The catalysts can be used in any suitable form, such as pellets, moldings, or powders. (column 4, lines 4-23) Wulff et al. exemplifies an amination catalyst that contains 135 grams of alumina (Al2O3) extrudates with a diameter of 4 mm, impregnated with 1.4 grams of CoO , along with 1.4 grams of CoO and 2.5 grams of CuO . Wulff et al. ’s catalyst s are shown to have higher selectivity of the ethylenediamine product and stability. Wulff et al. teaches the amination of monoethanolamine with 50 grams of catalyst at a reaction temperature of 175-195 degree C and the addition of ammonia at 20-70 grams/hour with 3-101 (S.T.P.)/hour of hydrogen gas. (Example 1, Table 1; column 8, lines 36-50; column 9, lines 20-24) Ascertainment of the Difference Between Scope the Prior Art and the Claims (MPEP §2141.012) Wulff et al. is deficient in the sense that it does not teach applicant’s sulfur doping element. Lee et al. teaches catalysts or catalyst supports with sulfur-doped porous materials, w hich provide benefits to the catalyst, such as absorbing gas and providing anchor sites for metal catalysts . Lee et al. specifically names both hydrogen and carbon dioxide which can be absorbed on the sulfur-doped porous materials ( abstract; paragraphs 89 -90 and 132) Lee et al. teaches for their porous catalyst, high surface areas, high pore volumes pore size distribution and inorganic porosity enhancement (paragraphs 15, 51, 62, 64 and 118; Figure 8, Table 1) Furthermore, Lee et al. teaches utilizing acids, such as linoleic acid used as an organic crosslinking agent, or inorganic acids, e.g. phosphoric acid, used as porosity enhancement agents. (paragraphs 41, 46, 48, 53-54, claims 4-5) Finding of Prima Facie Obviousness Rationale and Motivation (MPEP §2142-2143) Therefore , it would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to include Lee et al.’s sulfur-do ping in Wulff et al.’s cobalt-alumina amination catalyst, since Lee et al. teaches the benefits of doping a catalyst with sulfur in order to absorb gas and provide anchor sites for metal catalysts. Since Wulff et al.’s amination reaction includes using ammonia and hydrogen gas, one of ordinary skill in the art would see the benefits of including Lee et al.’s sulfur- doping in Wulff et al.’s amination catalyst, in order to absorb more of the ammonia and hydrogen gas onto the catalyst and to provide anchor sites. Because in catalytic amination reactions, much of product formation is catalyzed within or on the metal catalyst, it would be obvious to try to utilize Lee et al.’s sulfur doping , in Wulff et al.’s cobalt-alumina amination catalyst , in order to absorb the ammonia and hydrogen gas reactants onto the catalyst, and to provide anchor sites . One would be motivated to increase the concentration of reactants onto the metal amination catalyst in order to improve the yield and reaction turnover of the amination product. Since Wulff et al. teaches their catalyst is preferably halogen-free, especially with no chlorides , it would be reasonable to expect that no chlorine would be in their catalyst. Even if it does, it would be obvious to exclude the chlorine halogens in order to avoid corrosion problems and to maintain mechanical properties. With regard to applicant's limitation in claim 20 for the source of the doping element, this limitation is considered a product by process claim and thus ha s no patentable weight as indicated in MPEP 2113, “Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself”. Furthermore, with regard to applicant’s limitations regarding the L acid content, pore volume, pore diameter, ammonia adsorption capacity, alumina content, doping range, specific surface area, metal amount and size, it is the position of the e xaminer that one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, would through routine and normal experimentation determine the optimization of th ese limitation s to provide the best effective variable depending on the results desired. Because, the art already teaches addition of acid, pore volume, diameter, gas adsorption capacity, alumina carrier, doping range, surface area, metal amount and size, t he e xaminer asserts that the L acid content, pore volume, pore diameter, ammonia adsorption capacity, alumina content, doping range, specific surface area, metal amount and size are art recognized result-effective variable s . Thus it would be obvious in the optimization process to optimize the L acid content, pore volume, pore diameter, ammonia adsorption capacity, alumina content, doping range, specific surface area, metal amount and size . The a pplicant does not show any unusual and/or unexpected results for the se limitation s . Note that the prior art provides the same effect desired by the a pplicant, the formation of amination catalyst s with good product selectivity and stability . Conclusion No claims are allowed. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jennifer Cho Sawyer whose telephone number is (571) 270 1690. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9 AM - 6 PM PST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Renee Claytor can be reached on (571) 272-8394. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-274-1690. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. Jennifer Cho Sawyer Patent Examiner Art Unit: 1691 /RENEE CLAYTOR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1691