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. Status of Claims Claims 1 – 16 are pending. Claims 1- 16 are rejected. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because : the abstract is not in a narrative form. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). 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- 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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 defines the catalyst having “bulk density” at a certain range , the ratios of Dx values of the particle diameter distribution and the W/D50 ratio; wherein each of these are a relative term of degree. However, there is nothing in the claim providing a standard in which these values can be determined, specifically some way to determine the objective boundaries . Thus, the above parameters lack clarity. Claim 5 recites; “…wherein a compositional ratio between nickel or cobalt and X in the composite particles, in terms of a Ni/X atomic ratio or a Co/X atomic ratio, is 0.1 to 10 ”. However, claim 4 recites that “X” can also represent nickel. As such, it is not clear to which nickel the “Ni” and “X” of the formula is referring. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the equivalent diameter" in lines 3 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the supported layer" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 recites the limitation "the surface" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 10 recites the limitation "the supported layer" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Clams 2 – 1 6 are rejected for being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. Claims 1- 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), because the specification, while being enabling for a catalyst for the production of methyl methacrylate, wherein the catalyst produced is the type NiO -Au/SiO2-Al2 O 3-MgO, and the produce catalyst is capable of use in the oxidation reaction between acrolein and/or methacrolein and methanol , does not reasonably provide enablement for a catalyst for the production of any carboxylic acid ester wherein any catalyst metal particles are supported by any support would have the claimed properties and be capable of producing any typed of carboxylic acid ester by oxidation . The specification does not enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention commensurate in scope with these claims. The test for enablement is whether one skilled in the art could make and use the claimed invention from the disclosures in the specification coupled with information known in the art without undue experimentation (United States v. Telectronice , 8, USPQ2D 1217 (Fed. Cir, 1988). Whether undue experimentation is needed is not based upon a single factor but rather in a conclusion reached by weighing many factors. The factors to be considered in determining whether a disclosure meets the enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, have been described in In re Wands , 858 F.2d 731, 8 USPQ2d 1400 (Fed. Cir., 1988). The court in Wands states, “Enablement is not precluded by the necessity for some experimentation, such as routine screening. However, experimentation needed to practice the invention must not be undue experimentation. The key word is ‘undue’, not ‘experimentation’” ( Wands , 8 USPQ2sd 1404). Clearly, enablement of a claimed invention cannot be predicated on the basis of quantity of experimentation required to make or use the invention. “Whether undue experimentation is needed is not a single, simple factual determination, but rather is a conclusion reached by weighing many factual considerations” ( Wands , 8 USPQ2d 1404). The Federal Circuit has repeatedly held that "the specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without ‘undue experimentation’." ( In re Wright, 999 F.2d 1557, 1561, 27 USPQ2d 1510, 1513 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). Consistent with Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi et al., 598 U.S. 594, 2023 USPQ2d 602 (2023), the Wands factors continue to provide a framework for assessing enablement in a utility application or patent, regardless of technology area. See Guidelines for Assessing Enablement in Utility Applications and Patents in View of the Supreme Court Decision in Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sanofi et al., 89 FR 1563 (January 10, 2024). These factors include, but are not limited to: (1) the nature of the invention; (2) the breadth of the claims; (3) the state of the prior art; (4) the predictability or unpredictability of the art; (5) the relative skill of those in the art; (6) the amount of direction or guidance presented; (7) the presence or absence of working examples; and (8) the quantity of experimentation necessary. While all of these factors are considered, a sufficient amount for a prima facie case is discussed below. (1) The nature of the invention and (2) the scope of the claims: The nature of the claims are drawn to a catalyst for production of carboxylic acid ester, co mprised of catalyst metal particles; and a support supporting the catalyst metal particles . The scope of the invention in the claims is such that any catalyst metal particles supported on any type of support will have : a bulk density of the catalyst for production of carboxylic acid ester is 0.50 g/cm 3 or more and 1.50 g/cm 3 or less ; a particle diameter, at which a cumulative frequency is x% in a particle diameter distribution based on a volume of the catalyst for production of carboxylic acid ester, is defined as Dx, D 10 /D 50 ≥ 0.2 and D 90 /D 50 ≤ 2.5 are satisfied, and when a half-width of the particle diameter distribution is defined as W, W/D 50 ≤ 1.5 is satisfied. Additionally, this non-descript catalyst with that bulk density and those parameters related to particle distribution is capable of preforming in the reaction of any aldehyde and any alcohol to produce any carboxylic acid ester. (3) The state of the prior art : The state of the prior art is found in the teaching of Suzuki et al. (US 2011/0184206). Suzuki’s Example 25 discloses the supported catalyst NiO -Au/SiO2-Al2O3-MgO. The catalyst is produced by a process wherein the silicon, aluminum and magnesium support is first produced from an solution of aluminum nitrate nonahydrate, magnesium nitrate and nitric acid were dissolved in pure water was gradually dropped into a stirred silica sol solution having a colloidal particle diameter of from 10 to 20 nm held at 15.degree. C producing a mixed slurry. The slurry is spray dried to form a solid that was heated to obtain the support. Next the final catalyst was prepared by taking a solution containing n ickel nitrate hexahydrate and aqueous chloroauric acid solution was heated to 90.degree. C. 300 g of the silica-alumina-magnesia support were placed in this aqueous solution followed by holding at 90.degree. C. while stirring and then continuing to stir for 1 hour to deposit the nickel and gold components onto the support. The resultant was washed, filtered and dried to obtain the catalyst. (pp. 27, [0330] – [0333]). The catalyst produced above was used in an oxidative carboxylic acid ester formation in a reaction of methacrolein and methanol. (pp. 28, [0340] & pp. 22, [0268]). (4) the predictability or unpredictability of the art: : Chemistry is unpredictable. In re Marzocchi , 439 F2d 220, 169 USPQ 367 para. 3. However, the "predictability or lack thereof ” in the art refers to the ability of one skilled in the art to extrapolate the disclose d or know results to the claimed invention. If one skilled in the art can readily anticipate the effect of a change within the subject matter to which the claimed invention pertains, then there is predictability in the art. MPEP 2164.03. The state of the art fails to support the proposition that catalysts to facilitate specific transformations can be made without undue experimentation, when it is recognized in the art that the catalytic arts remain highly unpredictable. For example, Paulik et al (US 4,792,620 12- 20- 1988) teaches (Col. 4:39-44) that: "It will be noted, however, that catalysis is basically an inexact science, that is, an empirical art, unenlightened by rules decreeing certainty and predictability.". (5) The relative skill of those in the art: One of ordinary skill is a practicing organic chemist. (6) The amount of direction or guidance presented and (7) the presence or absence of working examples: The specification has provided guidance for a catalyst for the production of methyl methacrylate, wherein the catalyst produced is the type NiO -Au/SiO2-Al2O3-MgO, and the produce catalyst is capable of use in the oxidation reaction between acrolein and/or methacrolein and methanol . Additonally, that the catalyst type NiO -Au/SiO2-Al2O3-MgO ha s the following properties: the bulk density of 1.05 g/cm 3 ; the particle diameter distribution half width W of 50 µm; and values of D 50 , D 10 /D 50 , D 90 /D 50 and W/ D 50 where 60 µm, 0.7, 1.5, and 0.8 respectively . Further, the above cited catalyst with the listed parameters is the catalyst used in the oxidation reaction of methacrolein in methanol. However, the specification does not provide a catalyst for the production of any carboxylic acid ester wherein any catalyst metal particles are supported by any support would have the claimed properties and be capable of producing any typed of carboxylic acid ester by oxidation. (8) The quantity of experimentation necessary : Considering the state of the art as discussed by the references above, particularly with regards to the inexact science of catalysis and the use such catalyst in producing the carboxylic acid ester and the high unpredictability in the art as evidenced therein, and the lack of guidance provided in the specification, one of ordinary skill in the art would be burdened with undue experimentation to practice the invention commensurate in the scope of the claims. The examiner understands that there is no requirement that the specification disclose every possible embodiment if there is sufficient guidance given by knowledge in the art (See M.P.E.P. § 2164.05(a) “[t]he specification need not disclose what is well-known to those skilled in the art and preferably omits that which is well-known to those skilled and already available to the public. In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 661, 18 USPQ2d 1331, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1991); Hybritech , Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1384, 231 USPQ 81,94 (Fed. Cir. 1986), cert, denied, 480 U.S. 947 (1987); and Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1463, 221 USPQ 481,489 (Fed. Cir. 1984).”). However, the instant case goes beyond what is known in the art, because the specification does not offer any guidance on how one of ordinary skill would go about practicing the invention for the identification, preparation and use of any catalyst comprising any catalyst metal particles and any support ; and then use in the oxidation of any aldehyde and alcohol other than those specifically disclosed in the specification. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1, 3 – 6, 12 and 14 – 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 4 – 8 and 13 - 15 of copending Application No. 17/820610 (‘610) in view of Nagata et al. (US 2020/0165196). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Regarding instant claim 1, and claim 1 of copending application ‘610 teaches a catalyst for the production of carboxylic acid ester comprising catalyst metal particles and a support supporting the catalyst metal particles. Clam 1 of ‘912 fails to teach wherein the catalyst has a hollow particle ratio of 40% or less. This deficiency is remedied by the following. Nagata teaches a gas-phase catalytic ammoxidation reaction to produce a corresponding unsaturated acid or unsaturated nitrile from a hydrocarbon and gaseous oxygen with metal oxide catalysts supported on silica or the like (Nagata; Abstract; claim 1; paragraphs [00 26 ] and [002 9 ]). Of particular note, Nagata teaches that the hollow particle ratio of the catalyst is preferably 25% or less, and that when the hollow particle ratio of the catalyst is within this range, the abrasion resistance strength and compressive strength tend to be appropriate; in addition, the fluidity in the bed reactor is improved, and the amount of scattering is reduced (Nagata; claim 2; paragraph [00 30 ] ) . Furthermore, the hollow particle ratio of 25% or less taught by Nagata overlaps with the ratio of 40% or less of ‘610 . MPEP § 2144.05(I) states that "[i]n the case where the claimed ranges 'overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art' a prima facie case of obviousness exists." Although Nagata fails to teach the production of a carboxylic acid ester, the technical fields of copending Application No. ‘610 and Nagata both pertain to the aerobic oxidation of small molecule starting materials catalyzed by supported metal particles, such that the skilled artisan could apply the catalyst optimization teachings of Nagata to the method of claim 1 of the instantly claimed invention, such a modification by the teachings of Nagata to produce a hollow particle ration of 40% or less the instantly claimed invention like manner in copending Application No. ‘610 with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified claim 1 the instantly claimed invention to in to incorporate the teachings of Nagata to produce a catalyst with a hollow particle ratio of 40% or less corresponding to copending ‘610. The motivation to do so would achieve the predictable results of obtaining a catalyst with desirable properties such as appropriately tuned abrasion resistance strength and compressive strength, improved fluidity in a bed reactor, and reduced scattering, as described above. Regarding instant claim 3, claim 4 of copending ‘610 teaches a catalyst for the for production of carboxylic acid ester comprising catalyst metal particles comprise and a support supporting the catalyst metal particles , wherein at least one element selected from the group consisting of nickel, cobalt, palladium, platinum, ruthenium, lead, gold, silver, and copper. Thus, claim 4 of copending ‘610 teaches every limitation of the instant claim. Regarding instant claim 4 , claim 5 of copending Application No. ‘610 teaches a catalyst wherein the catalyst particles are composite particles comprising oxidized nickel and/or cobalt, and X, wherein X represents at least one element selected from the group consisting of nickel, palladium, platinum, ruthenium, gold, silver, and copper. Thus, claim 5 of copending ‘610 teaches every limitation of the instant claim. Regarding instant claim 5 , claim 6 of copending Application No. ‘610 teaches a catalyst wherein the catalyst particles are composite particles comprising wherein a compositional ratio between nickel or cobalt and X in the composite particles, in terms of a Ni/X atomic ratio or a Co/X atomic ratio, is 0.1 to 10. Thus, claim 6 of copending ‘610 teaches every limitation of the instant claim. Regarding instant claim 6 , claim 7 of copending Application No. ‘610 teaches a catalyst wherein the catalyst particles are composite particles comprising wherein the composite particles comprise oxidized nickel and gold. Thus, claim 7 of copending ‘610 teaches every limitation of the instant claim. Regarding instant claim 12 , claim 8 of copending Application No. ‘610 teaches a catalyst wherein the catalyst particles are composite particles comprising wherein the support comprises silica and alumina. Thus, claim 8 of copending ‘610 teaches every limitation of the instant claim. Regarding claim 14, claim 13 of copending Application No. ‘610 teaches a method for producing carboxylic acid ester comprising a step of reacting (a) an aldehyde and an alcohol or (b) one or two or more alcohols, in a presence of the catalyst for production of carboxylic acid ester according to claim 1 and oxygen. Thus, claim 13 of copending ‘610 teaches every limitation of the instant claim. Regarding claim 15, claim 14 of copending Application No. ‘610 teaches a method wherein the aldehyde is acrolein and/or methacrolein. Thus, claim 14 of copending ‘610 teaches every limitation of the instant claim. Regarding claim 16, claim 15 of copending Application No. ‘610 teaches a method wherein the aldehyde is acrolein and/or methacrolein, and the alcohol is methanol. Thus, claim 15 of copending ‘610 teaches every limitation of the instant claim. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Double Patenting Claims 1, 3 – 12 and 14 – 16 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 8 – 11, 13, 14 and 16 - 2022 of copending Application No. 1 8/024728 (‘ 728 ) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2010/0249448 ) (Suzuki 1) and Suzuki et al. (US 2013/0172599) (Suzuki 2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Regarding instant claim 1, claim 1 of copending ‘728 teaches a catalyst for the production of carboxylic acid ester comprising catalyst metal particles and a support supporting the catalyst metal particles. Claim 1 of copending ‘728 fails to teach wherein the catalyst having a catalyst bulk density of 0.50 g/cm 3 or more and 1.50 g/cm 3 or less ; a particle diameter, at which a cumulative frequency is x% in a particle diameter distribution based on a volume of the catalyst for production of carboxylic acid ester, is defined as Dx, D 10 /D 50 ≥ 0.2 and D 90 /D 50 ≤ 2.5 are satisfied, and when a half-width of the particle diameter distribution is defined as W, W/D 50 ≤ 1.5 is satisfied. This deficiency is remedied by the following. It is generally known that determining particle diameter on the half-width can be measured by transmission electron microscopic observation (TEM observation) or X-ray defractometry (XRD), or determined by a small angle X-ray scattering technique. Suzuki 1 discloses in Table 1 Example 1, the catalyst type NiO -Au/SiO2-Al2O3-MgO that can be used in the reaction for producing carboxylic acid ester . (pp. 2, [0019 ]). In T able 1 the particle diameter of the catalyst is 3 nm, as determined by a transmission electron microscope (TEM/STEM). (pp. 16, [0201]). Furthermore, the particle diameter of the catalyst of Suzuki 1 overlaps with the particle diameter of the instantly claimed invention. Additonally, Suzuki 2 discloses another means for determining the particle size of such a catalyst. Suzuki 2 determines the particle size on a volume basis using an LS230 laser diffraction scattering particle size analyzer. (pp. 14, [0176]). Additionally, Suzuki 2 discloses the method for determining the bulk density (CBD) of a noble metal supported catalyst. In the teaching of Suzuki 2 a bulk density is a value obtained by dividing the mass of the silica-based material by the packed volume. (pp. 14, [0176] – [0177]). The supported catalyst of Suzuki 2 have use in the process for producing carboxylic acid ester from the reaction of an aldehyde with an alcohol. (pp. 2, [0034]). Although, ‘728 does not specifically discloses bulk density of 0.50 g/cm 3 or more and 1.50 g/cm 3 or less ; a particle diameter, at which a cumulative frequency is x% in a particle diameter distribution based on a volume of the catalyst for production of carboxylic acid ester, is defined as Dx, D 10 /D 50 ≥ 0.2 and D 90 /D 50 ≤ 2.5 are satisfied, and when a half-width of the particle diameter distribution is defined as W, W/D 50 ≤ 1.5 is satisfied ; combination of ‘728 with the teachings show that such a determination would be a matter of routine experimentation. Especially, in view of the fact that the catalyst of Example 1 of ‘728 appears to be identical to the catalyst of Example 1 of the instantly claimed invention. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Regarding instant claim 3, claim 8 of copending Application no ‘728 teaches a catalyst for the for production of carboxylic acid ester comprising catalyst metal particles comprise and a support supporting the catalyst metal particles , wherein at least one element selected from the group consisting of nickel, cobalt, palladium, platinum, ruthenium, lead, gold, silver, and copper. Thus, claim 8 of copending Application no. ‘728 teaches every limitation of the instant claim. Regarding instant claim 4, claim 9 of copending Application no. ‘728 teaches a catalyst for the for production of carboxylic acid ester comprising catalyst metal particles comprise and a support supporting the catalyst metal particles, wherein the catalyst metal particles are composite particles comprising: oxidized nickel and/or cobalt, and X, wherein X represents at least one element selected from the group consisting of nickel, palladium, platinum, ruthenium, gold, silver, and copper. Thus, claim 9 of copending Application no. ‘728 teaches every limitation of the instant claim. Regarding instant claim 5, claim 10 of copending Application no. ‘728 teaches a catalyst for the for production of carboxylic acid ester comprising catalyst metal particles comprise and a support supporting the catalyst metal particles, wherein a compositional ratio between nickel or cobalt and X in the composite particles, in terms of a Ni/X atomic ratio or a Co/X atomic ratio, is 0.1 to 10. Thus, claim 10 of copending Application no. ‘728 teaches every limitation of the instant claim. Regarding instant claim 6, claim 11 of copending Application no. ‘728 teaches a catalyst for the for production of carboxylic acid ester comprising catalyst metal particles comprise and a support supporting the catalyst metal particles, wherein the composite particles comprise oxidized nickel or cobalt and gold. Thus, claim 11 of copending Application no. ‘728 teaches every limitation of the instant claim. Regarding instant claim 7, claim 13 of copending Application no. ‘728 teaches a catalyst for the for production of carboxylic acid ester comprising catalyst metal particles comprise and a support supporting the catalyst metal particles, wherein an average particle diameter of the composite particles is 2 to 10 nm. Thus, claim 13 of copending Application no. ‘728 teaches every limitation of the instant claim. Regarding instant claim 8, claim 16 of copending Application no. ‘728 teaches a catalyst for the for production of carboxylic acid ester comprising catalyst metal particles comprise and a support supporting the catalyst metal particles, wherein a supported layer, in which the composite particles are localized, is present in a region extending from a surface of the catalyst for production of carboxylic acid ester to 40% of an equivalent diameter of the catalyst for production of carboxylic acid ester. Thus, claim 16 of copending Application no. ‘728 teaches every limitation of the instant claim. Regarding instant claim 9, claim 17 of copending Application no. ‘728 teaches a catalyst for the for production of carboxylic acid ester comprising catalyst metal particles comprise and a support supporting the catalyst metal particles, wherein the equivalent diameter is 200 pm or less, and the supported layer, in which the composite particles are localized, is present in a region extending from the surface of the catalyst for production of carboxylic acid ester to 30% of the equivalent diameter of the catalyst for production of carboxylic acid ester. Thus, claim 17 of copending Application no. ‘728 teaches every limitation of the instant claim. Regarding instant claim 10, claim 18 of copending Application no. ‘728 teaches a catalyst for the for production of carboxylic acid ester comprising catalyst metal particles comprise and a support supporting the catalyst metal particles, wherein the catalyst for production of carboxylic acid ester has an outer layer substantially free of composite particles on an outside of the supported layer, in which the composite particles are localized, and the outer layer is formed at a thickness of 0.01 to 15 pm. Thus, claim 18 of copending Application no. ‘728 teaches every limitation of the instant claim. Regarding instant claim 11, claim 19 of copending Application no. ‘728 teaches a catalyst for the for production of carboxylic acid ester comprising catalyst metal particles comprise and a support supporting the catalyst metal particles, wherein the composite particles have a core composed of X, and the core is coated with oxidized nickel or cobalt. Thus, claim 19 of copending Application no. ‘728 teaches every limitation of the instant claim. Regarding instant claim 12, claim 14 of copending Application no. ‘728 teaches a catalyst for the for production of carboxylic acid ester comprising catalyst metal particles comprise and a support supporting the catalyst metal particles, wherein the support comprises silica and alumina. Thus, claim 14 of copending Application no. ‘728 teaches every limitation of the instant claim. Regarding instant claim 14, claim 20 of copending Application no. ‘728 teaches a method for producing carboxylic acid ester comprising a step of reacting (a) an aldehyde and an alcohol or (b) one or two or more alcohols, in a presence of the catalyst for production of carboxylic acid ester according to claim 1 and oxygen. Thus, claim 20 of copending ‘728 teaches every limitation of the instant claim. Regarding instant claim 15, claim 21 of copending Application no. ‘728 teaches a method for producing carboxylic acid ester , wherein the aldehyde is acrolein and/or methacrolein. Thus, claim 21 of copending ‘728 teaches every limitation of the instant claim. Regarding instant claim 16, claim 22 of copending Application no. ‘728 teaches a method for producing carboxylic acid ester , wherein the aldehyde is acrolein and/or methacrolein, and the alcohol is methanol. Thus, claim 22 of copending ‘728 teaches every limitation of the instant claim. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Double Patenting Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 14 - 16 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1, 3 – 12 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 8,450,235 (‘235) in view of Suzuki et al. (US 2010/0249448) (Suzuki 2). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Regarding instant claim 1, claim 1 and 14 of copending ‘235 teaches a catalyst for the production of carboxylic acid ester comprising catalyst metal particles and a support supporting the catalyst metal particles. Claim 1 of copending ‘728 fails to teach wherein the catalyst having a catalyst bulk density of 0.50 g/cm 3 or more and 1.50 g/cm 3 or less ; a particle diameter, at which a cumulative frequency is x% in a particle diameter distribution based on a volume of the catalyst for production of carboxylic acid ester, is defined as Dx, D 10 /D 50 ≥ 0.2 and D 90 /D 50 ≤ 2.5 are satisfied, and when a half-width of the particle diameter distribution is defined as W, W/D 50 ≤ 1.5 is satisfied. This deficiency is remedied by the following. It is generally known that determining particle diameter on the half-width can be measured by transmission electron microscopic observation (TEM observation) or X-ray defractometry (XRD), or determined by a small angle X-ray scattering technique. However, copending Application no. ‘235 discloses in Table 1 Example 1, the catalyst type NiO -Au/SiO2-Al2O3-MgO that can be used in the reaction for producing carboxylic acid ester. (pp. 2, [0019]). In Table 1 the particle diameter of the catalyst is 3 nm, as determined by a transmission electron microscope (TEM/STEM). ( col. 29, ln37 – 31) . Furthermore, the particle diameter of the catalyst of ‘235 i 1 overlaps with the particle diameter of the instantly claimed invention. Further, ‘235 determines the particle size on a volume basis using an LS230 laser diffraction scattering particle size analyzer. ( col. 26, ln 39 - 41 ). Furthermore, in ‘235 the supported layer in which the composite particle is localized is present in a region extending from a surface of the supported composite particle material to 40% of an equivalent diameter of the supported composite particle material . (col. 3, ln 22 – 27 & col. 6, ln 2 – 6). Additonally, Suzuki 2 discloses another means for determining the particle size of such a catalyst. Suzuki 2 determines the particle size on a volume basis using an LS230 laser diffraction scattering particle size analyzer. (pp. 14, [0176]). Additionally, Suzuki 2 discloses the method for determining the bulk density (CBD) of a noble metal supported catalyst. In the teaching of Suzuki 2 a bulk density is a value obtained by dividing the mass of the silica-based material by the packed volume. (pp. 14, [0176] – [0177]). The supported catalyst of Suzuki 2 have use in the process for producing carboxylic acid ester from the reaction of an aldehyde with an alcohol. (pp. 2, [0034]). Although, ‘ 235 does not specifically discloses bulk density of 0.50 g/cm 3 or more and 1.50 g/cm 3 or less ; a particle diameter, at which a cumulative frequency is x% in a particle diameter distribution based on a volume of the catalyst for production of carboxylic acid ester, is defined as Dx, D 10 /D 50 ≥ 0.2 and D 90 /D 50 ≤ 2.5 are satisfied, and when a half-width of the particle diameter distribution is defined as W, W/D 50 ≤ 1.5 is satisfied ; the combination of ‘ 235 with the teachings show that such a determination would be a matter of routine experimentation. Especially, in view of the fact that the catalyst of Example 1 of ‘ 235 appears to be identical to the catalyst of Example 1 of the instantly claimed invention. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Regarding instant claim 5, claim 7 of copending Application no. ‘235 teaches a catalyst for the for production of carboxylic acid ester comprising catalyst metal particles comprise and a support supporting the catalyst metal particles, wherein a compositional ratio between nickel or cobalt and X in the composite particles, in terms of a Ni/X atomic ratio or a Co/X atomic ratio, is 0.1 to 10. Thus, claim 7 of copending Application no. ‘235 teaches every limitation of the instant claim. Regarding instant claim 7, claim 61of copending Application no. ‘235 teaches a catalyst for the for production of carboxylic acid ester comprising catalyst metal particles comprise and a support supporting the catalyst metal particles, wherein an average particle diameter of the composite particles is 2 to 10 nm. Thus, claim 6 of copending Application no. ‘235 teaches every limitation of the instant claim. Regarding instant claim 9, claim 3 of copending Application no. ‘235 teaches a catalyst for the for production of carboxylic acid ester comprising catalyst metal particles comprise and a support supporting the catalyst metal particles, wherein the equivalent diameter is 200 pm or less, and the supported layer, in which the composite particles are localized, is present in a region extending from the surface of the catalyst for production of carboxylic acid ester to 30% of the equivalent diameter of the catalyst for production of carboxylic acid ester. Thus, claim 3 of copending Application no. ‘235 teaches every limitation of the instant claim. Regarding instant claim 10, claims 4 and 5 of copending Application no. ‘235 teaches a catalyst for the for production of carboxylic acid ester comprising catalyst metal particles comprise and a support supporting the catalyst metal particles, wherein the catalyst for production of carboxylic acid ester has an outer layer substantially free of composite particles on an outside of the supported layer, in which the composite particles are localized, and the outer layer is formed at a thickness of 0.01 to 15 pm. Thus, claims 4 and 5 of copending Application no. ‘235 teaches every limitation of the instant claim. Regarding instant claim 11, claim 8 of copending Application no. ‘235 teaches a catalyst for the for production of carboxylic acid ester comprising catalyst metal particles comprise and a support supporting the catalyst metal particles, wherein the composite particles have a core composed of X, and the core is coated with oxidized nickel or cobalt. Thus, claim 8 of copending Application no. ‘235 teaches every limitation of the instant claim. Regarding instant claim 12, claim 9 of copending Application no. ‘235 teaches a catalyst for the for production of carboxylic acid ester comprising catalyst metal particles comprise and a support supporting the catalyst metal particles, wherein the support comprises silica and alumina. Thus, claim 94 of copending Application no. ‘235 teaches every limitation of the instant claim. Regarding instant claim 14, claim 10 of copending Application no. ‘235 teaches a method for producing carboxylic acid ester comprising a step of reacting (a) an aldehyde and an alcohol or (b) one or two or more alcohols, in a presence of the catalyst for production of carboxylic acid ester according to claim 1 and oxygen. Thus, claim 10 of copending ‘235 teaches every limitation of the instant claim. Regarding instant claim 15, claim 11 of copending Application no. ‘235 teaches a method for producing carboxylic acid ester , wherein the aldehyde is acrolein and/or methacrolein. Thus, claim 11 of copending ‘235 teaches every limitation of the instant claim. Regarding instant claim 16, claim 12 of copending Application no. ‘ 235 teaches a method for producing carboxylic acid ester , wherein the aldehyde is acrolein and/or methacrolein, and the alcohol is methanol. Thus, claim 12 of copending ‘ 235 teaches every limitation of the instant claim. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT YATE' K. CUTLIFF whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9067 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday (8:30 - 5:30) . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Scarlett Y. Goon can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-5241 . 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. /YATE' K CUTLIFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1692