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. Applicants’ Preliminary Amendment, filed on October 12, 2023, has been made of record and entered. In this amendment, claims 2-14 have been amended to conform to U. S. Patent Claim format and to eliminate multiple claim dependency. No claims have been canceled or added; claims 1-15 are presently pending in this application. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Applicants’ Priority Document was filed on October 12, 2023. 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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, 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Notermann et al. (EP 0 586 196, Applicants’ submitted art). Regarding claims 1-4, 9, and 12 , Notermann et al. teach a catalyst comprising at least one Group VIB element (e.g., molybdenum), at least one Group VIII element (e.g., nickel), sodium (as Na 2 O), and phosphorus, said catalyst further comprising alumina as a support (page 2, lines 15-27). In Table 1 of Notermann et al., exemplary catalysts comprising NiO in amounts of 4.0, 1.8, and 3.6 weight %, MoO 3 in amounts of 14.0, 11.2, and 11.0 weight %, Na 2 O in amounts of 0.1 and 0.01 weight % (100 and 1000 ppm, respectively), and P 2 O 5 in amounts of 5.2 and 0.5 weight %, with the balance in each catalyst being Al 2 O 3 , are depicted; said catalysts additionally exhibit surface areas of 230, 190, and 300 m 2 /g. Notermann et al. do not explicitly teach or suggest the limitations of Applicants’ claims regarding the molar ratios between (a) phosphorus and sodium, as recited in claims 1 and 10 , (b) the Group VIII element and Group VIB element, as recited in claim 5 , (c) the Group VIII element and sodium, as recited in claim 6 , (d) the Group VIB element and sodium, as recited in claim 7 , and (e) phosphorus and the Group VIB element, as recited in claim 8 . Further regarding claim 1 , and also regarding claim 10 , the molar ratio between phosphorus and sodium can be determined from the aforementioned percentages of phosphorus and sodium, and their respective molecular weights. In using Catalyst 502 of Notermann et al.: MW P: 30.9738 MW P 2 O 5 : 141.9446 MW Na: 22.9898 MW Na 2 O: 61.9789 5.2% P 2 O 5 x (2 x30.9738)/141.9446 5.2% x (61.9476/141.9446) = 2.2694 moles P 0.1% Na 2 O x (2 x 22.9898)/61.9789 0.1% x (45.9796/61.9789) = 0.07419 moles Na Molar ratio of P/Na = 2.2964/0.07419, or 30.5890, which falls within the molar ratios between phosphorus and sodium recited in claims 1 and 10 . Regarding claim 5 , the molar ratio between the Group VIII element (nickel) and the Group VIB element (molybdenum) can be determined from the aforementioned percentages of nickel and molybdenum, and from their respective molecular weights. In using Catalyst 502 of Notermann et al.: MW Ni: 58.70 MW NiO:74.699 MW Mo: 95.9399 MW MoO 3 : 143.9382 4.0% x (58.70/74.699) = 4.0 x 0.7858 = 3.413 moles Ni 14.2% x (95.9339/143.9382) = 9.3309 moles Mo Molar ratio of Ni/Mo is 3.413/9.3309, or 0.3368, which falls within the molar ratio range recited in claim 5 . Regarding claim 6 , the molar ratio between the Group VIII element (nickel) and sodium can be determined from the aforementioned percentages of nickel and sodium, and from their respective molecular weights. In using Catalyst 502 of Notermann et al.: MW Ni: 58.70 MW NiO:74.699 MW Na: 22.9898 MW Na 2 O: 61.9789 4.0% x (58.70/74.699) = 4.0 x 0.7858 = 3.413 moles Ni 0.1% x (2 x 22.9898)/61.9789 0.1% x (45.9796/61.9789) = 0.07419 moles Na Molar ratio of Ni/Na = 3.413/0.07419, or 42.36, which falls within the molar ratio range recited in claim 6. Regarding claim 7 , the molar ratio between the Group VI element (molybdenum) and sodium can be determined from the aforementioned percentages of molybdenum and sodium, and from their respective molecular weights. By using Catalyst 502 in Notermann et al.: MW Mo: 95.9399 MW MoO 3 : 143.9382 MW Na: 22.9898 MW Na 2 O: 61.9789 14.2% x (95.9339/143.9382) = 9.3309 moles Mo 0.1% x (2 x 22.9898)/61.9789 0.1% x (45.9796/61.9789) = 0.07419 moles Na Molar ratio of Mo/Na = 9.3309/0.07419, or 125.770, which falls within the molar ratio range recited in claim 7 . Regarding claim 8 , the molar ratio between the phosphorus and the Group VIB element (molybdenum) can be determined from the aforementioned percentages of phosphorus and molybdenum, and from their respective molecular weights. By using Catalyst 502 in Notermann et al.: MW P: 30.9738 MW P 2 O 5 : 141.9446 MW Mo: 95.9399 MW MoO 3 : 143.9382 5.2% P 2 O 5 x (2 x30.9738)/141.9446 5.2% x (61.9476/141.9446) = 2.2694 moles P 14.2% x (95.9339/143.9382) = 9.3309 moles Mo Molar ratio of phosphorus to molybdenum is 2.2694/9.3309, or 0.2432, which falls within the molar ratio range recited in claim 8 . Regarding claim 11 , Notermann et al. teach the feasibility in the aforementioned catalyst comprising cobalt and molybdenum; see page 2, lines 21-27 of Notermann et al. Regarding claim 13 , it is considered that because Notermann et al. teach a catalyst structurally reading upon that recited in Applicants’ claim 1 (from which claim 13 depends), the skilled artisan would have been motivated to reasonably expect the catalyst of Notermann et al. to exhibit a pore volume comparable to that instantly claimed, absent the showing of convincing evidence to the contrary. As stated above, the teachings of Notermann et al. fall within the limitations of Applicants’ claims regarding the respectively recited components, their percentage contents, and the molar ratios calculated from said percentage contents. “A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prime facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson , 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also MPEP 2144.05 (I) . Claim s 1-7 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daudin et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,931,617; Applicants’ submitted art) in view of Kukes et al. (U. S. Patent No. 5,266,188, Applicants’ submitted art). Regarding claims 1-3 , Daudin et al. teach a hydrotreatment catalyst comprising a support, at least one metal selected from group VIB and at least one metal selected from group VIII of the periodic table, the quantity of metal from group VIB, expressed as the oxides, being in the range 6% to 25% by weight with respect to the total catalyst weight, the quantity of metal from group VIII, expressed as the oxides, being in the range 0.5% to 7% by weight with respect to the total catalyst weight, wherein the support comprises alumina, and wherein the catalyst has a specific surface area ranging from 60 to 250 m 2 /g. See col. 2, lines 23-34 of Daudin et al. Regarding claims 2, 3, and 11 , Daudin et al. teach that examples of the Group VIB metal, present in amounts ranging from 7% to 20%, include molybdenum, and that examples of the Group VIII metal , present in amounts ranging from 0.5 to 5%, include cobalt and nickel. Said percentages are by weight of their respective oxides with respect to the total catalyst weight. See col. 2, lines 51-59 of Daudin et al. Regarding claims 4 and 9 , Daudin et al. teach that the aforementioned catalyst further comprises phosphorus in a range of from 1% to 10% by weight of P 2 O 5 , based on the total catalyst weight. See col. 2, lines 47-50 of Daudin et al. Regarding claim 5 , Daudin et al. further teach that the catalyst exhibits a Co/Mo atomic ratio ranging from 0.3 to 0.5, see col. 2, line 66. From this atomic ratio, the molar ratio of Co/Mo can be determined: MW Co: 58.9332 MW Mo: 95.9399 0.3 x (58.9332/95.9399) = 0.1843 0.5 x (58.9332/95.399) = 0.3071 Therefore, the calculated Co/Mo molar ratio of 0.1843-0.3071 falls within the range recited in claim 5 . Regarding claims 12 and 13 , Daudin et al. teach that the aforementioned catalyst exhibits a total pore volume ranging from 0.60 to 1.00 mL/g (cm 3 /g) and a specific surface area ranging from 60 to 150 m 2 /g. See col. 3, lines 1-28 of Daudin et al. Regarding claims 14 and 15 , Daudin et al. additionally teach employment of the aforementioned catalyst in the hydrodesulphurization of a gasoline cut in which hydrogen and said gasoline cut are brought into contact with a catalyst in accordance with the invention, at a temperature in the range 200° C. to 400° C., at a total pressure in the range 1 to 3 MPa and with an hourly space velocity (HSV, defined as the volume flow rate of feed with respect to the volume of catalyst) in the range 1 to 10 hour -1 , and a hydrogen/gasoline feed ratio by volume in the range 100 to 500 NL/L. See col. 4, lines 42-58 and col. 5, lines 3-5 of Daudin et al., the latter of which teaches that the aforementioned hydrodesulphurization process is particularly suited to treating gasolines obtained from catalytic cracking units (FCC gasoline). Daudin et al. do not teach or suggest the presence of sodium in Patentees’ catalyst, nor does this reference teach or suggest the limitations of Applicants’ claims regarding the molar ratios between (a) phosphorus and sodium and (b) the Group VIII element and sodium, as recited in claims 1, 6, 7, and 10 . Regarding claim 1 , Kukes et al. teach a catalyst comprising a hydrogenation component and a support component. The hydrogenation component comprises a Group VIB metal component and a Group VIII metal component wherein the Group VIB metal component is present in an amount ranging from about 4 wt. % to about 20 wt. % and the Group VIII metal component is present in an amount ranging from about 0.5 wt. % to about 10 wt. %, both calculated as oxides and based on the total catalyst weight. The support component comprises from about 0.5 wt. % to about 50 wt. % of a magnesium component and from about 0.02 wt. % to about 10 wt. % of an alkali metal component (200 to 100,000 ppm), both calculated as oxides and based on the total catalyst weight. See col. 2, lines 31-46 of Kukes et al., as well as col. 7, lines 48-55, which teaches alumina as an exemplary catalyst support, and col. 9, lines 25-40, which teaches sodium as an exemplary and preferred alkali metal component. Motivated by the common teachings of Daudin et al. and Kukes et al. regarding catalysts comprising a Group VIB metal, a Group VIII metal, and a support comprising alumina, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to modify the catalyst of Daudin et al. by incorporating therein sodium in an amount of from about 0.2 wt. % to about 10 wt.% (200 ppm to 100,000 ppm), as suggested by Kukes et al., in an endeavor to obtain a catalyst exhibiting superior process performance, e.g., desulfurization performance, making a substantial impact in meeting gasoline sulfur concentration targets. See col. 11, lines 32-36 and 63-66 of Kukes et al. Moreover, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of Applicants’ invention to modify the catalyst of Daudin et al. by incorporating therein sodium in an amount of from about 0.2 wt. % to about 10 wt. % (200 ppm to 100,000 ppm), as suggested by Kukes et al., because combining two or more materials disclosed by the prior art for the same purpose to form a third material that is to be used for the same purpose has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, see In re Kerkhoven , 205 U.S.P.Q. 1069. See also MPEP 2144.06(I). Further regarding claim 1 , and also regarding claim 10 , by using the percentage of phosphorus disclosed in Daudin et al. and the amounts of sodium disclosed in Kukes et al., and the respective molecular weights of phosphorus and sodium, the molar ratio between phosphorus and sodium can be determined. MW P: 30.9738 MW P 2 O 5 : 141.9446 MW Na: 22.9898 MW Na 2 O: 61.9789 1-10 % P 2 O 5 x (2 x 30.9738)/141.9446 1-10 % x (61.9476/141.9446) = 0.4634-4.6342 moles P 0.02-10 % Na 2 O x (2 x 22.9898)/61.9789 0.02-10 % x (45.9796/61.9789) = 0.01483-7.4186 moles Na Molar ratio of P/Na = (0.4634/0.01483), (0.4634/7.4186), (4.6342/0.01483), (4.6342/7.4186), or 31.247, 0.06246, 312.4882, 0.6247. of 0.4364/0.01483 (31.247) and 4.6342/0.01483 (312.4882) While the molar ratios of 31.247 and 312.4882 fall within the molar ratios between phosphorus and sodium recited in claims 1 and 10 , it is noted that all of the calculated molar ratios range from 0.06246 to 312.4882. Regarding claim 6 , by using the percentage of Group VIII element (nickel) disclosed in Daudin et al. and the amount of sodium disclosed in Kukes et al., and the respective molecular weights of nickel and sodium, the molar ratio between phosphorus and sodium can be determined. MW Ni: 58.70 MW NiO:74.699 MW Na: 22.9898 MW Na 2 O: 61.9789 0.5-5 % x (58.70/74.699) = 0.5-5 x 0.7858 = 0.3929-3.9291 moles Ni 0.02-10 % x (2 x 22.9898)/61.9789 0.02-10 % x (45.9796/61.9789) = 0.01483-7.4186 moles Na Molar ratio of Ni/Na = (0.3929/0.01483), (3.9291/0.01483), (0.3929/7.4186), (3.9291/7.4186), or 26.494, 264.943, 0.05296, 0.5296. While the molar ratios of 0.3929/0.01483 (26.494) and of 3.291/0.01483 (264.943) fall within the molar ratio range recited in claim 6 , it is noted that all of the calculated molar ratios range from 0.05296 to 264.943. Regarding claim 7 , by using the percentage of Group VI element (molybdenum) disclosed in Daudin et al. and the amount of sodium disclosed in Kukes et al., and the respective molecular weights of molybdenum and sodium, the molar ratio between phosphorus and sodium can be determined. MW Mo: 95.9399 MW MoO 3 : 143.9382 MW Na: 22.9898 MW Na 2 O: 61.9789 7-20 % x (2 x 22.9898)/61.9789 7-20% x (95.9339/143.9382) = 4.6655-13.3299 moles Mo 0.02-10 % x (2 x 22.9898)/61.9789 0.02-10 % x (45.9796/61.9789) = 0.01483-7.4186 moles Na Molar ratio of Mo/Na = (4.6655/0.01483), (4.6655/7.4186), (13.3299/0.01483), (13.3299/7.4186), or 314.599, 0.6289, 898.847, 1.7968. While t he molar ratio of (4.6655/0.01483), or 314.599, falls within the molar ratio range recited in claim 7 , it is noted that all of the calculated molar ratios range from 0.6289 to 898.847. As stated above, the teachings of Daudin et al. and Kukes et al. fall within the limitations of Applicants’ claims regarding the respectively recited components, their percentage contents, and the molar ratios calculated from said percentage contents. Where claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 U.S.P.Q. 90 (CCPA 1976). “A prior art reference that discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range is sufficient to establish a prime facie case of obviousness.” In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also MPEP 2144.05 (I) . Conclusion An English translation of the Written Opinion for PCT/EP2022/060158, the International Search Report of which was cited on Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statement, accompanies this Office Action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT PATRICIA L HAILEY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1369 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday, 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m . 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 Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung, can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5713 . 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. /Patricia L. Hailey/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 March 16, 2026