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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/27/2023 (4 documents) have been considered by the Examiner. Status of Claims Claims 1-17, filed on 07/20/2023, are under consideration. Claim Objections Claims 10-11 are objected to because of the following informalities: in the preamble they recite “the catalyst structure of claim 1” which is inconsistent with the method claim from which they depend. The preamble of dependent claims must be consistent with the independent claim. Appropriate correction is required. 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. 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 . Claims 1- 12 and 16- 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107029780 A (cited by Applicants; published 08/11/20 1 7 ; translation attached ). Regarding claim 1 , CN 107029780 (pg. 4) teaches a method for treating heavy crude oil (considered hydrocarbon feedstock) in the presence of methane gas under cracking conditions to saturates bonds and remove heteroatoms including sulfur/ sulphur ; wherein the catalyst is described as being able to use methane, through methyl hydride intermediate, as a source for hydrogenation of unsaturated bond and heteroatoms. The following is disclosed (modified for clarity) : (1) under the reaction condition of 380-420 ° C, by including natural gas including methane in hydrocarbon bond cleavage , through active intermediate for the catalytic cracking of heavy crude into the organic matter of saturation and removing sulphur , nitrogen, oxygen and heavy metal material. This process is similar to hydrogenation catalyst cracking process, in the presence of catalyst, by hydrogen activation. This technology can avoid methane reforming from preparing hydrogen by directly utilizing methane as hydrogen source , so as to effectively simplify technological process and improve capacity utilization. Also, this technology has advantage of low - pressure operation to reduce reaction pressure, low consuming energy, equipment and operating cost are relatively low, and enhanced safety. (2) at 380-420 ° C temperature and the reaction condition of 30-50 atmospheric pressure, on the one hand heavy crude is catalyzed c racking to short chain compound of the molecular chain length close to petrol and diesel oil , on the other hand using the methane being activated, and unsaturation i n organic s undergo saturation, and sulphur , nitrogen, remov al . The activation of m ethane directly carries out heavy crude catalytic cracking, then can be by the direct addition of carbon in methane among product oil . Regarding the catalyst, the reference teaches (pg. 2 bottom part bullet #1) a metal comprising Ag, Zn, o ne or more of mixtures of Mo, Ce or Ga ion s. This kind of catalyst facilitates methyl hydride catalyzed heavy crude desulfurization and cracking. The catalyst comprises mix ture of porous support , such as ZSM-5 , at 90-99% and component s containing methane activation sites such as Ag 2 O , Z nO , Mo O 3 , CeO 2 o r Ga 2 O 3 or several of these (combinations) at 1-10 % (pg. 3 paragraphs 6-11) . The metals are impregnated into the support , and thus are considered loaded in the pores of the porous zeolite support (experiments pg. 4-6). It is noted that the prior art does not explicitly suggest that both Ga and Mo are loaded in the pores of the zeolite. However, the prior art suggests that both Ga and Mo are possible options for the active sites on the catalyst. Therefore, and before the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have loaded both Mo and Ga o n the catalyst because both these metals are suggested as active sites in the prior art and because this involves applying known methane activation metals in hydrocarbon sulfur removal with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success—see MPEP 2143 I, 2143 A, 2143 D, and 2143.02. Regarding claim 2 , CN 107029780 teaches using methane as the desulfurization gas as discussed above. Regarding claim 3 , CN 107029780 teaches the sulfur containing hydrocarbon feedstock comprises “heavy crude” (Abstract) which is assumed equivalent to the claimed heavy oil. Regarding claim 4 , CN 107029780 teaches “diesel oil” product as discussed above (pg. 4 of the translation bullet #2 line 2). This diesel oil is viewed as broad genre of diesel oil including marine. Regarding claim 5 , CN 107029780 teaches loading active sites at amount of 1-10 % which overlaps the claimed amount of 0.1-20 wt % ; this overlap establishes a prima facie case of obviousness since the claimed range(s) “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”—see MPEP 2144.05.I. Regarding claim 6 , CN 107029780 teaches the catalyst support can be ZSM-5 (pg. 3, paragraph 9). Regarding claims 7-8 , it is noted that the prior art does not disclose the claimed amounts of 0.5-2 wt % Ga and 3-7 wt % Mo, or 1wt% Ga and 5 wt % Mo. However, these amounts are well within the disclosed range of 1-10 wt % (discussed above). Considering that these metals, and their amounts, have direct impact on the catalyst reactivity and selectivity. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum catalyst metals loading through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality. In re Aller , USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955)—see MPEP 2144.05 II. Regarding claim 9 , CN 107029780 as modified above discloses that the catalyst has ZSM-5 porous support and the metals consist of Ga and Mo. Regarding claims 10-11 , CN 107029780 teaches Al 2 O 3 to SiO 2 ratio of 1:15 to 1:300 (pg. 3 paragraph 8). The reverse of this ratio 15:1 to 300:1 SiO 2 to Al 2 O 3 which overlaps the claimed ratio of 1:1 to 280:1 and 80:1. Regarding claim 12 , CN 107029780 exemplifies batch lab reactions (pg. 5-6, Embodiments 2 and 3). Regarding claim 16 , it is expected that the method of CN 107029780 provides similar sulfur reduction in the feedstock since both the prior art and the instant claims use similar catalysts and operate the reaction at similar temperatures and pressures (see discussion below). Regarding claim 17, CN 107029780 teaches reduction in viscosity, density and acid number of the product compared to the feedstock (pg. 6, paragraphs 1-2) Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 107029780 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2018/0230387 A1. Regarding claims 13-1 5 , CN 107029780 teaches the reaction is carried out at 400°C and 3 MPa of pressure (29.6 atm; pg. 5 last paragraph) using the prepared catalyst fines . These reaction conditions overlap the claimed values of about 400°C and 1-200 atm. It is noted that the prior art does not disclose using fixed bed reactor (for claim 13) or use pellets (for claim 15). However, the use of pellets in fixed beds is known in heavy marine oil desulfurizing ( US 2018/0230387 see Abstract, [0078] and [0118]). Therefore, before the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used pellet catalysts in fixed bed reactor with the reaction/method of CN 107029780 because this involves applying known reactor configuration in sulfur removal from heavy oils with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success—see MPEP 2143 I, 2143 A, 2143 D, and 2143.02. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ALI Z FADHEL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0267 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9am-6pm PST . 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 In Suk Bullock can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-5954 . 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. /ALI Z FADHEL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772