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 without traverse of Group I, claims 1-17, in the reply filed on 3/18/2026 is acknowledged. 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. 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, 3–9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102 as anticipated by CN113754510A CN113754510A teaches a process comprising contacting a feed comprising γ- valerolactone (GVL) with a zeolite catalyst (HZSM-5) in a reactor to produce 1,3-butadiene (CN ’510, Abstract; claims 1 and 8; Description [0006]–[0013], [0022], [0042], [0048]). CN ’510 further teaches reaction temperatures of 200–600 °C, preferably 350–450 °C, pressures of 0.01–10 MPa, preferably 0.1–1 MPa, and GVL WHSV of 0.1–100 h⁻¹, preferably 0.2–5 h⁻¹ (claims 1, 2, 4, 8; [0009]–[0017]). The reference also teaches that when aqueous GVL is used, concentrations of 40–60 wt.% are preferred, and that at 20 and 40 wt.% aqueous GVL, the byproducts include ethylene and propylene, while butadiene is also formed ([0011], [0034]–[0037]). Thus, CN ’510 teaches contacting GVL with a zeolite catalyst in a reactor to form a mixture containing two or more different C2–C6 linear or branched olefins, including butadiene and additional light olefins, under the claimed temperature, pressure, and WHSV ranges. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over CN113754510A in view of Hu et al . “ Highly stable boron-modified hierarchical nanocrystalline ZSM-5 zeolite for the methanol to propylene reaction ” Catalysis Science & Technology , 2014, 4, pages 2891-2895 or Jamil et al. “ Stable Boron-Modified ZSM-22 Zeolite Catalyst for Selective Production of Propylene from Methanol ” Energy Fuels 2019, 33, 12679-12684. CN ’510 teaches the base GVL-to-olefin process over zeolite, but does not expressly disclose that the zeolite is doped with boron and/or phosphorus. Hu et al. teaches boron-modified ZSM-5, where framework boron incorporation increases weak acid sites and improves olefin-selective performance in acid-catalyzed olefin-forming reactions (Hu, pp. 2892–2894, especially the 11B MAS NMR discussion and NH3-TPD/acidity discussion). Jamil et al. is consistent in teaching that boron incorporation into zeolite frameworks modifies acidity and prolongs olefin-selective catalytic performance. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate boron into the zeolite catalyst of CN ’510 in order to tune acidity and improve olefin selectivity, because Jamil/ Hu teaches that framework boron modification of zeolites enhances olefin production in acid-catalyzed conversion chemistry. Claims 10 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over CN113754510A in view of Rode et al. (US2013/0296579 A1) The process of CN ’510 is as discussed above. CN’510 does not expressly disclose producing GVL from levulinic acid. Rode teaches a process for preparing γ- valerolactone via catalytic hydrogenation of levulinic acid (Rode, [0001], [0017], [0042]–[0047]). Rode further teaches non-noble metal bi-functional mixed catalyst systems, including Cu:Zr , Cu:Al , Cu:Cr , Cu:Cr:Al , and Cu:Ba:Al ([0018], [0044], Table 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to produce GVL from levulinic acid using a mixed metal oxide catalyst and then subject the resulting GVL to the olefin-production process of CN ’510, because Rode teaches levulinic acid → GVL using mixed metal catalyst systems and such upstream preparation merely provides the known GVL feedstock for the downstream zeolite-catalyzed olefin conversion. The recited catalyst compositions ZnZrAlSi and ZnZrSi are routine variations of known mixed metal oxide catalyst systems for LA → GVL conversion. Claims 1, 4, and 7–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102 as anticipated by Lin et al. “ Quantitative production of butenes from biomass-derived γ - valerolactone catalysed by hetero-atomic MFI zeolite ”, Nature Materials , vol. 19, January 2020, pages 86-93. Lin et al. teaches converting γ- valerolactone over a hetero-atomic MFI-type zeolite (NbAlS-1) to butenes in continuous flow at 320 °C and atmospheric pressure, including 99.3% butene yield from a 30 wt.% aqueous GVL feed (Abstract; p. 86, left column, final full paragraph; Table 1, entry 16 on p. 89; p. 87, “Catalytic tests”). Thus, Lin teaches claim 1’s GVL-to-olefin process, claim 4’s requirement that the olefins comprise one or more butenes , claim 7’s temperature range, claim 8’s pressure range, and claim 9’s contact in reactor conditions as obvious/inherent continuous-flow operation parameters. Lin expressly teaches olefin yield far above the claimed at least 60%. Claims 3, 5, 6, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Lin et al. in view of CN113754510A The process of Lin is as discussed above. Lin does not expressly teach product slates including butadiene, nor the broader combinations of ethylene and/or propylene with butenes /butadiene. CN ’510 teaches that GVL over zeolite catalyst forms 1,3-butadiene, and further teaches that under aqueous GVL conditions the product/byproduct slate includes ethylene and propylene in addition to butadiene ([0034]–[0037], [0042]–[0048]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust the Lin process to obtain olefin distributions including butadiene and optionally ethylene and/or propylene, because CN ’510 teaches that zeolite-catalyzed GVL conversion under overlapping conditions produces those olefin products and product distribution in such acid-catalyzed conversion processes is controlled by catalyst acidity and reaction conditions. Claims 14 - 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as unpatentable over Lin et al. (Nature Materials, 2020) in view of Hu et al. and further in view of Walter et al. (EP 2 025 402 A1), or alternatively over CN113754510A in view of Hu et al. and further in view of Walter et al. Lin et al. teaches contacting γ- valerolactone (GVL) with a zeolite catalyst (MFI-type) in a reactor at about 320 °C and near ambient pressure to produce olefins ( butenes ) at a yield exceeding 99% (Lin, Abstract; Table 1). Thus, Lin teaches: GVL → olefins , zeolite catalyst , temperature 300–500 °C , pressure 0–100 psig , and yield ≥95% . However, Lin does not disclose a zeolite doped with both boron and phosphorus, nor the claimed dopant levels. Hu et al. teaches boron-modified zeolites, wherein boron incorporation: increases weak acid sites modifies acidity distribution improves olefin-selective catalytic performance Walter teaches phosphorus-modified zeolites, wherein: phosphorus is introduced via acid treatment and retained in the zeolite (≥0.3 wt . %) dealumination and phosphorus incorporation adjust acid properties and stabilize the catalyst such catalysts are used for conversion of oxygenates to light olefins (XTO processes) Accordingly: It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate both boron and phosphorus into the zeolite catalyst of Lin et al. in order to further tune acidity and improve olefin selectivity and catalyst stability, because Hu et al. teaches that boron incorporation increases weak acid sites and enhances olefin formation, while Walter et al. teaches that phosphorus modification reduces strong acidity, stabilizes the zeolite, and improves olefin-selective performance in oxygenate-to-olefin processes. The combined use of boron and phosphorus represents a predictable combination of known acidity-modifying techniques to optimize catalytic performance. Alternative Rejection over CN113754510A CN’510 is as discussed above. CN ’510 does not disclose a zeolite doped with both boron and phosphorus. Hu et al. teaches boron-doped zeolites as discussed above. Walter et al. teaches phosphorus-modified zeolites for oxygenate-to-olefin conversion, wherein phosphorus incorporation: modifies acidity via dealumination and P incorporation stabilizes the catalyst improves olefin selectivity Accordingly: It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the zeolite catalyst of CN113754510A by incorporating both boron and phosphorus in order to tune acidity and improve olefin selectivity and catalyst stability, because boron and phosphorus are each known acidity modifiers for zeolite catalysts used in olefin-forming reactions, and their combined use represents a predictable optimization of known catalytic systems. C laim 15 Hu et al. teaches incorporation of boron into zeolite frameworks and demonstrates that the amount of boron affects acidity and catalytic performance in olefin-forming reactions. Thus, the amount of boron incorporated into the zeolite represents a result-effective variable, and selecting a boron content within the claimed range of 1–3 wt.% would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Claim 16 Walter et al. teaches phosphorus-modified zeolites wherein phosphorus is incorporated into the zeolite in amounts that overlap the claimed range (e.g., about 1–5 wt.%). Accordingly, the claimed phosphorus content of 1–4 wt.% is expressly taught or at least overlaps the teachings of Walter et al. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TAM M NGUYEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1452 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon - Frid . 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 Prem C Singh can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-273-6381 . 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. /TAM M NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771