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. Claim Objections Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: “comprise” in line one should be changed to “comprises”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an” in line one should be changed to “a”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities: “zeolite Y” in line two should be changed to “zeolite-Y”. Appropriate correction is required. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds 150 words. 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). Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. 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. 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 3, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 3 , the phrase " at least " renders the claim indefinite because the claim include s elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by " at least "), thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The term “ elevated ” in claim s 10 and 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ elevated ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Because of this term, the humidity and pressure in these two claims is indefinite . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1 -2, 4 - 5, 8, 15- 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Elliott (US4164551) . Regarding claim 1, Elliott discloses a type Y zeolite synthesis by creating a zeolite precursor solution with sodium silicate, aluminum sulfate, water (solvent), and additional components (col 3, lines 4 1 -46). The molar ratio of th e solution is 1 Al2O3:3.1 Na2O:9.1 SiO2: 143 H2O (col 3, line 57). The s olution is heated to 212 ° F (100 ° C), the type Y zeolite product is recovered by filtration, and the mother liquor is obtained (col 3, lines 58-65). The weight percent of SiO2 in the mother liquor is 8.8% and Al2O3 is <0.1% (col 3, lines 65-67). We will convert these mass% to moles and get a molar ratio. Mol SiO2 = 8.8 g/60.1 g/mol = 0.15 mol Mol Al2O3 = 0.05 g/101.96 g/mol = 4.9*10^-4 mol Al/SiO2 molar ratio = 4.9*10^-4/0.15 = 0.0033 The molar ratio of the precursor solution is 1 molAl2O3/9.1 mol SiO2 = 0.11. Therefore, we see that the mother liquor has a different alumina to silica molar ratio . The mother liquor filtrate is combined with aluminum sulfate to produce a silica alumina hydrogel (col 4, lines 3-6). The hydrogel is mixed with other components to make a second zeolite precursor solution (col 4, lines 12-19). The molar ratio of the second solution is 1 Al2O3:3.3 Na2O:9.1 SiO2: 142 H2O (col 4, line 22). Therefore, we see that the alumina to silica molar ratio is the sa me for the first and second solutions. Finally, the second solution is heated to 100 ° C to form type Y zeolite (col 4, line 19-20). Regarding claim 2, Elliott discloses the molar ratio of the second solution 1 Al2O3:3.3 Na2O:9.1 SiO2: 142 H2O (col 4, line 22) and the first solution 1 Al2O3:3.1 Na2O:9.1 SiO2: 143 H2O (col 3, line 57). We see that both solutions have the same alumina to silica molar ratio. Regarding claim 4, Elliott discloses an alumina source in the first solution of aluminum sulfate Al 2 (SO 4 ) 3 and sodium aluminate NaAlO 2 (col 3, lines 45-50). Regarding claim 5, Elliott discloses a silica source in the first solution of sodium silicate Na 2 SiO 3 (col 3, lines 43-44). Regarding claim 8, Elliott does not disclose a structure directing agent in the first solution. Regarding claim s 15-17, Elliott does not disclose an average particle size, average pore size, or total pore volume. However, the reference discloses the process that is claimed to form these properties. Therefore, it is the position of the examiner that these ranges of properties would inherently be the same. When the examiner has reason to believe that the functional language asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in a claimed subject matter may in fact be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to Applicants to prove that the subject matter shown in the prior art does not possess the characteristics relied upon. In re Fitzgerald et al. 205 USPQ 594. Regarding claim 18, Elliott discloses a surface area of 868 m 2 /g (col 4, lines 26-27). Regarding claim 19, Elliott discloses a crystallinity of 101% (col 4, lines 25-26). 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. 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 . Claim s 3, 6, 7 , and 9 -14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliott as applied to claim s 1-2, 4-5, 8, and 15-19 above, and further in view of Dwyer et al. (US4818509) . Regarding claim 3, Elliott discloses combining the mother liquor filtrate with aluminum sulfate to produce a silica alumina hydrogel and using it to make more type zeolite Y (col 4, lines 3-6). Elliott does not disclose agitating the recycled mixture containing the hydrogel for at least 10 hours. Dwyer et al. discloses a multiple stage crystallization process for making zeolites . The slurry starts in an auxiliary low-temperature induction tank (81a) before it moves to the first crystallization step (154a) (col 13, line 26-32). The auxiliary tank used for induction holds the precursor slurry for 10 hours (col 13 line 26-28) an d has high shear agitation capability (col 7, line 37-39). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed inventio n to combine the agitation and holding time of Dwyer et al. with Elliott’s process in order to prevent the formation of continuous gel and the setting of gel which would immobilize the crystallizer contents (col 6, line 19-23). Regarding claim 6, Elliott discloses forming a first solution which contains a basic compound sodium hydroxide, a silica source sodium silicate, an alumina source sodium aluminate, and a solvent that is water (col 3, lines 43-54). This solution is agitated (col 3, line 58), but Elliott fails to disclose how long agitation goes on for. Dwyer et al. discloses a multiple stage crystallization process for making zeolites. The slurry starts in an auxiliary low-temperature induction tank (81a) before it moves to the first crystallization step (154a) (col 13, line 26-32). The auxiliary tank used for induction holds the precursor slurry for 10 hours (col 13 line 26-28) and has high shear agitation capability (col 7, line 37-39). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the holding time of Dwyer et al. with Elliott’s process in order to prevent the formation of continuous gel and the setting of gel which would immobilize the crystallizer contents (col 6, line 19-23). Regarding claim 7, Elliott discloses a solvent in the first solution that is water (col 3 , line 44-45). Regarding claim 9, Elliott discloses a heating process of 100 ° C for 16 hours (col 3 , lines 58-59). Elliott does not disclose increasing the first temperature of 100 ° C to a second temperature and holding it for another period of time. Dwyer et al. discloses a multiple stage crystallization process for making zeolites. The slurry starts in an auxiliary low-temperature induction tank (81a) before it moves to the first crystallization tank (154a) followed by a second crystallization tank if necessary (158a) (col 13, lines 23-35). The heating begins in the first stage auxiliary low-temperature tank where the temperature varies from sub-ambient to 180 ° F (82 ° C) and is held for 4-16 hours (col 7, lines 65-68). After the holding tank, the temperature is increased in the first crystallization vessel in a range of 180-250 ° F (82-121 ° C) and is held for 2-72 hours (col 8, lines 22-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optimized heating process of Dwyer et al. with Elliott’s process in order to favor nucleation for the first heating step and then increase the rate of crystallization at the second temperature so the remaining components in the reaction mix can be consumed (col 7, lines 12-23). Regarding claim 10, Elliott discloses a heating process of 100 °C for 16 hours (col 3, line 63) but does not disclose the heating process under elevated pressure, elevated humidity, or both, relative to ambient conditions. Dwyer et al. disc loses a multiple stage crystallization process for making zeolites. The slurry starts in an auxiliary low-temperature induction tank (81a) before it moves to the first crystallization tank (154a) followed by a second crystallization tank (158a) (col 13, lines 23-35). The first crystallization tank is held at 30-35 psig (col 13, lines 33-34) and the second tank is held at 130 psig (col 13, lines 35-36). While the examiner is unclear what range of pressure is claimed, it is considered that these pressures are elevated relative to ambient conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the elevated pressures of Dwyer et al. with Elliott’s process because elevated pressure in zeolite crystallization is conventional. Regarding claim 11, Elliott discloses a heating process of 100 °C for 16 hours (col 3, line 63) but does not disclose the heating process being performed in an autoclave. Dwyer et al. discloses that zeolite crystallization is commonly conducted in large autoclaves (col 5, lines 20-21). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autoclave of Dwyer et al. with Elliott’s process for final crystallization (col 5, lines 27-29). Regarding claim 12, Elliott discloses a heating process of 100 ° C for 11.5 hours of the secon d solution (col 4, lines 19-20). Elliott does not disclose increasing the first temperature of 100 ° C to a second temperature and holding it for another period of time. Dwyer et al. discloses a multiple stage crystallization process for making zeolites. The slurry starts in an auxiliary low-temperature induction tank (81a) before it moves to the first crystallization tank (154a) followed by a second crystallization tank if necessary (158a) (col 13, lines 23-35). The heating begins in the first stage auxiliary low-temperature tank where the temperature varies from sub-ambient to 180 ° F (82 ° C) and is held for 4-16 hours (col 7, lines 65-68). After the holding tank, the temperature is increased in the first crystallization vessel in a range of 180-250 ° F (82-121 ° C) and is held for 2-72 hours (col 8, lines 22-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optimized heating process of Dwyer et al. with Elliott’s process in order to favor nucleation for the first heating step and then increase the rate of crystallization at the second temperature so the remaining components in the reaction mix can be consumed (col 7, lines 12-23). Regarding claim 13, Elliott discloses a second heating process of 100 ° C for 11.5 hours (col 4, lines 19-20) but does not disclose the heating process under elevated pressure, elevated humidity, or both, relative to ambient conditions. Dwyer et al. discloses a multiple stage crystallization process for making zeolites. The slurry starts in an auxiliary low-temperature induction tank (81a) before it moves to the first crystallization tank (154a) followed by a second crystallization tank (158a) (col 13, lines 23-35). The first crystallization tank is held at 30-35 psig (col 13, lines 33-34) and the second tank is held at 130 psig (col 13, lines 35-36). While the examiner is unclear what range of pressure is claimed, it is considered that these pressures are elevated relative to ambient conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the elevated pressures of Dwyer et al. with Elliott’s process because elevated pressure in zeolite crystallization is conventional. Regarding claim 1 4 , Elliott discloses a second heating process of 100 °C for 11.5 hours (col 4 , line s 19-20 ) but does not disclose the heating process being performed in an autoclave. Dwyer et al. discloses that zeolite crystallization is commonly conducted in large autoclaves (col 5, lines 20-21). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the autoclave of Dwyer et al. with Elliott’s process for final crystallization (col 5, lines 27-29). Claim 15 -16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliott as applied to claim s 1-2, 4-5, 8, and 15-19 above, and further in view of Koegler et al . ( CN 1331747C ) . The teachings of Elliott are applied as above for claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, and 15-19. As discussed, it is the position of the examiner that the properties required by claims 15-16 would inherently result from the method of making taught by Elliott. However, if it is shown not to be inherent, it is the position of the examiner that such properties would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 15, Elliott discloses the method of making zeolite-Y particles but does not disclose an average particle size. Koegler et al. discloses preparing Y zeolite with a particle size range of 100 nm to 500 nm; entirely encompassing the claimed range (paragraph 0049). The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select the portion of the prior art’s range which is within the range of the applicants’ claims because it has been held prima facie case of obviousness to select a value in a known range by optimization for the results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari , 182 USPQ. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optimized particle size taught in Koegler et al . with Elliott’s process because a zeolite with small crystal size has advantages when used in hydrocarbon conversion processes for example effective diffusion characteristics ( paragraph 0026). Regarding claim 16, Elliott discloses the method of making zeolite-Y particles but does not disclose an average pore size. Koegler et al. discloses preparing Y zeolite with a pore size of 7-8 angstroms (0.7-0.8 nm) (paragraph 0027) . These pore sizes fall outside the claimed range . It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to choose the instantly claimed ranges through process optimization, since it has been held that the general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Boesch , 205 USPQ 215. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optimized pore size taught in Koegler et al. with Elliott’s process because catalysts with ideal pore sizes can facilitate the transport of reactants to the active sites of the catalyst (paragraph 0006). Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliott as applied to claim s 1-2, 4-5, 8, and 15-19 above, and further in view of Zheng et al. (CN107867699) . The teachings of Elliott are applied as above for claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, and 15-19. As discussed, it is the position of the examiner that the properties required by claim 17 would inherently result from the method of making taught by Elliott. However, if it is shown not to be inherent, it is the position of the examiner that such properties would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Regarding claim 17, Elliott discloses the method of making zeolite-Y particles but does not disclose a total pore volume. Zheng et al. discloses a total pore volume of the structure microporous Y zeolite that is 0.17-1.0 ml/g; entirely encompassing the claimed range (paragraph 012). The subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to select the portion of the prior art’s range which is within the range of the applicants’ claims because it has been held prima facie case of obviousness to select a value in a known range by optimization for the results. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. Additionally, the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made to have selected the overlapping portion of the range disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Malagari , 182 USPQ. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the optimized pore volume taught in Zheng et al. with Elliott’s process because microporous catalysts provide abundant active sites (paragraph 0004). Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elliott as applied to claims 1-2, 4-5, 8, and 15-19 above, and further in view of Alexander et al. (US20240367987). Regarding claim 20, Elliott discloses the method of making and washing zeolite-Y particles (col 4, lines 1-2). Elliott does not disclose drying the zeolite-Y or calcinating it. Alexander et al. discloses creating a mixture comprising CTAB and Y-zeolite and precipitating solids (paragraph 0035). The solids are washed, filtered, and calcined (paragraph 0035). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the drying and calcination step of Alexander et al. with Elliott’s process to c ontrol the size of the mesopores in the Y zeolite (paragraph 0038). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DAVID A CALDERON whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9866 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8-5PM . 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 Christina Johnson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712721176 . 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. /DAVID ANDREW CALDERON/ Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742