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. DETAILED ACTION Status of Application 1. This application was filed on 10/23/2023. Claims 1-20 were originally presented in this application for examination. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in this application and under consideration. Specification 2. The examiner has not checked the specification to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors (grammatical, typographical, and idiomatic). Cooperation of the applicant(s) is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant(s) may become aware of in the specification, in the claims and in any further amendment(s) that applicant(s) may file. Applicant(s) is also requested to complete the status of the copending applications referred to in the specification by their Attorney Docket Number or Application Serial Number, if any . The status of the parent application(s) and/or any other application(s) cross-referenced to this application, if any , should be updated in a timely manner. 3. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because: The abstract is not presented in a single paragraph format. 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 § 102(a)(1) 4 . 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. Claim(s) 1 , 2, 4 , 10 -12, & 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Rao et al. ( U S 5,365,010), hereinafter “Rao et al. ‘010”. The claimed invention relates to a method of preparing aluminum oxide comprising calcining a spent Claus catalyst, which comprises at least 75% alumina compounds. Rao et al. ’010 discloses a process for regenerating an alkylation catalyst component, which component comprises transition alumina , which has been contacted with a strong Lewis acid to produce an alkylation catalyst component containing between 0.5% and 30% by weight of Lewis acid and has been partially deactivated . The process comprises contacting the alkylation catalyst component with an oxygen-containing gas and maintaining a gas outlet temperature between 350 o and 800 o C to regenerate the alkylation catalyst component comprising transition alumina. See col. 12, claim 1. The transition alumina is selected from a group including gamma-alumina (which is ϒ-aluminum oxide) (col. 12, claims 2 & 3). Regarding claim 1 , Rao et al. ‘010 appears to teach the claimed method of preparing aluminum oxide from a spent catalyst comprises alumina compounds by calcining (col. 12, claim 1) . The alkylation catalyst component contains between 0.5% and 30% by weight of Lewis acid, which means that the remainder amount is the transition alumina, which is present in 95.5% to 70% by weight. Thus, the disclosed range encompassed the claimed range of “at least 75% alumina compounds”. Regarding claim 11 & 20, Rao et al. ‘010 teaches the claimed method preparing aluminum oxide from a mixture of alumina compounds, which comprises boehmite, ϒ-aluminum oxide, corundum, and gibbsite by calcining (col. 12, claim 1). The reference discloses the activated aluminas and aluminum hydroxides are used in various processes as catalyst and adsorbents. Suitable aluminas include gamma, delta, eta, theta, chi, karppa, rho, or lambda. Aluminum hydroxides (boehmite, gibbsite, etc.) may be present in the predominately transition phase product (col. 7, lines 5-28). According to the instant specification [0011], spent Claus catalyst is “an activated alumina” and the transition alumina used by the Rao et al. 010 appears meet ing the claim limitation. Regarding claim s 2 & 12 , the reference teaches heating the alkylation catalyst component to a temperature between 350 o C and 800 o C (col. 12, claim 1), which meets the claimed temperature limitation of “at least 450 o C”. Regarding claim 4, the alkylation catalyst component disclosed comprises transition alumina, which can include gamma-alumina (which is ϒ-aluminum oxide) (col. 12, claims 2 & 3). Regarding the claim feature on “the method provides at least 65% yield of the aluminum oxide” in claim s 10 & 19 , it is considered the method disclosed by Rao et al. ‘ ’ 010 would also produce the same % yield of the aluminum oxide as well and is inherently met by the Rao et al. ‘010 reference in view of the same method disclosed and claimed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 5 . 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. Claim(s) 3 & 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao et al. (IS 5,365,010), hereinafter “Rao et al. ‘010” . Rao et al. ‘010 discloses a process for regenerating an alkylation catalyst component as discussed in the precedent paragraph, except for “ the calcining is carried out for a time b etween about 1 minute and about 20 minutes”. It is consider ed obvious for a skilled person in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the calcining time in the process of Rao et al. ‘010 effective for heat treating of the alkylation catalyst component disclosed because the calcining time depends on the calcining temperature. That is, w hen calcining at a higher temperature , it requires less time to calcine the product. See also, In re Boesch . Allowable Subject Matter 6 . Claims 5 -9 & 14-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Rao et al. (US 5,365,010) discloses the claimed method for preparing aluminum oxide comprising calcining a spent Claus catalyst, wherein the catalyst comprises at least 75% alumina compounds (col. 12, claim 1). However, Rao et al. ‘010 does not teach that the disclosed catalyst comprises boehmite, ϒ-aluminum oxide, corundum, and gibbsite (as recited in claims 9 & 18) and the alumina compounds contained in the disclosed catalyst at the claimed amounts are not taught by the reference (as recited in claims 5-8 & 14-17). There would be no motivation to combine the teachings of the prior art references together to arrive to the claimed invention. Citations 7 . The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. All references are cited for related art. See PTO-892 Form prepared. Conclusion 8 . Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-4, 10-13, & 19-20 are rejected. Claims 5-9 & 14-18 are objected. No c laims are allowed. Contacts 9 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Primary Examiner FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CAM N. NGUYEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1357 . The examiner can normally be reached on M-F ( 8 :30 am – 5:00 pm) at alternative worksite or at cam.nguyen@uspto.gov . 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, Anthony Zimmer, can be reached at 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /Cam N. Nguyen/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736 /CNN/ March 2 3 , 2026