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. Claim Status Claims 1-25 , as filed November 20, 2023, are currently pending. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “SOD”, “LTA”, “FAU” and “emt” are included as reference characters in Figure 1, with lead lines to items within the figure. These do not appear in the specification. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Additionally, as provided in 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1) and 1.84(l), all figures are required to be in black ink and a ll drawings must be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. Figures 1 through 3 each include text and lines which appear to be in a color other than black and have less than satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: The use of the term CBV-720, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term . The use of the term CBV-760, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term . The use of the term P123, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term . The use of the term F127, which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term . Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claims 1 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “Reacting” in line 2 ; this term is unnecessarily capitalized and should be lowercase . Claim 17 recites “CTAB. P123, or F127.” in lines 1-2. A comma should be used after “CTAB” rather than a period. Appropriate correction is required. 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 6, 7, 15, 17, and 23 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 . Claim 6 contains the trademark/trade name CBV-720. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson , 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a type of zeolite and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Claim 7 contains the trademark/trade name CBV-760. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson , 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a type of zeolite and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Claim 15 recites the limitation "the suspension" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, t he term “ slowly ” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ slowly ” 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. . Claim 17 contains the trademark/trade name P123 and F127. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson , 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe types of surface-directing agents and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Claim Interpretation The instant specification includes several defined terms at pages 8-9 (e.g., calcination, structure-directing agent, zeolite, etc.). The claims have been interpreted in view of these definitions. 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. Claims 1, 5 , 8, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20 , 21 , and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Agúndez Rodríguez et al. (WO 2004/014798 ; citations from machine translation ) (“Agúndez Rodríguez”). Regarding claim 1 , Ag ú ndez Rodr í guez discloses a process of preparing an amorphous silica-alumina (abstract; pg. 3, Description of the Invention, para. 1). The process includes the steps of r eacting a zeolite with an oxidizing agent in a first solvent to form a first product (pg. 3 -4 , Description of the Invention, paras. 2- 3; pg. 4, para. 1-2 ; solution A) and reacting a structure-directing agent with the first product to form a second product ( pg. 3-4, Description of the Invention, paras. 2-3; pg. 4, para s . 1 -4 ; solution A reacts with solution B to form a gel). The reference further discloses a step of calcining the second product resulting in the amorphous silica-alumina (pg. 4 -5 , paras. 3-5) . Regarding claim 5 , Agúndez Rodríguez further discloses that the zeolite is zeolite Y ( pg. 3-4, Description of the Invention, paras. 2-3; pg. 4, para. 1-2 ; solution A contains a faujasite zeolite having the formula represented in para. 3; see also pg. 8 , reference claim 5, which defines the same formula with the ratio of silica to alumina between 2 and 10, suggesting a high-silica type faujasite zeolite, also known as Zeolite Y) . Regarding claim s 8 and 9 , Agúndez Rodríguez further discloses that the oxidizing agent is a sodium hydroxide (pg. 3 -4 , Description of the Invention, para. 3) . Regarding claim 11 , Agúndez Rodríguez further discloses that the reacting the zeolite with the oxidizing agent in a first solvent comprises heating the reaction while agitating the reaction (pg. 3-4, Description of the Invention, para. 3 ; pg. 4, para. 1 , first solvent is water [aqueous solution described], mixture is heated; pg. 6, Example 1, para s . 2 -3 , describes stirring while heating the mixture corresponding to “solution A”). Regarding claim 13 , Agúndez Rodríguez further discloses that the oxidizing agent is dissolved in the first solvent, and wherein the first solvent is water (pg. 3-4, Description of the Invention, para. 3 ; pg. 4, para. 1 , first solvent is water [aqueous solution described]). Regarding claim 14 , Agúndez Rodríguez further discloses that the structure-directing agent is suspended in a second solvent (pg. 4, para s . 1 -2 ; cationic surfactant is dissolved in water) . Regarding claim 16 , Agúndez Rodríguez further discloses that the second solvent is water (pg. 4, para s . 1 -2 ; cationic surfactant is dissolved in water). Regarding claim 17 , Agúndez Rodríguez further discloses that the structure-directing agent is may be cetyltrimethylammonium bromide ( CTAB ) (pg. 6 , Example 1, para. 3). Regarding claim s 20 and 21 , Agúndez Rodríguez further discloses a step of collecting the second product through filtering (pg. 4, para. 4 ; collected by filtering) . Regarding claim 24 , Agúndez Rodríguez discloses that the calcining of the second product may comprise at least one stage of heating at 550 °C for 6 hours (pg. 6, Example 1; para s . 1 -5 ). 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 2-4 , 10, 12, 15, 18, 22, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agúndez Rodríguez et al. (WO 2004/014798 ; citations from machine translation ) (“Agúndez Rodríguez”), as applied to the claims above. Regarding claim 2 , Agúndez Rodríguez discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Although the reference does not explicitly state that the amorphous silica-alumina has a surface area of at least 900 m 2 /g , the reference does teach that the BET surface area is in the range of 300 m 2 /g to 1400 m 2 /g (pg. 5, para. 5; item 3 ) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (C . C . P . A . 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . See also MPEP § 2144.05. Regarding claim 3 , Agúndez Rodríguez discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Although the reference does not explicitly state that the amorphous silica-alumina has a pore volume of at least 0.9 ml/g , the reference does disclose that the pore volume is between 0.2 cm 3 /g and 2.0 cm 3 /g (pg. 5, para. 4; item 2 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (C . C . P . A . 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . See also MPEP § 2144.05. Regarding claim 4 , Agúndez Rodríguez discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Although the reference does not explicitly state that the amorphous silica-alumina has pore sizes of at least about 4 nm , the reference does teach that the average pore diameter is between 1.0 nm and 15.0 nm (pg. 5, para . 3; item 1 ) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (C . C . P . A . 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . See also MPEP § 2144.05. Regarding claim 10 , Agúndez Rodríguez discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Although the reference does not explicitly state that the oxidizing agent to zeolite weight ratio is about 0.2 to about 2 , the reference does suggest that the molar ratio of the sodium source to the alumina source may be 0.001 to 0.2 (pg. 3 -4 , Description of the Invention, para . 3). A s the dissolution of the precursor materials in the solution is a variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the oxidizing agent to zeolite weight ratio , the precise weight ratio would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed oxidizing agent to zeolite weight ratio cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the oxidizing agent to zeolite weight ratio in the process of Agúndez Rodríguez to obtain the desired dissolution of the starting materials to form solution A ( In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (C . C . P . A . 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (C . C . P . A . 1955 ). Regarding claim 12 , Agúndez Rodríguez discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. Agúndez Rodríguez further discloses that the heating the reaction while agitating the reaction comprises heating to between about 60 º C to about 110 º C and stirring the reaction between about 1 to 48 hours . (pg. 3-4, Description of the Invention, para. 3 ; pg. 4, para. 1; first solvent is water [aqueous solution described], mixture is heated; pg. 4, para. 2 ; pg. 6, Example 1, para s . 2 -3 , describes stirring while heating the mixture corresponding to “solution A”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (C . C . P . A . 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . See also MPEP § 2144.05. Regarding claim 15 , Agúndez Rodríguez discloses that the suspension is added to the first product suspended in the first solvent for between about 1 hour and 48 hours (pg. 4, paras. 1- 4 ; pg. 6, Example 1, paras. 2- 4 ) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (C . C . P . A . 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . See also MPEP § 2144.05. Although the reference does not explicitly disclose that the mixture of the solution A and B is agitated during this time period, the reference discloses that stirring is used in the prior step (pg. 6 , Example 1, para. 3 ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to agitate or stir the aqueous surfactant solution of into the precursor zeolite solution in the process of Agúndez Rodríguez since doing so will ensure even distribution of the surfactant with the zeolite solution to form a solid product to be filtered. Regarding claim 18 , Agúndez Rodríguez discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. While the reference does not explicitly disclose that the first solvent to zeolite weight ratio is about 20 to about 60 , the reference does suggest that the amount of moles of water for each mole of alumina forming the fauj a site zeolite is from 50 and 5000 (pg. 4, para. 1) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (C . C . P . A . 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . See also MPEP § 2144.05. Alternatively, a s the porosity and surface area of the amorphous silica-alumina are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the first solvent to zeolite weight ratio , the precise weight ratio would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed first solvent to zeolite weight ratio cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the first solvent to zeolite weight ratio in the process of Agúndez Rodríguez to obtain the desired structural properties of the amorphous silica-alumina product ( In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (C . C . P . A . 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (C . C . P . A . 1955 ). Regarding claim s 22 and 23 , Agúndez Rodríguez discloses all of the limitations set forth above. Additionally, while the reference discloses that the second product is dried (pg. 4, para. 4 ), the reference does not teach the specific conditions used for drying, such as the product being dried at between about 60 º C to about 140°C for between about 10 to about 40 hours , or at about 100°C to about 150°C for between about 4 to about 24 hours . A s the level of moisture in the solid product obtained, prior to calcination, is a variable that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the temperature and drying time, the precise conditions of the drying step would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed dying conditions (temperature and time) cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the drying temperature and timing in the method of Agúndez Rodríguez to obtain the desired level of moisture in the solid product prior to the calcination step ( In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (C . C . P . A . 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (C . C . P . A . 1955 ). Regarding claim 25 , Agúndez Rodríguez discloses all of the limitations as set forth above. While the reference does not explicitly disclose that the structure-directing agent to zeolite weight ratio is about 0.5 to about 3 , the reference does teach that the molar ratio of silica in the zeolite precursor solution and the surfactant should be between about 0.1 and 15, preferably between about 0.5 and 5 (pg. 4, paras. 1- 3 ) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because selection of overlapping portion of ranges has been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (C . C . P . A . 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . See also MPEP § 2144.05. Alternatively, a s the porosity and surface area of the amorphous silica-alumina are variables that can be modified, among others, by adjusting the structure-directing agent to zeolite weight ratio , the precise weight ratio would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. As such, without showing unexpected results, the claimed structure-directing agent to zeolite weight ratio cannot be considered critical. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have optimized, by routine experimentation, the structure-directing agent to zeolite weight ratio in the process of Agúndez Rodríguez to obtain the desired structural properties of the amorphous silica-alumina product ( In re Boesch, 617 F.2d. 272, 205 USPQ 215 (C . C . P . A . 1980)), since it has been held that where the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. See In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 105 USPQ 233 (C . C . P . A . 1955 ). Claims 6 , 7 , and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agúndez Rodríguez et al. (WO 2004/014798; citations from machine translation) (“Agúndez Rodríguez”), as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Yokoi et al. (JP 2018087105; citations from machine translation) (“Yokoi”). Regarding claims 6 and 7 , Agúndez Rodríguez discloses all of the limitations set forth above. While the reference teaches that the zeolite is zeolite Y (a high-silica type zeolite) (pg. 3 -4 , Description of the Invention, paras. 2- 3; pg. 4, para. 1 ; solution A contains a faujasite zeolite having the formula represented in para. 3; see also pg. 7, reference claim 5, which defines the same formula with the ratio of silica to alumina between 2 and 10, suggesting a high-silica type faujasite zeolite, also known as Zeolite Y), the reference does not suggest that CBV-720 or CBV-760 may be used as the source of silica and alumina. Yokoi discloses a method of forming a zeolite material which may be used as a catalyst (abstract; pg. 1, Technical field). The reference teaches that a zeolite material, such as CBV-720 or CBV-760, may be combined with sodium hydroxide and a structure-directing agent to form a precursor material (pg. 2 1 , Preparation Example 1, Examples 1 and 2). This material is then filtered, washed, and dried (pg. 2 1 , Preparation Example 1, Examples 1 and 2) before being calcined (pg. 2 3-24 , Example 7). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to choose a source of alumina and silica for the process of Agúndez Rodríguez which is a Y-type zeolite having a large proportion of silica, such as CBV-720 or CBV-760, as suggested by Yokoi, since Yokoi suggests that these commercially available materials may successfully be used in catalyst synthesis processes which combine the zeolite with sodium hydroxide and a structure-directing agent (surfactant), followed by calcination. Regarding claim 19 , Agúndez Rodríguez discloses all of the limitations set forth above. While Agúndez Rodríguez discloses that the second product (combination of zeolite precursor solution and surfactant) is heated between about 100º C to about 1 8 0 º C for between about 1 hour to about 4 8 hours (pg. 4, paras. 1- 4 ; pg. 6, Example 1, paras. 2- 4 ), the reference does not disclose that this occurs above atmospheric pressure . Yokoi discloses a method of forming a zeolite material which may be used as a catalyst (abstract; pg. 1, Technical field). The reference teaches that a zeolite material, such as CBV-720 or CBV-760, may be combined with sodium hydroxide and a structure-directing agent to form a precursor material (pg. 2 1 , Preparation Example 1, Examples 1 and 2). This material is then filtered, washed, and dried (pg. 2 1 , Preparation Example 1, Examples 1 and 2) before being calcined (pg. 2 3-24 , Example 7). Yokoi discloses that the mixture of sodium hydroxide, zeolite and structure-directing agent (surfactant) may be subjected to a thermal treatment between about 120º C to 200º C for a period of about 1 hour to about 7 days (pg. 13 -14 , Hydrothermal synthesis process ). Yokoi teaches that the pressure during this reaction step is not particularly limited and that the self-generated pressure in a sealed container as it is heated may be sufficient or the reaction may be pressurized ( pg. 13-14, Hydrothermal synthesis process ; pg. 14, para. 1 ). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to pressurize the thermal treatment stage of the reaction between the zeolite precursor solution and surfactant of Agúndez Rodríguez , as suggested by Yokoi, since doing so amount to nothing more than the selection of a known pressure condition for a known process to form a known silica-alumina material. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) . See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) (selection of a known plastic to make a container of a type made of plastics prior to the invention was held to be obvious); Ryco, Inc. v. Ag-Bag Corp., 857 F.2d 1418, 8 USPQ2d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 1988) . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Siclovan et al. (U.S. Pat. Publ’n No. 2012/0329644) discloses methods for forming catalyst compositions from zeolite using templating agents. The reference further teaches that the type and amount of solvent used in such processes may affect control of porosity of the final product ([0049]). Similar teachings are also found in Baccile (WO 2009/081000). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KATHERINE M ZALASKY MCDONALD whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7064 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 9:00 AM to 5:30 PM . 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 JACOB BETIT can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-4075 . 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. /KATHERINE ZALASKY MCDONALD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 6221