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. Applicants’ Preliminary Amendment, filed on October 9, 2023, has been made of record and entered. In this amendment, claims 3-7, 9, and 11-15 have been amended to eliminate multiple claim dependency. No claims have been canceled or added; claims 1-15 are presently pending in this application. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is not on a separate sheet, and because it is less than 50 words in length. 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) (C) . The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Applicant(s) is also requested to complete the status of any 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. 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. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted steps are those required for the manufacturing of ethylene oxide. Claim 15 , in its present form, recites “use of the catalyst of claim 1, in the manufacture of ethylene oxide”. This claim does not provide any parameters or conditions describing how ethylene oxide is manufactured. See also MPEP 2173.05(q). 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. 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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (U. S. Patent No. 9,856,227, Applicants’ submitted art). Regarding claims 1 and 14 , Zhang et al. teach a catalyst comprising a support and silver deposited thereon, wherein the carrier comprises at least about 95 weight percent α-alumina and less than about 30 parts per million acid-leachable alkali metals by weight, wherein the acid-leachable alkali metals are selected from lithium, sodium, potassium, and mixtures thereof, and wherein the carrier has a surface area ranging from 0.1 to 3.0 m 2 /g, preferably at least about 0.7 m 2 /g. In addition to silver, the catalyst comprises a promoting amount of at least one Group IA metal (e.g., lithium, potassium, sodium, cesium), and may further comprise additional promoters, e.g., rhenium, sulfur and manganese. Zhang et al. further teach that silver is present in the catalyst in amounts ranging from greater than about 15 percent, or greater than about 25 weight percent by weight, based on the weight of the catalyst. See col. 5, line 54 to col. 6, line 6, col. 6, lines 57-63, col. 7, line 53 to col. 8, line 2, and col. 8, lines 47-52 of Zhang et al. Further regarding claim 1 , and also regarding claim 2 , Zhang et al. teach that the catalyst may comprise manganese deposited on the carrier, wherein the manganese is present in amounts of at least 20 ppmw , preferably 80 ppmw to 500 ppmw . See col. 9, lines 20-30 of Zhang et al. Further regarding claim 1 , and also regarding claims 3 , 6 and 11 , Zhang et al. teach embodiments in which the catalyst comprises rhenium in an amount of at least 1 ppmw , or between 10 ppmw to 3000 ppmw (col. 8, lines 56-60), alkali metal, e.g., cesium, in an amount of from 0.005 to 0.5 wt. % (50-5000 ppm Cs), cation promoter, e.g., sodium, sulfur, lithium, in an amount ranging between 10 ppm and 4000 ppm; see col. 9, lines 4-12 of Zhang et al. From these teachings, and the molecular weights of the respective components, the amounts of each component in terms of mmol/kg can be determined. To convert mmol/kg to ppm, multiply the concentration in mmol/kg by the molar mass of the substance in g/mol : Ppm = mmol/kg x g/mol Therefore, mmol/kg = ppm/(g/mol) For cesium: 50-5000 ppm Cs/(132.9055 g/mol Cs) = 0.3762-37.6207 mmol/kg Cs , which encompasses the ranges for “C Cs /Q” in claims 1, 3 and 11 For rhenium: 1-3000 ppm Re/186.207 g/mol Re = 0.00537-16.1111 mmol/kg Re , which encompasses the ranges for “ C Re /Q” in claims 1, 6, and 11 . Further regarding claim 1 , and also regarding claims 4, 5, and 11 , Zhang et al. teach that the catalyst may comprise a cation promoter present in amounts ranging from 10 ppm and 4000 ppm; see col. 9, lines 7-12 of Zhang et al. By selecting sodium and lithium as exemplary promoters, and their respective molecular weights, the amounts of each component in terms of mmol/kg can be determined : For sodium: 10-4000 ppm/22.9898 g/mol Na = 0.43497-173.990 mmol/kg Na , which encompasses the ranges for “ C Na /Q” in claims 1, 5, and 11 For lithium: 10-4000 ppm/6.941 g/mol Li = 1.4407-576.2858 mmol/kg Li , which encompasses the ranges for “ C Li /Q” in claims 1, 4, and 11 . Further regarding claim 1 , Zhang et al. teach exemplary catalysts comprising the aforementioned components and sulfur (as SO 4 ), wherein sulfur (SO 4 ) is present in amounts of 55 and 219 ppm, respectively. See Table 2 of Zhang et al.; Catalysts 4 and 5. From these amounts, and the molecular weight of SO 4 (64.06 g/mol), the amount of SO 4 in terms of mmol/kg can be determined: 55 ppm SO 4 / 96 .06 g/mol SO 4 = 0. 5725 mmol/kg 219 ppm SO4/96.06 g/mol SO 4 = 2.2798 mmol/kg , both of which fall within the range of “C S /Q is in a range of from 0.3 to 3.2 mmol/kg catalyst” in claim 1 . Further regarding claim 1 , and also regarding claims 7-11 , the aforementioned amounts in mmol/kg for Cs, Na, S, Re, and Li obtained from the teachings in Zhang et al. can be employed to determine the values for F1/Q and F2/Q in Applicants claims. Using Catalyst 4 in Zhang et al., for example: 446 ppm Re/186.207 g/mol Re = 2.3952 mmol/kg Re 384 ppm Cs/132.9055 g/mol Cs = 2.8893 mmol/kg Cs 36 ppm Na/22.9898 g/mol Na = 1.5659 mmol/kg Na 29 ppm Li/6.941 g/mol Li = 4.1781 mmol/kg Li 55 ppm SO4/96.06 g/mol SO4 = 0.5725 mmol/kg SO 4 F1 = C Cs + 0.032 C Li + 0.47 C Na - (0.72 C s + 0.94 C Re ) F2 = C Cs - 0.24 C Li - 0.27 C Na + 0.3 C s F1 = 2.8893 + (0.032 x 4.1781) + (0.47 x 1.5659) - (0.72 x 0.5725) + (0.94 x 2.3952) = 1.095284 (which falls within the range respectively recited in claim 1 ), and F2 = 2.8893 - (0.24 x 4.1781) - (0.27 x 1.5659) + (0.3 x 0.5725) = 1.635513 (which falls within the ranges respectively recited in claims 1 and 9-11 ). And, by using Catalyst 5 in Zhang et al.: 387 ppm Cs/132.9055 g/mol Cs = 2.9118 mmol/kg Cs 37 ppm Na/22.9898 g/mol Na = 1.609 mmol/kg Na 29 ppm Li/6.941 g/mol Li = 4.1781 mmol/kg Li 219 ppm SO 4 /96.06 g/mol SO 4 = 2.2798 mmol/kg SO 4 F1 = 2.9118 + (0.032 x 4.1781) + (0.47 x 1.609) - (0.72 x 2.2798) + (0.94 x 0) = 2.160273 (which falls within the ranges respectively recited in claims 1 , 7, 8, and 11 ), and F2 = 2.9118 - (0.24 x 4.1781) - (0.27 x 1.609) + (0.3 x 2.2798) = 2.158566 (which falls within the ranges respectively recited in claims 1 and 11 ). Regarding claims 12 and 13 , Zhang et al. teach that the aforementioned catalyst can be prepared by impregnating the carrier with a solution of silver, and roasting the impregnated carrier by spreading it out in a single layer on a stainless steel belt, and transporting it through a heating zone for 2.5 minutes, wherein the heating zone is maintained at 500°C, followed by bringing the carrier to room temperature. The resulting carrier is impregnated with a second silver impregnation solution, which includes one or more of manganese, rhenium, sodium, cesium, lithium, sulfate, and potassium. Following the second impregnation, the impregnated carrier is drained of excess solution and roasted as described previously. See col. 16, lines 14-30 of Zhang et al. Regarding claim 15 , Zhang et al. teach that the aforementioned catalyst can be employed in the preparation of ethylene oxide. See col. 9, line 39 to col 11, line 36 of Zhang et al. As shown above, the teachings of Zhang et al. read upon the limitations of Applicants’ claims such that, for example, the carrier disclosed in Zhang et al., by comprising at least about 95 weight percent α-alumina and less than about 30 parts per million acid-leachable alkali metals by weight falls within the claim limitation “greater than about 80 weight percent alpha-alumina and less than about 30 parts per million acid-leachable alkali metals by weight” (as recited in claim 1 ). Additionally, the aforementioned teachings of Zhang et al., regarding, for example, the amounts of the components calculated in mmol/kg, and their employment to determine the values F1 and F2 in Applicants’ claims, either encompass or fall within that respectively recited in Applicants’ claims. However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have considered the invention to have been obvious because the compositional proportions taught by Zhang et al. encompass the instantly claimed proportions and therefore are considered to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select any portion of the disclosed ranges including the instantly claimed ranges from the ranges disclosed in the prior art reference, particularly in view of the fact that; “The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages”, In re Peterson 65 USPQ2d 1379 (CAFC 2003). Also, In re Geisler 43 USPQ2d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff , 16 USPQ2d 1934 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari , 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974) and MPEP 2144.05. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following cited references of record provide technological background in the art of catalysts and their employment in the production of ethylene oxide: Matusz et al. (U. S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0001277); Mazanec et al. WO 2010/009021). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT PATRICIA L HAILEY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1369 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday, 7 a.m. to 3:30 p.m . 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 Ching-Yiu (Coris) Fung, can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5713 . 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. /Patricia L. Hailey/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1732 March 9, 2026