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. 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. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Claims 1, 4, 8, 14, 20-21, 28, 31, 34, 36, 39, 41, 43,-44, 47 and 50 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-12, and 19 of co-pending application 19/316, 177. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Co-pending application 19/316, 377 teaches a process for producing a biocarbon (biomedia) composition It reads on the instant claims. This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented. Claims 1, 4, 8, 14, 20-21, 28, 31, 34, 36, 39, 41, 43,-44, 47 and 50 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 -24 of US 11,753, 698 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. US 11, 753, 698 teaches a process for producing a carbon-metalore pellets (biomedia) composition It reads on the instant claims. Claims 1, 4, 8, 14, 20-21, 28, 31, 34, 36, 39, 41, 43,-44, 47 and 50 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1- 61 of US 12, 570, 904 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. US 12,570, 904 teaches a process for producing a biocarbon (biomedia) composition It reads on the instant claims. Claims 1, 4, 8, 14, 20-21, 28, 31, 34, 36, 39, 41, 43,-44, 47 and 50 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1- 4 of US 11, 932, 814 B2. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. US 1 1, 932, 814 teaches a process for producing a biocarbon (biomedia) composition It reads on the instant claims. 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 1, 4, 8, 14, 20-21, 28, 31, 34, 36, 39, 41, 43,-44, 47 and 50 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. The term " mildly pyrolyzing " in claim 1 is a relative term which render s the claim indefinite. The term " mildly pyrolyzing " 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. Appropriated corrections are required. The term " intermediate biocarbon stream " in claim 1 is unclear which render s the claim indefinite. The term " intermediate " 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. Appropriated corrections and clarification are required. The term of “additive” cited in optionally step (C) claim 1 is unclear and confused which renders the claim indefinite. Do the limitations of “an acid, a base, a salt, a metal, H 2 , H 2 O, CO and CO 2 ” cited in optionally step (C) claim 1 consider as additives? Appropriated corrections and clarification are required. The limitation of “ad just acidity ” cited in optionally step (C) claim 1 is unclear and confused . What would be the target acidity value expected? Can the compounds of “metal, H 2 , H 2 O, CO and CO 2 ” adjust the acidity? Appropriated corrections and clarification are required. Should the term of “a biomedia” recited in claim 1 line 12 be read as “the biomedia”? Appropriated corrections and clarifications are required. Since the steps (c) recited in claim 1 is an optionally step, is the claimed intermediate biocarbon the claimed biomedia composition? Appropriated corrections and clarifications are required. All other claims depend directly or indirectly from the rejected claims and are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) for the reasons set forth above. Should the limitation of “ wherein the biomedia composition is treated …” recited in claim 4 be read as “ wherein the biomedia composition is further treated …” (emphasis added)? Appropriated corrections are required. The limitations of “ the biomedia composition comprises phosphorus, potassium, sulfur, or a combination thereof ” recited in claim 20 is unclear and confused which render s the claim indefinite. The precede steps do not introduce the claimed elements of phosphorus, potassium, sulfur . Appropriated corrections and clarifications are required. The limitations of “ the biomedia composition contains less than 1 ppm mercury ” recited in claim 21 is unclear and confused which render s the claim indefinite. The precede steps do not introduce the claimed elements of mercury. Appropriated corrections and clarifications are required. The formula recited in claim s 39, 41 and 43-44 are unclear and confused which render s the claim indefinite. The precede steps do not introduce the claimed compounds such as Fe2O3, CaO, MgO, etc. . Appropriated corrections and clarifications are required. C laims 41 and 44 depend from the rejected claims and are, therefore, also rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) for the reasons set forth above. 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. Claims 1, 4, 8, 14, 20-21, 28, 31, 34, 36, 39, 41, 43-44, 47 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DESPEN (WO 2012/142486 A2 ). Regarding claim 1, DESPEN teaches a process for the production of high-carbon biogenic reagents, compositions and products from a biomass feedstock comprising providing a starting feedstock containing biomass ([010], pyrolyzing the feedstock to generate an intermediate biocarbon stream and a pyrolysis vapor ([0068], [0124], [00211]-[00212], [00218], [00241]-[00242], [00329], [00331], [0333], and [0364]), introducing at least one additive selected from acids, bases or salt thereof ([0026]), recovering a high-carbon biogenic reagent comprising at least a portion of the warm or cool pyrolyzed solids (the instant claimed biomedia composition) having about 10 wt% or less hydrogen, such as about 5 wt% or less hydrogen on a dry basis. In some embodiments, the reagent comprises about 20 wt% oxygen on a dry basis. In some embodiments, the high-carbon biogenic reagent comprises about 1 wt% or less nitrogen, such as about 0.5 wt% or less nitrogen on a dry basis. In some embodiments, the reagent comprising about 0.5 wt% or less phosphorus, such as about 0.2 wt% or less phosphorus on a dry basis. In some embodiments, the high-carbon biogenic reagent comprising about 0.2 wt% or less sulfur, such as about 0.1 wt% or less sulfur on a dry basis , I n some embodiments, the high-carbon biogenic reagent comprises about 10 wt% or less non-combustible matter (e.g., ash ) on a dry basis ([0085]-[0086]) . Moisture bay be absent ([0096]). Ash may be measured using ASTM D 3174 ([00369]). In some embodiments, the reagent comprises at least about 55 wt.%, for example at least 55 wt.%, at least 60 wt.%, at least 65 wt.%, at least 70 wt%, at least 75 wt.%, at least 80 wt%, at least 85 wt.%, at least 90 wt%, or at least 95 wt% total carbon on a dry basis. The total carbon includes at least fixed carbon, and may further include carbon from volatile matter. In some embodiments, carbon from volatile matter is about at least 5%, at least 10%, at least 25%, or at least 50% of the total carbon present in the high-carbon biogenic reagent. Fixed carbon may be measured using ASTM D3172, while volatile carbon may be estimated using ASTM D3175, for example. ([0355]). Carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen may be measured using ASTM D5373 for ultimate analysis, for example. Oxygen may be estimated using ASTM D3176, for example. Sulfur may be measured using ASTM D3177 ([00357]). In some embodiments of the high-carbon biogenic reagent, the majority of the carbon is classified as renewable carbon. Substantially all of the carbon contained within certain high-carbon biogenic reagents may be classified as renewable carbon ([00100]). Although DESPEN does not septically teach or suggest the total carbon is at least 50% renewable according to the ASTM D6866 measurement of the 14 C/ 12 C isotopic ratio of the total carbon as per applicant claim 1 , the reference of DESPEN teach all of the claimed reagents, composition and method of making a biomedia composition, the physical properties of the resulting composition (i.e., the total carbon is at least 50% renewable according to the ASTM D6866 measurement of the 14 C/ 12 C isotopic ratio of the total carbon , etc.) would necessarily follow as set forth in MPEP 2112.01(II). [1] Although there is no disclosure that the test method is conformity with according to an ASTM D6866 measurement of the 14 C/ 12 C isotopic ratio of the total carbon , given that the DESPEN discloses total carbon at least 50% renewable as the presently claimed and absent evidence criticality how the at least 50% renewable is measured, it is an examiner's position that total carbon at least 50% renewable disclosed by DESPEN to meet the claim limitation. Regarding claim 4, the process taught by DESPEN includes reducing particle size such as pulverizes, jet mills, etc. ([00272]). Regarding claim 8 , the process taught by DESPEN includes adjust oxygen via blown air (optionally with oxygen enrichment) into the bottom of the chamber, so that the chemical reactions take place throughout the furnace as the material moves downward as the instant claim ([00387]). Regarding claim 14, the process taught by DESPEN includes at least 80 wt%, at least 85 wt.%, at least 90 wt%, or at least 95 wt% total carbon on a dry basis. The total carbon includes at least fixed carbon, and may further include carbon from volatile matter. In some embodiments, carbon from volatile matter is about at least 5%, at least 10%, at least 25%, or at least 50% of the total carbon present in the high-carbon biogenic reagent. Fixed carbon may be measured using ASTM D3172, while volatile carbon may be estimated using ASTM D3175, for example. ([0355]). Although DESPEN does not septically teach or suggest the total carbon is at least 50% renewable according to the ASTM D6866 measurement of the 14 C/ 12 C isotopic ratio of the total carbon as per applicant claim 1 4 , the reference of DESPEN teach all of the claimed reagents, composition and method of making a biomedia composition, the physical properties of the resulting composition (i.e., total carbon at least 50% ASTM D6866 measurement of the 14 C/ 12 C isotopic ratio of the total carbon, etc.) would necessarily follow as set forth in MPEP 2112.01(II) . Although there is no disclosure that the test method is conformity with according to an ASTM D6866 measurement of the 14 C/ 12 C isotopic ratio of the total carbon , given that the DESPEN discloses total carbon at least 50% renewable as the presently claimed and absent evidence criticality how the at least 50% renewable is measured, it is an examiner's position that total carbon at least 50% renewable disclosed by DESPEN to meet the claim limitation. Regarding claim 20 , the biocarbon composition taught by DESPEN includes phosphorus and sulfur as the instant claim ([0085]-[0092]). Regarding claim 2 1 , although DESPEN does not specifically disclose the mercury <1 ppm as per claim 21 , i t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to reduce the level s of mercury <1 ppm to obtain the invention as specified in the claim 2 1, motivated by the fact that the goal of reducing mercury levels to <1 ppm is part of a broader effort to protect public health and the environment from the harmful effects of mercury exposure. The reduction of mercury levels to <1 ppm is a significant step towards achieving a healthier environment and reducing the risk of mercury-related health issues. Regarding claim 28 , the dried wood taught by DESPEN i s considered as hydrophobic as the instant claim ([00451]). Regarding claim 31 , the biocarbon composition taught by DESPEN includes fine particles as the instant claim ([00419]). Regarding claim 34, as discussed above, the process taught by DESPEN includes the addition of an acid and a base ([0026]). Although DESPEN does not specifically disclose the pH value from about 4 to about 8 as per applicant claim 34 , the pH value of the resulting biocarbon composition is considered as a result-effective variable. A particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977) . Regarding claims 36, 39, 41, 43-44 and 47 , although DESPEN does not specifically disclose the physical properties such as cationic exchange capacity from about 50 to about 200 meg/100g, base-acid ratio bout 0.5 to about 10, expanded base-acid ratio about 0.5 to about 8 , and biologically sterile, biodegradable or compostable as per applicant claims 36, 39, 41, 43-44 and 47 , the reference of DESPEN teach es all of the claimed reagents, composition and method of making a biocarbon composition, the physical properties of the resulting composition (i.e., cationic exchange capacity from about 50 to about 200 meg/100g, base-acid ratio bout 0.5 to about 10, expanded base-acid ratio about 0.5 to about 8 , and biologically sterile, biodegradable or compostable ) would necessarily follow as set forth in MPEP 2112.01(II). Regarding claim 50 , as discussed above, the process taught by DESPEN includes continuous or semi-continuous process as the instant claim ([0021]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT YUN QIAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5834 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday 10:00am-4:00pm . 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 Sally A Merkling can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-6297 . 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. /YUN QIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738