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. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy of Application No. FILLIN "Insert series code and serial no. of parent." CN202110326967.9 , filed on FILLIN "Enter the date filing of the parent application." 03/26/2021 has been received . Information Disclosure Statement The listing of references in the PCT international search report is not considered to be an information disclosure statement (IDS) complying with 37 C FR 1.98. 37 C FR 1.98(a)(2) requires a legible copy of: (1) each foreign patent; (2) each publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; (3) for each cited pending U.S. application, the application specification including claims, and any drawing of the application, or that portion of the application which caused it to be listed including any claims directed to that portion, unless the cited pending U.S. application is stored in the Image File Wrapper (IFW) system; and (4) all other information, or that portion which caused it to be listed. In addition, each IDS must include a list of all patents, publications, applications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office (see 37 C FR 1.98(a)(1) and (b)), and MPEP § 609.04(a), subsection I. states, “the list ... must be submitted on a separate paper.” Therefore, the references cited in the international search report have not been considered. Applicant is advised that the date of submission of any item of information in the international search report will be the date of submission of the IDS for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements for the IDS with 37 CFR 1.97 , including all timing statement requirements of 37 C FR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a). Claim Objections Claim FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 3 is objected to because of the following grammatical informalities: The limitation which reads “said heavy metal-based biomass is prepared by enriching heavy metals in sewage water with an aquatic plant,” may be clarified by rephasing to read as, “said heavy metal-based biomass is prepared by enriching an aquatic plant with heavy metals in sewage water.” 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. Claim FILLIN "Enter claim indentification information" \* MERGEFORMAT s 2-9 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. C laim FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 2 recites the broad recitation , FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT " said aquatic plant includes any one or more of emergent plants, floating leaf plants, submerged plants, floating plants," , and the claim also recites , FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT "preferably submerged plants, such as bitter grass, hydrocharis dubia , potamogeton malaianus , more preferably hydrocharis dubia ," which are narrower statement s of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). For examination purposes the narrower limitations are not considered part of the claimed invention. Claim FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 3 recites the limitation " FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT said aquatic plant enriched with heavy metals " in FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT lines 16-17 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 2, which claim 3 does not depend on, recites such a limitation. For s earch and examination purposes, claim 3 has been interpreted as being dependent on claim 2. If applicant does not intend for this dependency, claim 3 should be modified to rectify the lack of antecedent basis via other means. Claim FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 4 recites the limitation " in said sewage water " in line 24 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For s earch and examination purposes, claim 3 has been interpreted as being dependent on claim 2, and claim 4 is further interpreted to include the limitations of claim 2. Claim FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 5 recites the broad recitation, FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT "said silicate-containing composite comprises any one or more of red mud, bentonite, chitosan, peat," , and the claim also recites, FILLIN "Enter appropriate information" \* MERGEFORMAT "preferably red mud and bentonite," which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). For examination purposes the narrower limitations are not considered part of the claimed invention. Claim FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 7 recites the limitation " said heavy metal-based biomass obtained from drying in step 1, " in lines 10-11 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For search and examination purposes, the claim limitation has been interpreted as, “ a dried heavy-metal based biomass obtained from step 1.” Claim 8, the use of the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the recited limitation following the phrase is a part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Claim FILLIN "Enter claim identification information" \* MERGEFORMAT 8 recites the limitation " the mixture of ground-sieved red mud and said heavy metal-based biomass " in lines 14-15 . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim . For s earch and examination purposes, the claim limitation has been interpreted as, “in step 2, a mixture of ground-sieved red mud and said heavy metal-based biomass is added to bentonite containing moisture for stirring.” Claim s 6 and 9 are rejected as depending from a rejected claim. The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical errors. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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. Claim FILLIN "Insert the claim numbers which are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 1 , 5, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramola et al. ( Science of the Total Environment , 2019, 709 , 126171) in view of FILLIN "Insert the prior art relied upon." \d "[ 2 ]" Chinese Patent Publication CN111821946A (published 27 October 2020) . In regard to claim 1 , Ramola et al. teaches a bentonite-biochar composite synthesized via co-pyrolyzing a biomass and bentonite (Abstract, pp. 1 & Section 2.1, pp. 2). Here, bentonite is the silicate-containing composite as it is predominantly comprised of montmorillonite, a phyllosilicate mineral. Ramola et al. does not teach that the biomass used to form the biochar composite is a heavy metal-based biomass, instead employing tobacco waste (Section I, paragraph 5). However, Chinese Patent Publication CN111821946A (herein shortened to CN ‘946A; citations taken from provided English translation) teaches a method of producing a modified biochar using heavy metal-containing plants (paragraph [0002]). CN ‘946A further teaches that the use of heavy metal- contaminated plants as a biomass source for the biochar serves the dual purpose of more effectively decreasing secondary pollution by the contaminated plants (paragraph 0005, lines 4-5) while also generating a useful biochar product ( paragraph [0009]). Fu r thermore, using a heavy metal-contaminated plant source as opposed to cigarette manufacturing waste offers the additional manufacturing benefit of a higher yield of carbon within the biochar. As taught by Ramola et al., the cigarette factory waste employed contain ed a small percentage of tobacco (Section 1, paragraph 5). Therefore, very little carbon structure is retained in the final composi t e . As taught by CN ‘946A, the complex aromatic structure of biochar is often what contributes to its high a b sorption efficiency (paragraph 0006], lines 2-4), and thus one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the importance of carbon content in the biomass used. Thus, i t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time to modify the teachings of Ramola et al. to replace cigare t te production waste with a harvested heavy metal - containing biomass (as taught by CN ‘946A) in order to utilize a key waste stream while also increasing the carbon yield of biochar production process. In regard to claim 5, Ramola et al. teaches that bentonite is used as a silicate-containing component of the biochar composite. In regard to claim 10, the process limitations are noted. However, when the examiner has found the same or substantially similar product as in the applied prior art, the burden of proof is shifted to applicant to establish that their product is patentably distinct and not the examiner to show the same process of making. In re Brown , 173 USPQ 685 and In re Fessmann , 180 USPQ 324. T he combined teachings of Ramola et al. and CN ‘946A result in a heavy metal mediated biochar composite which comprises a heavy metal-based biochar (produced from a heavy metal-containing biomass) and silicate-containing composite (bentonite, as taught by Ramola et al.). Claims FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Ramola et al . and CN '946A as applied to claim FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 3 ]" 1 above, and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Ali et al. ( MDPI Sustainability , 2020, 12 , 1927) . In regard to claim 2, Ramola et al. and CN ‘946A do not teach that the heavy metal-based biomass prepared for use in the composite is an aquatic plant enriched with heavy metals from sewage water. However, Ali et al. teaches that phytoremediation by aquatic plants is a cost-effective solution for the large-scale treatment of heavy metal-containing wastewater streams , such as sewage water (Abstract, lines 4-7 , pp. 1 & Section 5.1, pp. 13 ). Ali et. al. further teaches that submerged plant species potamogeton Crispus and potamogetonpectinatus are well known for their ability to accumulate heavy metals commonly found in sewage water (e.g. Zn, Cu, Ni, Pb, Hg; Section 4,2, pp. 12 & Section 5.1, pp. 13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art to prepare a heavy metal-containing biomass by enriching submerged aquatic plants with heavy metals in sewage water. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a heavy metal-containing aquatic plant from sewage water remediation as the heavy metal-based biomass because of the dual benefit of immobilizing the heavy metals absorbed from the sewage water and providing a cheap, renewable, high-carbon content source of biomass for the production of biochar composites. In regard to claim 3, Ramola et al. teaches that the used cigarette factory waste (the biomass precursor) was dried, ground, and sieved before it was mixed with bentonite and pyrolyzed. Ramola et al. is silent on the conditions used to dry the biomass . However, CN ‘946A teaches that dryness of the heavy metal-based biomass was achieved by oven heating until a constant biomass weight was achieved (paragraph Example 1, paragraph [0036]). The optimal time and temperature for the effective drying of a biomass is dependent on biomass identity, and is within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art. 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 drying temperature and time through process optimization, since it has been held that there the general conditions of a claim 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. In regard to claim 4, Ramola et al. and CN ‘946A do not teach that the biomass used to create the biochar/biochar composite comprises the elements lead, manganese, and zinc. However, as discussed in regards to claim 3, Ali et al. teaches that lead, manganese, and zinc are common heavy metal pollutants in sewage water (Section 5.1, line 2 & lines 8-10, pp. 13). In regards to the concentration of the heavy metal elements in the sewage water used to enrich aquatic plants, the concentration is a result-effective variable. For example, Ramola et al. teaches that there is an optimal concentration of lead in solution to maximize lead absorption by the bentonite-biochar composite (Section 3.3.2.1, pp. 7) with one sample having an optimal solution concentration of 431 mg/L Pb (Section 3.3.3, paragraph 3, pp. 8). In the preparation of the heavy metal-based biomass, it would have been obvious to optimize the concentration of heavy metal elements in the sewage water (by dilution with fresh water or other means) in order to maximize the bioaccumulation of heavy metal elements in the aquatic plants. Therefore, 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 lead, manganese, and zinc concentrations through process optimization, since it has been held that there the general conditions of a claim 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. Claim s 6 - 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Ramola et al. and CN '946A as applied to claim FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 3 ]" 1 above, and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Yoon et al. ( Chemical Engineering Journal , 2019, 361 , pp. 1597-1604) . In regard to claim 6, Ramola et al. teaches using a mixture of 1:0.2 (w/w) biomass and bentonite to form a biochar composite (5:1 w/w; Section 2.1, pp. 2). This ratio is within the instantly claimed ratio range of 1:(0.1-3) biomas s to bentonite. Ramola et al. and CN ‘946A do not disclose a combination of bentonite and red mud as an additive to a heavy metal-based biochar composite. However, Yoon et al. teaches a biochar composite comprising lignin-based biochar and red mud with a 1:1 (w/w) ratio of lignin biomass and red mud , which is within the instantly claimed ratio range of 1:(0.2-5) biomass to red mud . In the biochar composite of Yoon et al., the red mud provides additional ferrous minerals which are a common environmental remediation medium (Section 3.3, paragraph 2, pp. 1602) and valorizes red mud itself, which is a toxic, unused byproduct from aluminum refining (Section 1, paragraph 1, pp. 1598). At a pyrolyzing temperature between 500-700°C, the ferrite contained in red mud is transformed into magnetite, which can impart magnetic qualities to the composite (Section 3.3, paragraph 1, pp. 1601). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time to modify the composition of the biochar composite of Ramola et al. & CN ‘964A by further including red mud as taught by Yoon et al. in order to maximize the benefits of the pH-resi lience of bentonite ( Ramola et al., Section 3.3.2.2, paragraph 1, pp. 7) and the ferr ous minerals of red mud (generation of magnetite and zero-valent iron; Section 3.3, paragraph 1, pp. 1601). In regard to claim 7 , Ramola et al. teaches that prior to co-pyrolysis, the biomass used was dried, ground, and sieved t hrough a 100-size mesh to achieve uniform and minute size particles and then stirred with bentonite (Section 2.1, pp. 2). Yoon et al. teaches that a mixture of a biomass and red mud was mechanically homogenized with an analytical-grade sample of red mud prior to co-pyrolysis (Section 2.1, pp. 1598). Neither Ramola et al. or Yoon et al. teach that the biomass and red mud (or in the case of Ramola et al., the bentonite) are mixed for 2-12 hours, oven dried together at 60-200°C, and ground and sieved through 60-200 mesh. However, from the teachings of Ramola et al. and Yoon et al. it is evident that for best results, the mixture of materials to be pyrolyzed should be dry, of small particle size, and homogenous. Therefore, 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 mixing, oven drying, and grinding/sieving parameters through process optimization, since it has been held that there the general conditions of a claim 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. In regard to claim 8 , it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to mix the heavy-metal containing biomass, red mud, and bentonite together prior to co-pyrolysis to achieve homogenous dispersion of the different materials in the composite . Furthermore, Ramola et al. disclose in a thermogravimetric analysis of the bentonite used for the composite that mass loss which occurred between 100-250°C was due to dehydration of the bentonite (Section 3.2.2, lines 3-5 & Fig. 1, trace (d)). For dehydration to occur, the bentonite must contain moisture. This is consistent with bentonite primarily being composed of the smectite mineral montmorillonite , which harbors water in the cavity between its ordered clay sheets . Claim FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 1 ]" 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FILLIN "Insert the prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 2 ]" Ramola et al., CN '964A, and Yoon et al. as applied to claim FILLIN "Pluralize claim, if necessary, and then insert the claim number(s) which is/are under rejection." \d "[ 3 ]" 6 above, and further in view of FILLIN "Insert the additional prior art reference(s) relied upon for the obviousness rejection." \d "[ 4 ]" Chinese Patent Publication CN111196931A (published 26 May 2020) . In regard to claim 9, Ramola et al., CN ‘946A, and Yoon et al. do not teach a three-stage pyrolyzing method with multiple holding temperatures. However, CN11196931A (herein shortened to CN ‘931A, citations made to provided English translation) teaches a process and apparatus for multitemperature pyrolysis of solid and hazardous waste (paragraph [0009]). Fu rther, CN ‘931A teaches that the stepwise process, with holding temperatures tailored to the pyrolysis temperatures of the constituents of a sample, results in complete pyrolysis of all materials and the reduction of produced combustible gases (paragraph [0009]). The process as taught by CN ‘931A provides an obvious benefit over traditional single-temperature pyrolysis for compositions made up of materials with significantly different pyrolysis temperatures, such as a composition containing biochar (on average pyrolyzes at 200-300°C) and various silicate minerals (pyrolyze at >500°C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time to modify the teachings of Ramola et al. to replace the single holding stage pyrolysis with the multistage pyrolysis process taught by CN ‘931A in order to achieve complete pyrolysis of all components of the final composite and minimize loss of mass to gas conversion. With regard to temperature ramp rates, holding temperatures, and holding times in a multistage pyrolysis process, Ramola et al. teaches that pyrolysis of the biochar-mineral composites was conducted at 300, 500, and 700°C with a hold time of 90°C and a ramp rate of 0.25 °C/ min (Section 2.1, pp. 2). Yoon et al. teaches the biomass-red mud mixture was heated f rom 30-950 ° C at a ramp rate of 10 ° C/min with zero hold time (Sections 2.1 & 2.2, pp. 1598) . T he optimization of such conditions would have been within the abilities of one of ordinary skill based upon the specific materials being used in the composite (biomass, red mud, bentonite, etc. ). 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 conditions through process optimization, since it has been held that there the general conditions of a claim 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. 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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claim FILLIN "Indicate the claim(s) of the present application." \d "[ 1 ]" 10 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim FILLIN "Indicate the claim(s) of the copending application." \d "[ 2 ]" 1 of copending Application No. FILLIN "Insert the number of the reference application." \d "[ 3 ]" 18/549,902 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because FILLIN "Provide appropriate explanation for anticipation or rationale for obviousness of claims being rejected over the claims of the cited application." \d "[ 4 ]" claim 1 of application No. 18/549,902 anticipates all claim limitations of claim 10 in the instant application . Both claim 1 of application No. 18/549,902 and claim 10 of the instant application are directed to heavy-metal containing biochar composites. The claim limitation, “the biomass is obtained from plants cultivated in heavy-metal-containing environments,” anticipates the instant claim limitation which states, “preparing a heavy metal-based biomass , ” as it is understood in the art that plants cultivated in the presence of heavy metals will accumulate said heavy metals. The claim limitation, “the biochar is produced by co-pyrolysis of a biomass with clay minerals,” anticipates step 2 of the instant claim which states, “pyrolyzing said heavy metal-based biomass produced in step 1 together with a silicate-containing composite , ” as clay minerals, notably phyllosilicate clays, contain high amounts of silicates. As claim 1 of application No. 18/549,902 anticipates all limitations of claim 10 of the instant application, the claim is anticipated. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lee et al. Chemosphere , 2009, 77(8) , pp. 1069-1075. Zhao et al. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. 2016, 4(3) , pp. 1630-1636. Chinese Patent Publication No. CN103464101A. Chinese Patent Publication No. CN104399222A. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MORDECAI M LEAVITT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6637 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 8AM-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 (571) 272-1176 . 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. /MORDECAI M LEAVITT/ Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742