Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is based on the 18/901042 application originally filed September 30, 2024.
Claims 1-10, filed April 20, 2026, are pending and have been fully considered. Claims 6-9 are withdrawn from consideration due to being drawn to a nonelected invention. Claim 2 has been canceled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 20, 2026 has been entered.
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.
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(s) 1 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seidner (US 2021/0214617).
Regarding Claims 1 and 10
Seidner discloses in paragraph 0035, a method for compounding a non-aqueous biofuel derived from various solid but specially processed biomass furnishes into a liquid fuel that may be used in engines such as diesel engines and other internal combustion engines, combustion turbines or aero-derivative turbines, conventional boilers as well used in non-internal combustion devices where the fuel is burned to provide indirect generation of heat or energy, including diesel, gas or steam driven turbines.
Seidner discloses in paragraph 0038, the feedstock for the special process used to create the biocarbon may include not only raw biomass, but also the waste product from processes that create liquid biofuels such as bio-gasoline, bio-oil, or various other energy containing liquid fuels, such as, for example, ethanol and methanol.
Seidner discloses in paragraph 0039, the biofuel is a colloidal dispersion of micronized and nano-particulate biocarbon in a petroleum or oil-biofuel base. Such a dispersion is advantageous in that it provides for supplementation of a petroleum based fuel in such a manner as to maintain or increase the energy content of the fuel while reducing the amount of petroleum product consumed while reducing the harmful environmental impact of use of the petroleum based fuel.
Seidner discloses in paragraph 0040, the biofuel is added to heavy fuel oil such as, for example, bunker fuel oil to dilute or blend with the fuel oil, reducing both the percentage of harmful sulfur or other mineral components of the bunker fuel and reducing the overall price of the blended or diluted fuel while maintaining or increasing the energy content, lubricity, cetane value and other characteristics of the heavy fuel oil without increasing the amount of harmful emissions resulting from the combustion of the blended mix of biofuel and bunker fuel oil.
Seidner discloses in paragraph 0050, a particulate solid biomass derived fuel dispersed into a non-aqueous liquid to form a combustible colloidal suspension. In an alternative aspect, the solid biomass derived fuel has an average particle size of less than or equal to 10 microns. In another alternative aspect, the solid biomass derived fuel has an average particle size in the range of one micron to 100 nanometers.
Seidner discloses in paragraph 0058, a method of making a green biofuel based on renewable biomass feedstock, comprising: receiving biomass feedstock; combining the biomass feedstock with a biocarbon colloidal dispersion into a blend; and pumping the blend through a length of first pipe having a first diameter surrounded by second pipe having a second diameter larger than the first diameter, the second pipe being supplied with a continuous flow of heat exchange fluid, the length of the first pipe having an input end for receiving the blend, and an output end for outputting a second blend of torrefied biomass and biocarbon colloidal dispersion generated within the length of the first pipe. In one alternative aspect, the heat exchange fluid is molten salt. In a further aspect, the method includes particulating the second blend to have a particle distribution in the range of 10 micron to 100 nanometers. In one alternative aspect, the particle distribution has an average particle size of 200 nanometers to 400 nanometers. In another aspect, the torrefied biomass is friable. In still another aspect, the biomass feedstock includes waste from a process that produces a combustible liquid from raw biomass. In another aspect, generating the second blend produces a low moisture biocarbon, a condensable gas and a liquid component. In another aspect, the condensable gas is further processed to produce a mixture of suspended solids and non-condensed gas. In still another aspect, the suspended solids are further processed to produce biochar, carbon black, fertilizer, or activated carbon. In yet another aspect, the non-condensed gas is combustible. In another aspect, the liquid component is a pyrolysis liquid. In an aspect, the second blend is inputted into a tertiary reactor. In yet another aspect, the tertiary reactor is heated by a heat exchange fluid, the heat exchange fluid being a molten salt. In still another aspect, the pyrolysis liquid is stored in a storage container. In yet another aspect, the stored pyrolysis liquid is provided as an input to a tertiary reactor for further processing. In yet another aspect, the blend includes coal or non-green material feedstocks.
Therefore, through the teachings of Seidner it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art that the particle size distribution of Seidner is bimodal due to the size distribution is made of two different modes of particle sizes.
Seidner discloses in paragraph 0134, the biofuel manufactured in accordance with the various embodiments may be used as a standalone fuel to be used in burners and engines such as diesel engines, or it may also be used to fuel a jet or combustion turbine engine. The biofuel can be blended with a bio-oil liquid for a 100% green liquid solution or a petroleum based fuel oil for an environmentally improved petroleum based fuel oil. It is also contemplated that the liquid biofuel may be used as an additive to petroleum based fuels, such as heavy fuel oil or bunker oil marine diesel fuel or to make renewable green carbon black oil, or green renewable activated carbon feedstock.
Seidner discloses in paragraph 0133, the liquid biofuel based on the biochar of the various embodiments is easier and safer for all purposes than a powdered, pelletized or cubed form of processed biomass to transport and store, deliver and convey, and may be used in directly in burners, misters, boilers, or gasifiers, compression ignition and combustion engines, and turbines that are designed to burn conventional petroleum distillates or liquid green energy oil derived fuels or solid coal boilers. The energy provided by such a fuel produces increased energy, gallon for gallon, or pound for pound, with a reduced carbon footprint, reduced atmospheric emissions and reduced residual left-over ash when compared to other solid raw biomass fuels and all other solid non-biomass fuels.
Seidner discloses in paragraph 0136, liquid biofuel may be priced lower than petroleum based bunker fuel. It may be added to low sulfur bunker fuel oil such that it comprises, for example, 25% to 40% of the total volume of the fuel mix, thereby significantly reducing the cost of the combined fuel per gallon or per ton, while not compromising the efficacy of the primary bunker fuel oil component and without increasing any adverse effects of sulfur or other minerals, yet maintaining, or increasing, the energy value of the combination fuel. Even if this blended mix resulted in increased the consumption of the fuel oil mix to provide the same operating parameters for ship's engines, the increased amount of energy provided at a lower cost in the blend more than offsets the marginally increased consumption. It is to be noted, the remainder of the fuel is in the amount of 60% to 100%.
Seidner does not disclose the biofuel having a ash content and therefore Seidner has met the limitation of the present invention of having a low ash content.
Seidner does not disclose the biofuel having a low inorganic ash content and therefore Seidner has met the limitation of the present invention of having a low inorganic ash content of less than 1 percent (less than 1 percent encompasses zero).
In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding Claim 2
Seidner discloses in paragraph 0134, the biofuel manufactured in accordance with the various embodiments may be used as a standalone fuel to be used in burners and engines such as diesel engines, or it may also be used to fuel a jet or combustion turbine engine. The biofuel can be blended with a bio-oil liquid for a 100% green liquid solution or a petroleum based fuel oil for an environmentally improved petroleum based fuel oil. It is also contemplated that the liquid biofuel may be used as an additive to petroleum based fuels, such as heavy fuel oil or bunker oil marine diesel fuel or to make renewable green carbon black oil, or green renewable activated carbon feedstock.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The applied prior art fails to specifically teach the claimed composition of a biofuel oil suspension that consists of the claimed amounts of micronized biocarbon and selected base oils.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argued: “Seidner Teaches Away from the Claimed Micron-Scale, Bimodal Suspension. Thus, it is clear from Seidner's disclosure that it would lead a skilled person in the art toward progressively finer, colloidal particles, and not toward coarser micronized material approaching < 50 pm -let alone towards engineering a bimodal distribution in an oily medium, in order to provide a ready-to-use biofuel suspension that is better adapted to those compression internal combustion engines (diesel type) currently on the market, as the present invention. Indeed, nothing in Seidner suggests that a person of ordinary skill in the art should depart from the colloidal, sub-micron paradigm treated therein as fundamental for both stability and reactor performance, nor does Seidner require, imply, or even hint at adopting a bimodal distribution (i.e., two distinct modes).”
Applicants arguments are not deemed persuasive. It is maintained that the Seidner discloses a bimodal particle size distribution through the disclosure having defined ranges of particle size. It is to be noted, applicants have failed to claim a specific range of sizes to define distinct peaks in a specific bimodal distribution. Therefore, through the teachings of Seidner the bimodal distribution claimed limitation has been met.
Applicants argued: “Seidner is Silent on Catalytic Combustion Effects and Engine Operation at Lower Compression. Seidner's disclosure, by contrast, does not disclose any in-cylinder catalytic framework: it neither identifies potassium-assisted surface catalysis on biochar, nor does it correlate dispersion properties with lower compression operation or engine-level combustion optimization. Rather, Seidner's teaching is anchored in a process-platform narrative (torrefaction/pyrolysis trains, HTF behavior, molten-salt heating, pipe-in-pipe hydrodynamics), where colloidal fineness is advanced primarily to serve reactor stability and heat-transfer functions rather than to elicit engine-side catalytic effects at practical solids loading.”.
Applicants arguments are not deemed persuasive. It is maintained, Seidner discloses a biofuel used in a compression ignition engine. Regarding the composition claims, the phrase “for direct use in compression ignition internal combustion engines” is intended use and is not considered to be a claim limitation. Case law holds that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See In re Casey, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967) and In re Otto, 136 USPQ 458,459 (CCPA 1963).
Applicants argued: “Seidner Does Not Address Low-Ash Biocarbon (Barkless Eucalyptus) for Abrasion Reduction and Emissions Control. Indeed, Seidner offers no guidance or motivation for selecting low-ash biomass, nor any expectation that ash control would contribute to durability, cleanliness, and suitability for drop-in diesel use. To the contrary, a person of ordinary skill would reasonably expect ash levels exceeding 1 wt% in many such scenarios disclosed in Seidner.”.
Applicants arguments are not deemed persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Low-Ash Biocarbon (Barkless Eucalyptus) for Abrasion Reduction and Emissions Control) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additionally, it is maintained, Seidner does not disclose the biofuel having a ash content and therefore Seidner has met the limitation of the present invention of having a low ash content.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LATOSHA D HINES whose telephone number is (571)270-5551. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM - 6:00 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, Prem Singh can be reached at 571-272-6381. 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.
/Latosha Hines/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1771
Prosecution Insights