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 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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 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.
Regarding claims 1-4, in claim 1, there is not step in the claim that meets the preamble of “biochar production” therefore the claim would need to recite “recovering biochar from the heated mixed raw material” or similar to clearly set forth this result of the claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shuan et al (CN101333447 with Ref made to Espacenet Machine Translation of CN101333447 Obtained 24 June 2026) taken in combination with Bai (US 2022/0033727).
Regarding claim 1, Shuan teaches a method for co pyrolysis of algae (marine biomass) and onshore biomass (terrestrial biomass) to produce pyrolysis products such as bio-oil (title, abstract), Shuan teaches the seaweed and terrestrial biomass have co-beneficial properties in pyrolysis [0005], the collected seaweed and terrestrial biomass are screened, dried and crush into particles with from 0.1-10mm (or 100 to 10000 μm), then mixed, and fed into pyrolysis reactor (i.e. low oxygen) at a temperature of from 400-600C, where the gas and coke (i.e. char) are separated and bio-oil recovered all as products of the pyrolysis ([0011-0014]).
However Shuan teaches the pyrolysis reactor is at a temperature of from 400-600C, therefore does not teach the temperature is from 300-350C.
Bai teaches a process of making solid biomass fuels from terrestrial agricultural wastes (title, abstract), Bai teaches it is useful to produce biomass fuels from the wastes by providing one or more sources of biomass, pulverizing, compressing, drying, molding and then heat treating at from 160 to 420 C in a low oxygen atmosphere to form a solid biomass fuel, i.e. biochar ([0016-0025]), the heating in the low oxygen atmosphere is a mild pyrolysis, or torrefaction [0205-0207].
Therefore the skilled artisan at the time of the invention knew that the products of pyrolysis were known to include gas, char and oils, as taught by Shuan above, and it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the pyrolysis temperature range of Shuan to be from 300-350, within the range of Bai, motivated to target biochar as the product, as taught by Bai, rather than biooil of Shuan, as the skilled artisan knew the mixed biochar is a useful fuel source by lowering the pyrolysis temperature of Shuan.
Regarding claim 2, both Shuan and Bai as set forth above teaching drying steps.
Regarding claim 3, Shuan as set forth above has taught grinding and crushing the particles to 100 to 10000 μm, therefore determining the optimum particles sizes as claimed within the ranges of Shuan would be routine skill to one having ordinary skill in the art absent unexpected results of the final molded, treated biochar product, see MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, in modified Shuan, Bai has taught screening, drying and crushing as well as molding, therefore in these steps the process of static electricity removal would be expected to occur.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ellens (US 8,100,990) teaches biomass pyrolysis with pretreatment step. Park (US 2015/0033812) teaches pyrolysis of biomass. Cheiky (US 9,359,268) teaches producing carbon fuel. Chen (US 12,630,720) teaches biochar manufacture.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MILLER whose telephone number is (571)270-1603. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 - 5.
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, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. 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.
/JONATHAN MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772
Prosecution Insights