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 Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03 April 2024 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. 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 - 10 and 20 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 claim 1, the limitation “a treatment methodology” as recited in line 4 renders the claim(s) vague and indefinite because the aforementioned limitation does not clearly define a specific method of treatment. Regarding claim 2, the use of the term “some” as recited in line 2 renders the claim vague and indefinite because “some” refers to an unspecified amount or number. Since “some of the at least a portion of soil” does not clearly define an amount of soil, it is not possible for Examiner to determine the metes and bounds of the claim. Claims 3, 4, and 20 contain similar errors. Claim 8, line 1 recites the limitation "the cumulative weight" of the adsorbents. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claims 1 - 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Imbrie (US 2007/0297858). Regarding claim 1, Imbrie discloses a method of treating soil contained in a volume of treatment (volume of soil located within the area defined by containment periphery line 115 ) in an underground site ( area defined by containment periphery line 115 ) and forming a containment barrier ( barrier against lateral flow of contaminants; barrier formed by sorbent materials injected below the treatment zone , paragraph 0057) within the underground site, the method comprising the steps of: a. administering a treatment methodology (injecting adsorbent material; using microorganisms to degrade sorbent material and the contaminant thereon; paragraph 0036) upon at least a portion of soil previously being contained in the volume of treatment (115) , the at least a portion of soil cumulatively having a soil weight (soil inherently has a weight) ; and b. placing (via injection wells at injection points 112) a layer of micron-sized adsorbents (sorbent material such as activated carbon and zeolites; paragraph 0015) on at least a portion of at least one interface (115; bottom of treatment zone) defining the volume of treatment (Figs. 1 and 2) , the at least one interface further defining at least one boundary between soil contained in the volume of treatment and surrounding soil (Figs. 1 and 2; abstract; paragraphs 0012 - 0016, 0035, 0036, 0038, 0039, and 0057 - 0059). Regarding claim 2, Imbrie further discloses during the step of administering the treatment methodology, some of the at least a portion of soil remains contained in the volume of treatment (115) (sorbent materials applied to soil in situ) (paragraph 0015) . Regarding claim 3, Imbrie further discloses a step of removing at least some soil from the volume of treatment, the soil removed from the volume of treatment defining excavated soil (paragraph 0015). Regarding claim 4, Imbrie further discloses some of the at least a portion of soil that the treatment methodology (introduction of sorbent material) is administered upon are at least a portion of the excavated soil, the administering of the treatment methodology upon the at least a portion of the excavated soil defining treated excavated soil, and wherein after the removing step the method further comprises a step of at least partially refilling the volume of treatment with the treated excavated soil (paragraph 0015). Regarding claim 5, Imbrie further discloses a step of at least partially refilling the volume of treatment with a filler, the filler being excavated soil (paragraph 0015) . Regarding claim 6, Imbrie further discloses the at least a portion of soil contains one or more contaminants, the one or more contaminants being selected from: petroleum hydrocarbons, pesticides, halogenated hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls, or combinations thereof (paragraphs 0012 and 0046). Regarding claim 7, Imbrie further discloses the treatment methodology administered upon the at least a portion of soil comprises the application of a treatment additive to the at least a portion of soil; wherein the treatment additive is selected from an adsorbent, a chemical species, a processing agent, a microorganism or combinations thereof (paragraphs 0012, 0015, 0034, 0036, 0043, and 0062). Regarding claim 9, Imbrie further discloses the adsorbents are selected from activated carbon, modified clay minerals, zeolites, and combinations thereof (paragraph 0015). Claims 11, 12, 14 - 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilson et al. (US 2017/0349464). Regarding claim 11, Wilson discloses a method of establishing a micron-scale adsorbent barrier at an interface defining a volume of treatment (aquifer) containing soil, the interface further defining a boundary (interface of low-permeability zones at which colloidal sorbent biomatrix particles are deposited) between the soil contained in the volume of treatment and surrounding soil, the method comprising a step of emplacing a layer of micron-sized adsorbents (colloidal sorbent biomatrix particles) on at least a portion of the interface (interface of low-permeability zones) (abstract; paragraphs 0018, 0019, and 0022 - 0024). Regarding claim 12, Wilson further discloses the emplacement step is performed via injection ( low pressure injection) (paragraph 0018) . Regarding claim 14, Wilson further discloses the micron-sized adsorbents are selected from: activated carbon, modified clay minerals, or zeolites (abstract; paragraph 0027) . Regarding claim 15, Wilson further discloses the particles of the micron-sized adsorbents (colloidal sorbent) are less than 20 microns in diameter (0.1 to 10 microns) (paragraph 0028) . Regarding claim 16, Wilson further discloses the particles of the micron-sized adsorbents (colloidal sorbent) have a D90 value of 10 microns or less (paragraph 0028). Examiner takes the position that since Wilson teaches adsorbent particle sizes of 0.1 to 10 microns, the D90 value would inherently be 10 microns or less. Regarding claim 17, Wilson further discloses the layer of the micron-sized adsorbents (colloidal sorbent) is emplaced by applying a suspension of the micron-sized adsorbents (paragraph 0019 teaches colloidal sorbents dispersed in an aqueous solution) into at least a portion of the interface (interface of low-permeability zones at which colloidal sorbent biomatrix particles are deposited) ( abstract; paragraphs 0018, 0019 , 0022, and 0023). Regarding claim 19, Wilson further discloses applying adsorbents (sorbent particles such as organoclays) to at least a portion of soil contained in the volume of treatment (aquifer) such that at least a portion of the adsorbents are placed on at least a portion of the interface (interface of low-permeability zones at which colloidal sorbent biomatrix particles are deposited) (abstract; paragraphs 0018, 0019, 0022, and 0023). Regarding claim 20, Wilson further discloses at least some of the micron-sized adsorbents (colloidal sorbent such as zeolites) and at least some of the adsorbents (organoclays) are emplaced at the same portion of the interface (interface of low-permeability zones at which colloidal sorbent biomatrix particles are deposited) (abstract; paragraphs 0018, 0019, 0022, and 0023). 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. in view of Zhou et al. (US 2021/0146335). Wilson discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the cumulative weight of the adsorbents that are applied to the at least a portion of soil ranges from 0.01 - 25% of the soil weight. Zhou teaches the cumulative weight of the adsorbents (sorbents) applied to at least a portion of soil ranges from 0.01 - 25% (sorbent in soil, weight percent, ranges from 1.0 - 20.0% (paragraph 0071; Table 4). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the cumulative weight of the adsorbents compared to the soil weight as taught by Zhou to optimize the adsorption efficiency of the adsorbents. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. in view of Ding et al. (WO 2021/031516). Wilson discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the cumulative weight of the adsorbents that are applied to the at least a portion of soil ranges from 0.01 - 25% of the soil weight. Zhou teaches the cumulative weight of the adsorbents ( passivation agent which plays an adsorption role ) applied to at least a portion of soil ranges from 0.01 - 25% ( 0.75 - 3% of the weight of the contaminated soil) ( equivalent abstract; paragraphs 0011, 0014, and 0017) . It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the cumulative weight of the adsorbents compared to the soil weight as taught by Ding to optimize the adsorption efficiency of the adsorbents. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. in view of Van Der Westhuysen (US 6,224,757). Wilson discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the treatment methodology administered upon the at least a portion of soil is selected from thermal desorption, thermal destruction, sonolysis, photocatalysis, soil washing, soil rinsing, soil ball milling, soil flushing or combinations thereof. Van Der Westhuysen teaches a treatment methodology administered upon the at least a portion of soil comprising soil washing (col. 1, line 60 - col. 2, line 5; col. 5, lines 44 - 56) for further breakdown of adsorbed soil contamination. It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the method as disclosed above with the treatment methodology comprising soil washing as taught by Van Der Westhuysen for further breakdown of adsorbed soil contamination. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. Wilson discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the layer of micron-sized adsorbents has a thickness ranging from 0.001 - 100 kg/m 2 . Examiner takes the position that the thickness of the layer of micron-sized adsorbents lacks criticality in the claims and is a design consideration based on the volume and/or properties of contaminants in the soil to be treated. A change in the size of a prior art device is a design consideration within the skill of the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilson et al. in view of Matthews (US 2006/0247484). Wilson discloses all of the claim limitation(s) except the adsorbents range from 0.001 - 69% by weight of solid component of the suspension. Matthews teaches the adsorbents (sorbent) range from 0.001 - 69% (0.05 - 25% weight percent) by weight of solid component of the suspension (Tables 1 and 2; paragraphs 0048, 0051, 0056, and 0057). It would have been considered obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the invention, to have modified the adsorbents as disclosed above with the weight percent of the adsorbent relative to the total weight of the solid component as taught by Matthews to optimize the adsorbing efficiency of the soil treatment composition based on the type(s) of contaminants in the soil to be treated. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SEAN D ANDRISH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3098 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri: 6:30 AM - 4:00 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Amber Anderson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5281 . 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. /SEAN D ANDRISH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678 SA 12/16/2025