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 .
Status of Application
Receipt of Applicant’s remarks and amended claims filed on August 20, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-22 are pending in this application.
Claims 3-9 and 16-22 remain withdrawn from consideration.
No claim amendments have been filed.
Claims 1-2 and 10-15 are under examination in this application.
Withdrawn Rejections
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The rejection of claims 1-2, 10 and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kiamco et al. (Hypochlorous-Acid-Generating Electrochemical Scaffold for Treatment of Wound Biofilms, Scientific Reports (2019)9:2683) has been withdrawn in view of the arguments of August 20, 2025 regarding the distinct difference of an energy beam recited in the instant claims and the electrochemical scaffold recited in the prior art.
The rejection of claims 1-2, 10, and 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Quan et al. (Bactericidal activity of strong acidic hypochlorous water against Escherichia coli O157:H7 and Listeria monocytogenes in biofilms attached to stainless steel, Food Sci Biotechnology (2017) 26(3):841-846) has been withdrawn in view of the arguments of August 20, 2025 regarding the distinct difference of an energy beam recited in the instant claims and the electrolysis recited in the prior art.
The rejection of claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Howarth et al. (US 5,385,650) has been withdrawn in view of the arguments of August 20, 2025 regarding the distinct difference of an energy beam recited in the instant claims and the electric current recited in the prior art.
Newly Applied Objection/Rejections
Claim Objections
Claims 2 and 11 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 closest prior art is that of Hartmann which is discussed below. Hartmann discloses a proton beam, not an electron beam as recited in the instant claim 2.
There is no discussion in the prior art that a bromide salt can be used to create a hypobromous solution. The closest prior art for the creation of a hypobromous solution is outlined in the Envirotech (Blending HBr with bleach to form Hypobromous Acid, accessed online November 5, 2025).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 10, and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hartman et al. (Spectroscopic determination of hypochlorous acid, in chloride brine solution, featuring 5 MeV proton beam line experiments, Radiation Physics and Chemistry 66 (2003) 335-341).
Hartmann discloses irradiation effects of 4.9 MeV protons on salt repository related brines. The induced formation of hypochlorous acid with doses of 11 kGy in 3.7M MgCl2 (Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, as noted above, MgCl2 is disclosed.
Regarding claim 12, the 3.7M MgCl2 is an aqueous solution. It is not disclosed to comprise any additional components.
Regarding claim 13, as noted above, 4.9MeV was used.
Regarding claim 14-15, Hartmann discloses the same composition prepared by the same method as that recited in the instant claims, therefore, it would necessarily have the same properties, including energy beam discharge. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2112.01 I which recites Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.ed 1952, 1255, 1905 USPQ 4230, 436 (CCPA 1977}.
Hartman, therefore, anticipates the rejected claims.
Claims 1, 10, 12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kelm et al. (Spectroscopic Investigation on the formation of hypochlorite by alpha radiolysis in concentrated NaCl solution, Applied Radiation and Isotopes, Vol 51 no 6, 1 December 1999).
Kelm discloses The hypochlorite formation induced by alpha radiation in saline solutions is studied by UV/VIS spectroscopy. Experiments are carried out in NaCl solutions of various concentrations between 1 and 5 mol/l and with volume alpha activities in the range of 20–444 GBq/l (abstract).
Regarding claim 10, as noted above, NaCl is used.
Regarding claim 12, as noted above, the NaCl solution is between 1 and 5 mol/l as an aqueous solution. It is not disclosed to comprise any additional components.
Regarding claims 14-15, Kelm discloses the same composition prepared by the same method as that recited in the instant claims, therefore, it would necessarily have the same properties, including energy beam discharge. Applicant is directed to MPEP 2112.01 I which recites Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.ed 1952, 1255, 1905 USPQ 4230, 436 (CCPA 1977}.
Kelm, therefore, anticipates the rejected claims.
Conclusion
Due to the new grounds of rejection presented in this office action, this action is made Non-Final.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Paviet-Hartmann et al. (Spectroscopic Investigation of the Formation of Radiolysis By-Products By 13/9 MeV Linear Accelerator of Electrons (LAE) in Salt Solutions. Waste Management 2002 Symposium, Tucson, AZ (United States)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELISSA S MERCIER whose telephone number is (571)272-9039. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30 am to 4 pm EST.
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, Robert A Wax can be reached at 571-272-0623. 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.
/MELISSA S MERCIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1615