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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-13 in the reply filed on November 6, 2025 is acknowledged. Claim 14 has been withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
The specification, page 5 line 28 recites “(synthetic source.” This should be “(synthetic source).”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 8, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 step d recites “through a ultra violet filter”. This should be “through an ultra violet filter”.
Claim 4 is missing a period at the end of the sentence.
Claim 8 recites “a ultra violet filter”. This should be “the ultra violet filter” as it clearly refers to the UV filter of claim 1 since no other UV filter was claimed.
Claim 9 recites two periods at the end of the sentence.
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.
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the carbon filter" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear as to if claim 5 should depend on claim 4 which has antecedent basis, recite “a carbon filter”, or as to if claim 5 is limiting one of the other filters recited in claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4 and 6-13 are allowable of the prior art. Claim 5 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art does not teach or suggest a process as claimed for the treatment of spent media from vegetable pickle, i.e. media drained out from containers containing pickled vegetables during repackaging, which is a vinegar medium with 2.0% or above acid and 3% and above salt (see instant specification page 6 lines 1-5). The closest prior art, Murakami et al (JP 7147895 machine translation) teaches a process for the regeneration of spent media from vegetable pickle comprising: adding activated carbon to decolorize; filtering with diatomaceous earth; and additional filtering to form a completely sterilized pickle seasoning (paragraphs 1 and 4-10). Murakami does not teach circulating the filtrate of step c through a ultra violet filter, adding sulphites to the filtrate from step d, or adding acetic acid or natural alcohol vinegar to the filtrate of step e as claimed. Nor is there any suggestion to do so as the process of Murakami results in a sterilized pickle seasoning for use. Although purification techniques were generally known, the combination of steps and treatment of the media as claimed as not taught or obvious over the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KELLY BEKKER whose telephone number is (571)272-2739. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-3:30pm.
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, Erik Kashnikow can be reached at 571-270-3475. 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.
KELLY BEKKER
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1792
/KELLY J BEKKER/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1792
Prosecution Insights