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 1-2 in the reply filed on September 26, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 3-5 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected product, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on September 26, 2025.
Claim Status
The status of the claims upon entry of the present amendments stands as follows:
Pending claims:
1-5
Withdrawn claims:
3-5
Previously canceled claims:
None
Newly canceled claims:
None
Amended claims:
None
New claims:
None
Claims currently under consideration:
1-2
Currently rejected claims:
1-2
Allowed claims:
None
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eui (KR 20230033394 A) in view of Mo (KR 20230033394 A), Seongsik (KR102426996B1) and Lee (KR 102509364 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Eui teaches a method for manufacturing pickled vegetables ([0001]) comprising adding a first seasoning solution to a main ingredient (i.e., adding food materials to be pickled to a broth) then performing a first maturation (i.e., primary pickling) then adding a second seasoning solution and performing a second maturation (i.e., mixing the pickled intermediate with a pickling solution to perform secondary pickling) ([0026]). Eui also teaches that first maturation is performed for 5 to 10 days ([0032], which matches the claimed range of “5 to 10 days”). Eui further teaches that the first seasoning solution comprises green onion and water ([0034]). Eui also teaches that the second seasoning solution comprises soy sauce made through fermentation (i.e., performing aging; [0027]).
Eui does not teach preparing a vegetable broth by boiling bay leaves and red pepper seeds and performing filtration; maintaining the temperature of primary picking at 40 to 50°C; preparing a second pickling solution by mixing sugar, fermented Korean plum liquid, alcohol, and mixed vinegar.
Regarding pickling solution comprising bay leaves, red pepper seeds, sugar, and alcohol, boiling the first vegetable broth, and filtering, Mo teaches a method of making pickled vegetables ([0001]) comprising pickling vegetables in a sauce comprising bay leaves, green onion, red pepper seeds, sugar, alcohol, and vinegar ([0018]). Mo also teaches that the sauce is made by boiling the ingredients together and then removing the solid ingredient (i.e., filtering) ([0100]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process taught by Eui with the use of the ingredients and processing steps as taught by Mo. One would be motivated to make this modification because Mo teaches that the method improves preference for the pickles by lowering the sodium content while creating a texture similar to Western pickles ([0001]).
Although Mo teaches that all of the ingredients are added in the same steps, MPEP §2144.04(IV)(C) states “selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results”, In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) and “Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.” In re Gibson, 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930). Therefore, it would have been obvious to add the ingredients as two separate process steps.
Regarding performing primary aging at a temperature from 40 to 50°C, Seongsik teaches a method of making dongchimi (i.e., fermented radish; [0001]-[0002]) comprising a first maturation step at 1-40°C ([0035]), which overlaps with the claimed range of “40 to 50°C”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Eui with the maturation temperature taught by Seongsik. The claim would have been obvious because all claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective function, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, see MPEP §2143(A).
Regarding the pickling liquid comprising fermented Korean plum liquid and mixed vinegar, Lee teaches a soy sauce comprising a fermented vinegar product mixed with plum fermented vinegar (i.e., mixed vinegar; [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of Eui in view of Mo with the use of a mixed vinegar product and plum fermented vinegar as taught by Lee. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Lee teaches that the fermented vinegar improved flavor and aroma while promoting health ([0014]).
The preamble language “a method of preparing low-salt pickles using citron vinegar” does not limit the scope of the claim as written. MPEP §2111.02(II) states “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Shoes by Firebug LLC v. Stride Rite Children’s Grp., LLC, 962 F.3d 1362, 2020 USPQ2d 10701 (Fed. Cir. 2020).” Although the claimed invention does not recite citron vinegar, the recitation of citron vinegar in the preamble in interpreted as the intended use of the claimed invention. Therefore, citron vinegar as recited in claim 1 carries no patentable weight.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eui (KR 20230033394 A) in view of Mo (KR 20230033394 A), Seongsik (KR102426996B1) and Lee (KR 102509364 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park (KR 20220166976 A) and Kitty (“Homemade Lemon Vinegar”, Vintage Kitty, published September 20, 2020 [accessed online November 7, 2025] https://vintagekitty.com/lemon-vinegar/).
Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art does not teach wherein the mixed vinegar comprises citron vinegar and apple cider vinegar.
Regarding the composition comprising apple cider vinegar, Park teaches a soy sauce ([0001]) comprising apple cider vinegar and citrus concentrate ([0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the process of the above cited prior art to include apple cider vinegar as taught by Park. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this modification because Park teaches that the soy sauce does not the off-flavor of traditional soy sauce.
Regarding the vinegar comprising citron vinegar, Kitty teaches of a lemon vinegar (i.e., citron vinegar; Title; p. 1, ¶ 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Eui in view of Park to use lemon vinegar (i.e., citron vinegar) as taught by Kitty in place of the citrus concentrate taught by Park. One would be motivated to make this modification because Kitty teaches that lemon vinegar preserves lemon zest flavor and can be used in a multitude of dishes (p. 3, ¶ 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda S Hawkins whose telephone number is (703)756-1530. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30a-5:00p, F 8:00a-12:00p.
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, Emily Le can be reached at (571) 272-0903. 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.
/A.S.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1793
/EMILY M LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1793