DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is an extraneous period “.” at line 6 after the word “minutes”. Please delete.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: there is not a space between the numbers and the “atm” at line 2. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: it does not end with a period. Appropriate correction 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.
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the fruit or vegetable" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the fruits or vegetables".
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the tap" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "tap".
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the water-soluble active ingredient" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "water-soluble active ingredient".
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the airtight unit" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "airtight unit".
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the pressure chamber" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "pressure chamber".
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the lid" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "lid".
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the internal air pressure" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "internal air pressure".
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the active ingredients" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "active ingredients".
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the solvent" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "solvent".
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the fruit or vegetables" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the fruits or vegetable".
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the stem portion" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "stem portion".
Claim 2 recites the limitation "[a]fter maintain the pressure in claim 1" in the preamble in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating “[t]he method according to claim 1”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "[i]n claim 1" in the preamble in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating “[t]he method according to claim 1”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "[i]n claim 1" in the preamble in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating “[t]he method according to claim 1”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the vegetable or fruit " in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the fruits or vegetables".
The phrase “ingredient is characterized in that stevioside and sucralose are mixed in a weight ratio of 3-4:1 in Claim 4, lines 2-3 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear what are the ingredients and what characterized if referring to.
Clarification and/or correction required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OH et al. (KR 10-2153854).
The claims are difficult to follow as the person who drafted the claims does not appear to be experienced in drafting patent applications. Applicant is advised to consider reviewing other US patents and the MPEP available at uspto.gov for resources on how to draft claims.
The claims are interpreted as being directed to a method of enriching vegetables/fruits with ingredients under pressure.
OH (‘854) teaches a method or producing vegetables/fruits, including tomatoes, carrots, with enriched active with water-soluble ingredients like sugar, stevioside and sucralose sweeteners, salt under pressure in an airtight container having a lid (See entire document including Drawings.), however, fails to expressly disclose amount and duration of the pressure and how the ingredients penetrate the food.
PNG
media_image1.png
288
444
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
286
418
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
288
414
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
248
392
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for selecting one pressure and duration over another. It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to incorporate any known pressure and duration and means of application, including the amount, duration claimed and means claimed, to provide a vegetable/fruit having the desired nutrition and flavor profile. How to provide the desired vegetable and fruit profile would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT T O'HERN whose telephone number is (571)272-6385. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:00 am - 3:30 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, 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.
/BRENT T O'HERN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793 October 30, 2025