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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
This office action is in response to amendment filed 4/18/24. Claims 1-14 are amended and claim 15 is added. Claims 1-15 are pending.
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 1-15 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.
In claim 1: Step a is vague and indefinite because it’s not clear what is intended. The step recites “ providing a vinegar in acid form using a neutralizing agent”. It’s unclear what is meant by providing an acid form but a neutralizing agent is used. If the neutralizing agent is added, it would neutralize the acid in the vinegar ( for prior art application, it’s interpreted as the original claim which recites “ and neutralizing using neutralizing agent”). In step b, the recitation “ the vinegar salt obtained” does not have proper antecedent basis because step a does not recite “ obtaining a vinegar salt”. Step c is vague and indefinite. The step recites “ infusing at a temperature of between 5 degrees C and the evaporation temperature”; there is no antecedent basis for “ the evaporation temperature”. The limitation “ few minutes” is vague and indefinite because it’s unclear what time frame is covered. In step d, the recitation of “ the infusate” does not have antecedent basis. Step e is vague and indefinite. It’s unclear if the resulting liquid extract is the same as the infusate ( for prior art application, it’s assumed that it’s). There is no antecedent basis for “ the resulting liquid extract”.
In claim 2, steps b-d have the same problem as claim 1. Step e is vague and indefinite. The claim recites “ dry the extract” but there is no recitation of extract forming in step d. There is no antecedent basis for “ the extract of herb and/or spice”. The same problem is noted for step f; there is no antecedent basis for “ the resulting solid extract”.
Claim 3 is vague and indefinite because it’s not clear what the value “ 30-70%” represents; 30-70% of what?
Claim 4 has the same problem as claim 3.
In claim 5, the recitation of “ the quantity” does not have proper antecedent basis.
Claim 10 is vague and indefinite. It’s unclear what method is intended. The preamble recites a different method of varying the flavor content of an extract of herb and spice but the method is depended from claim 1. It’s an improper dependency because the two methods are different. Line 5, the recitation of “ the vinegar solution, the evaporation temperature” does not have antecedent basis. ( for prior art application, the claim is interpreted as additional step to the method of claim 1 defining the concentration of the herb.
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.
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(s) 1, 3-8,10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BE 1024624 in view of Martin “ Herb Vinegar: How to Make Herbal Infused Vinegar”.
For claim 1, Be624 discloses a method for the preparation of a aqueous solution of salt vinegar. The method comprises the steps of providing vinegar of acetic acid, neutralizing to pH of 7 with basic neutralizing agent such as hydroxide or carbonate or bicarbonate of alkali metals to obtain neutralized vinegar which is the same as the claimed vinegar salt, concentrating the neutralized vinegar and adding plant extracts such as rosemary extracts, basil or similar. For claims 3-4, the claims are indefinite as explained above. It’s assumed the percent refers to solid content. Be 624 discloses the solution containing K acetate of 60%. For claims 5, 15, Be 624 disclose the step of resetting the acid level of the vinegar salt to a pH of 6 and the amount of vinegar added is between 15-38%. For claims 8-10, Be624 discloses adding herb in amount of .1-10%. For claim 14, Be624 discloses an extract obtained from the steps. ( see example 1, pages 3, 5).
While Be624 discloses adding herb to the vinegar salt, Be624 does not disclose infusing and filtering as in claim 1 and the infusing parameter as in claims 6-7,12,13.
Martin discloses a recipe for herbal infused vinegar. Martin teaches to pour vinegar over herbs in a jar and storing the jar at room temperature for at least 2 weeks. The recipe teaches to strain the herb vinegar once the taste is sufficient.
Be624 teaches to add herbs as preservative. As shown in the recipe, herbs can be added to vinegar and storing at room temperature to infuse the herbs into the vinegar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to add the infusing step when desiring to add flavoring to the vinegar salt solution. The recipe teaches to infuse a room temperature which would encompass the claimed temperature range because room temperature is typically around 20-25 degrees C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the time depending on the extent of the herb infused into the vinegar desired. The selection of the time would have been an obvious matter of preference. It would have been obvious to filter the herb to stop the infusion and when desiring a filtered extract. Such step would have been readily apparent to one skilled in the art.
Claim(s) 2,9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BE 1024624 in view of Martin “ Herb Vinegar: How to Make Herbal Infused Vinegar” and Hilhorst ( WO 2020/245407).
For claim 2, Be624 discloses a method for the preparation of a aqueous solution of salt vinegar. The method comprises the steps of providing vinegar of acetic acid, neutralizing to pH of 7 with basic neutralizing agent such as hydroxide or carbonate or bicarbonate of alkali metals to obtain neutralized vinegar which is the same as the claimed vinegar salt, concentrating the neutralized vinegar and adding plant extracts such as rosemary extracts, basil or similar. ( see example 1, pages 3, 5).
While Be624 discloses adding herb to the vinegar salt, Be624 does not disclose infusing and filtering and drying as in claim 2 and spray-drying as in claim 9.
Martin discloses a recipe for herbal infused vinegar. Martin teaches to pour vinegar over herbs in a jar and storing the jar at room temperature for at least 2 weeks. The recipe teaches to strain the herb vinegar once the taste is sufficient. ( see entire reference)
Hilhorst teaches to make neutralized vinegar by adding alkalizing agent to vinegar. The neutralized vinegar can be concentrated by evaporation and spray-dried to form free flowing powder. ( see page 9, lines 1-15)
Be624 teaches to add herbs as preservative. As shown in the recipe, herbs can be added to vinegar and storing at room temperature to infuse the herbs into the vinegar. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to add the infusing step when desiring to add flavoring to the vinegar salt solution. The recipe teaches to infuse a room temperature which would encompass the claimed temperature range because room temperature is typically around 20-25 degrees C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the time depending on the extent of the herb infused into the vinegar desired. The selection of the time would have been an obvious matter of preference. It would have been obvious to filter the herb to stop the infusion and when desiring a filtered extract. Such step would have been readily apparent to one skilled in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to spray-dry the solution as taught in Hilhorst when desiring to obtain free flowing powder instead of aqueous composition. The selection would have been an obvious matter of choice.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LIEN THUY TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday.
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.
January 30, 2026
/LIEN T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793