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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7-8, and 19-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “in the method, the plate concentration process does not repeat” in line 9. There was not adequate written description support at the time of filing for the plate concentration step to not repeat.
Claim 34 recites the limitation “in the method, the plate concentration process does not repeat” in line 12. There was not adequate written description support at the time of filing for the plate concentration step to not repeat.
Claims 5, 7-8, and 19-33 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected base claim.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 19, 21, 27, 29, and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anno et al. US 6,468,565 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed February 25, 2025) in view of Marx et al. US 1,619,826, Hietsch et al. US 2013/0292242, and Muller US 2018/0289030.
Regarding Claim 1, Anno et al. discloses a method for preparing an onion concentrate (onion extract) (‘565, Column 1, lines 8-9). The method comprises preparing an onion juice (‘565, Column 7, lines 43-55) and performing first concentrating of the onion juice by thin film concentration (‘565, Column 8, lines 14-18) until the solid content of the onion juice reaches the desired Brix levels (‘565, Column 8, lines 21-22) wherein the thin film concentration is performed through heat treatment such that an evaporation temperature reaches 35°C (‘565, Column 8, lines 14-18), which falls within the claimed evaporation temperature of 30°C to 38°C. Where the claimed evaporation temperature of the thin film concentration step encompasses evaporation temperature of the thin film concentration step disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). Furthermore, differences in the evaporation temperature of the thin film concentration step will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such evaporation temperature of the thin film concentration step is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). Anno et al. also discloses the onion juice is prepared only from onion (‘565, Column 7, lines 44-54) (‘565, Column 8, lines 1-22).
Anno et al. is silent regarding performing a second concentrating of the thin film concentrated onion juice by plate concentration. Anno et al. is also silent regarding the first concentration by thin film concentration being conducted to a solid content of the onion juice reaching 20 Brix to 50 Brix and the solid content of the onion concentrate after the second concentration step to be 60 Brix to 65 Brix.
Marx et al. discloses a method for preparing an onion concentrate (‘826, Page 1, lines 37-45). The method comprises preparing an onion juice and performing a first concentrating of the onion juice (first evaporation step) (‘826, Page 1, lines 69-104) followed by performing a second concentrating of the onion juice (further evaporating step) (‘826, Page 2, lines 25-34).
Both Anno et al. and Marx et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of preparing an onion concentrate comprising the steps of preparing an onion juice and performing at least one concentration step of the onion juice. Anno et al. discloses concentrating the onion juice using any method such as a vacuum concentration method so long as the water content is reduced and the degree of concentration is not restricted (‘565, Column 4, lines 23-34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Anno et al. and perform a first concentration step and a second concentration step on the onion juice as taught by Marx et al. since volatile and pungent aromatic flavoring ingredients are ordinarily lost when boiling the onion juice in the first concentration/evaporation step. By conducting a first concentrating step, saving the distillate from the second concentrating step, further concentrating the onion juice in a second concentrating step, and then adding the distillate from the first concentrating step, the volatile and pungent aromatic flavoring ingredients which would have ordinarily been lost when boiling the onion juice retains the volatile and pungent aromatic flavoring ingredients that would otherwise have been lost in using only a singular concentrating step (‘826, Page 2, lines 35-49).
Further regarding Claim 1, the combination of Anno et al. modified with Marx et al. discloses the method comprising performing a first concentrating of the onion juice by thin film concentration followed by performing a second concentrating of the onion juice. Anno et al. discloses the onion juice being concentrated to provide an onion extract wherein the method for concentration includes a vacuum concentration method using an evaporator or any other method using concentration equipment suited for each method to be employed so long as the water content is reduced (‘565, Column 4, lines 23-34). However, Anno et al. modified with Marx et al. is silent regarding the second concentrating step being done using plate concentration.
Hietsch et al. discloses an apparatus for the distillation of substance mixture comprising temperature sensitive substances (‘242, Paragraph [0015]) wherein the apparatus comprises a thin film evaporator and a fractionating column wherein the fractionating column is attached to the distillate outlet of the thin film evaporator wherein the fractionating column has at least 3 theoretical plates (‘242, Paragraph [0001]) wherein the apparatus is applied to temperature sensitive substances and/or employed for concentrating or purifying such substances (‘242, Paragraph [0024]). The disclosure of the fractionating column having plates being attached to the distillate outlet of the thin film evaporator reads on the claimed steps of concentrating the raw material by thin film concentration and then concentrating the raw material by plate concentration.
Anno et al. discloses a method of concentrating onion juice extract (‘565, Column 1, lines 51-64). Marx et al. discloses prolonged heating at a higher temperature may injure onion pulp (‘826, Page 1, lines 95-110). Therefore, the concentrated onion juice disclosed by Anno et al. modified with Marx et al. is a type of temperature sensitive substance that is generically disclosed by Hietsch et al. Anno et al. also discloses the method for concentration of the onion using an evaporator or any other method (‘565, Column 4, lines 23-30). Both modified Anno et al. and Hietsch et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of concentrating temperature sensitive using two concentration steps. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Anno et al. and perform a thin film concentration step followed by a plate concentration step performed on a thermally sensitive product as taught by Hietsch et al. since the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new and unexpeted results in view of In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.C.). Hietsch et al. discloses that there was known utility in the concentration art to perform a thin film concentration step followed by a plate concentration step on a thermally sensitive product.
Further regarding Claim 1, Anno et al. modified with Marx et al. and Hietsch et al. is silent regarding the claimed solid content of the onion juice as a result of the thin film concentration to reach 20 Brix to 50 Brix and the claimed solid content of the onion juice as a result of the plate concentration being 60 Brix° to 65 Brix°. Anno et al. modified with Hietsch et al. is also silent regarding the plate concentration process not repeating.
Muller discloses evaporation being performed in a single step or multiple steps (‘030, Paragraphs [0066] and [0071]) where after a certain amount of time has passed or a particular Brix concentration measurement has been reached additional filtration steps are performed such as halting evaporation when the liquid extract reaches a Brix concentration of about 20 and filtered using a gravity sediment removal step and then evaporation is continued to further concentrate the liquid extract (‘030, Paragraph [0066]). This discloses the halting evaporation when the liquid extract reaches a Brix concentration of about 20 falls within the claimed first concentration solid content of 20 Brix to 50 Brix. Muller also discloses the resulting extract is stored in a cool and dry place once concentrated to the desired Brix level (‘030, Paragraph [0067]) and the dilute extract having a low Brix value of between 1 and 3 and the concentrated extract having a Brix value of between about 30 and about 60 (‘030, Paragraph [0063]), which overlaps the claimed solid content of the concentrate being 60 Brix to 65 Brix. Muller also discloses the plate concentration process being used as an evaporation step using plate evaporators designed for rising flow in a single pass operation to keep the thermal strain of the product as low as possible (‘030, Paragraph [0065]) and the drying step to be achieved using a single step (‘030, Paragraph [0071]), which reads on the claimed plate concentration process not repeating.
Both modified Anno et al. and Muller are directed towards the same field of endeavor of method of preparing a food concentrate comprising concentrating the food to a first desired solid Brix content followed by another concentrating step. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Anno et al. and conduct the first concentration step until the solid content reaches 20 Brix to 50 Brix followed by the second concentration step to the claimed solid content of concentrate of 60 Brix to 65 Brix as taught by Muller since where the claimed solid content concentration after the first and second concentration steps overlaps solid content concentration after the first and second concentration steps ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). Muller teaches that there was known utility in the food concentration art to perform a first concentration step to the solid content range of 20 Brix to 50 Brix and the second concentration step to the solid content range of 60 Brix to 65 Brix as desired. Anno et al. discloses the method for concentration using any method and any concentration equipment suited to each method so long as the water content is reduced and the degree of concentration is not particularly restricted in terms of the concentration of water soluble solids in the concentrate (‘565, Column 4, lines 23-34). Differences in the Brix concentration of the onion juice as a result of the thin film concentration step as well as the Brix concentration of the onion juice as a result of the plate concentration step will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such Brix concentration of the juice as a result of the thin film concentration step and the plate concentration step is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the Brix concentration of the concentrate of the onion juice after each of the concentration steps based upon the desired clarity of the concentrate and since Anno et al. teaches that the degree of concentration is not particularly restricted. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Anno et al. and use a process such that the plate concentration process does not repeat as taught by Muller in order to keep the thermal strain on the product as low as possible using a single pass operation of the plate evaporator (‘030, Paragraph [0065]).
Regarding Claim 19, Anno et al. discloses the thin film concentration being performed through heat treatment such that the evaporation temperature reaches 30°C (‘565, Column 8, lines 14-18), which falls within the claimed evaporation temperature reaching 30°C to 35°C. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the evaporation temperature of the thin film concentration of the process to fall within the claimed evaporation temperature as taught by Example 2 disclosed in Anno et al. since where the claimed evaporation temperature of the thin film concentration overlaps evaporation temperature of any concentration step ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). Furthermore, differences in the evaporation temperature of the thin film concentration step will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such evaporation temperature of the thin film concentration step is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.).
Regarding Claims 27 and 29, the combination of Anno et al. modified with Marx et al., Hietsch et al., and Muller renders obvious the method of preparing an onion concentration using a first concentrating of the onion juice by thin film concentration followed by a second concentrating of the thin film concentrated onion juice by plate concentration of Claim 1 as discussed above. The limitations “the method inhibits the generation of a furan based compound” and “the method inhibits the generation of a pyrazine based compound” are limitations with respect to the properties of the claimed method. Therefore, the prior art combination necessarily teaches the inhibited generation of a furan based compound and the inhibited generation of a pyrazine based compound since 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 obviousness has been established in view of In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP § 2112.01.I.). Therefore, the prior art combination necessarily teaches the inhibition of a furan based compound and a pyrazine based compound.
Regarding Claim 31, the combination of Anno et al. modified with Marx et al., Hietsch et al., and Muller renders obvious the method limitations of Claim 1. Therefore, the prior art combination necessarily teaches the enhanced flavor of the onion juice compared to the onion juice without concentration since 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 obviousness has been established in view of In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP § 2112.01.I.). Therefore, the prior art combination necessarily teaches the “enhanced” flavor of the onion juice.
Regarding Claims 32-33, Anno et al. modified with Marx et al., Hietsch et al., and Muller is silent regarding the first concentration by thin film concentration being conducted to a solid content of the onion juice reaching 30 Brix to 50 Brix or 40 Brix to 50 Brix. However, Anno et al. discloses the method for concentration using any method and any concentration equipment suited to each method so long as the water content is reduced and the degree of concentration is not particularly restricted in terms of the concentration of water soluble solids in the concentrate (‘565, Column 4, lines 23-34). Differences in the Brix concentration of the onion juice as a result of the thin film concentration step will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such Brix concentration of the juice as a result of the thin film concentration step is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the Brix concentration of the concentrate of the onion juice after the first concentration step performed by thin film concentration based upon the desired clarity of the concentrate and since Anno et al. teaches that the degree of concentration is not particularly restricted.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anno et al. US 6,468,565 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed February 25, 2025) in view of Marx et al. US 1,619,826, Hietsch et al. US 2013/0292242, and Muller US 2018/0289030 as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Sahoo et al. “Impact of Pretreatment and Drying Methods on Quality Attributes of Onion Shreds” (published 2015) and Farag et al. “Biochemical Studies on Some Chemical Characteristics of Sliced Egyptian Onions” (published 1981).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Anno et al. modified with Marx et al., Hietsch et al., and Muller renders obvious the method of preparing an onion concentration using a first concentrating of the onion juice by thin film concentration followed by a second concentrating of the thin film concentrated onion juice by plate concentration of Claim 1 as discussed above. The limitations “the method inhibits the generation of a furan based compound or a pyrazine based compound” are limitations with respect to the properties of the claimed method. Therefore, the prior art combination necessarily teaches the inhibited generation of a furan based compound or a pyrazine based compound since 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 obviousness has been established in view of In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977) (MPEP § 2112.01.I.). Therefore, the prior art combination necessarily teaches the inhibition of the generation of a furan based compound or a pyrazine based compound.
Further regarding Claim 5, Anno et al. modified with Marx et al., Hietsch et al., and Muller is silent regarding the onion concentrate prepared by the method of claim 1 containing 100 µg/ml to 1500 µg/ml of a sulfur containing compound measured with respect to the total solid content of 60 Brix.
Sahoo et al. discloses a method of processing onion comprising treating sliced onions to inhibit enzymatic browning (Sahoo et al., Page 58) wherein applied treatments reduced volatile sulphur compounds more than 30% wherein onion pungency is caused by a number of volatile sulphur compounds (Sahoo et al., Page 59). Farag et al. discloses the amount of total sulfur compounds of dried onions decreased with drying and storage due to volatilization and sublimation of disulfides during the heat process (Farag et al., Page 1396).
Modified Anno et al., Sahoo et al., and Farag et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of processing onions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Anno et al. and adjust the concentration of a sulfur containing compound of the onion product measured with respect to the total solid content of 60 Brix since differences in the concentration of a sulfur containing compound of the onion product will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of a sulfur containing compound o the onion product is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the concentration of a sulfur containing compound of the onion product of modified Anno et al. using drying and storage techniques as taught by Farag et al. (Farag et al., Page 1396) based upon the desired pungency of the onion product which pungency is influenced by the concentration of sulphur compounds as taught by Sahoo et al. (Sahoo et al., Page 59).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anno et al. US 6,468,565 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed February 25, 2025) in view of Marx et al. US 1,619,826, Hietsch et al. US 2013/0292242, and Muller US 2018/0289030 as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Cohn US 3,959,067.
Regarding Claim 7, Anno et al. discloses a concentration being performed though heat treatment such that an evaporation temperature reaches 35°C (‘565, Column 8, lines 14-18), which falls within the claimed evaporation temperature range of 30°C to 35°C. Although Anno et al. teaches the 35°C being conducted with a thin film concentration machine, Anno et al. also discloses the method for concentration using an evaporator and any other method (‘565, Column 4, lines 23-34).
Cohn discloses a method of concentrating juice using a low temperature short time multi effect evaporator operated with a forward feed system, i.e. have a stage after which each subsequent stage of concentration is carried out at lower temperature then volatile constituents removed with the vapors from one or more effects of the evaporator and subsequently condensed are combined with the partially concentrated fruit juice before the final stages of evaporation wherein the recombined juice and flavor compounds present in the essence fraction are again subjected to a concentration stage at the lowest temperature stage of the evaporator (‘067, Column 2, lines 10-30).
Both modified Anno et al. and Cohn are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of concentrating juice. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the evaporation temperature of any concentration step of the process to fall within the claimed evaporation temperature as taught by Example 2 disclosed in Anno et al. since where the claimed evaporation temperature of any concentration step overlaps evaporation temperature of any concentration step ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the temperature of the second concentration step to be a lesser temperature than the first concentration step of modified Anno et al. as taught by Cohn since differences in the evaporation temperature of the any concentration step will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such evaporation temperature of any concentration step is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anno et al. US 6,468,565 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed February 25, 2025) in view of Marx et al. US 1,619,826, Hietsch et al. US 2013/0292242, and Muller US 2018/0289030 as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Morello et al. US 6,287,611 and Miuchi et al. US 2020/0367545.
Regarding Claim 8, Anno et al. discloses an embodiment wherein the onion juice has a solid content of 7.6 Brix (‘565, Column 7, lines 23-29), which falls within the claimed onion juice solid content of 7 to 8 Brix. Where the claimed onion juice solid content range encompasses an example of an onion juice solid content disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the solid content Brix of the onion juice used in the process for making the onion concentrate based upon the desired flavor and sweetness of the onion juice used to make the final onion concentrate.
Further regarding Claim 8, Marx et al. discloses the juice being a more or less cloudy liquid (‘826, Page 2, lines 50-55). However, Anno et al. modified with Marx et al., Hietsch et al., and Muller is silent regarding the onion juice having a turbidity of 120 to 160 NTU.
Morello et al. discloses turbidity masking is provided by natural or synthetic constituents which impart a sufficiently strong turbidity to the aqueous solution wherein the constituent that can mask a change in turbidity or clarity are vegetable juice solids and/or cloudifiers (‘611, Column 2, lines 3-9). Miuchi et al. discloses a food or drink containing an emulsion composition wherein the food or drink is a fruit or vegetable drink or juice (‘545, Paragraphs [0264]-[0265]) wherein the emulsion composition comprises a clouding agent, also known as a turbidity agent or cloudifier, for imparting appropriate cloudiness to aqueous media such as drinks (‘545, Paragraphs [0053]-[0054]).
Modified Anno et al., Morello et al., and Miuchi et al. are all directed towards the same field of endeavor of cloudy vegetable juices. Although Morello et al. and Miuchi et al. does not explicitly state the juice having a turbidity of 120 to 160 NTU, Morello et al. teaches incorporating a cloudifier into a vegetable juice and Miuchi et al. teaches a turbidity agent or cloudifier imparts appropriate cloudiness to aqueous media such as drinks. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Anno et al. and adjust the turbidity of the onion juice to the claimed amount since differences in the turbidity of the onion juice of modified Anno et al. will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such onion juice turbidity. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). Marx et al. discloses the juice being in the form of a more or less cloudy liquid (‘826, Page 2, lines 50-55). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the cloudiness of the onion juice of modified Anno et al. by incorporating cloudifier clouding agents as taught by Morello et al. based upon the desired cloudiness of the onion juice aqueous media as suggested by Miuchi et al.
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anno et al. US 6,468,565 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed February 25, 2025) in view of Marx et al. US 1,619,826, Hietsch et al. US 2013/0292242, and Muller US 2018/0289030 as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Brodnitz et al. US 3,686,324.
Regarding Claims 20-21, Anno et al. discloses the onion concentrate containing thiosulfinate (‘565, Column 1, lines 51-64).
Anno et al. modified with Marx et al., Hietsch et al., and Muller is silent regarding the onion concentrate containing 600 µg/ml or more of thiosulfinate.
Brodnitz et al. discloses a method of making onion and related flavors comprising preparing mixtures of di and trisulfides to obtain certain desired flavors by controlling the quantity of the various alkyl and/or alkylene constituents of the thiosulfinate (‘324, Column 3, lines 48-63) wherein vinylene sulfides are produced by heating the thiosulfinates to temperatures of at least about 100°C (‘324, Column 4, lines 16-31) wherein unreacted thisulfinates are present to obtain a significant fresh onion flavor note together with the freshly cooked onion flavor note (‘324, Column 3, lines 65-68) wherein the thiosulfinate and/or vinylene sulfide mixtures are admixed with other flavoring ingredients to form compositions suitable for imparting a flavor to or enhancing the flavor in a food composition (‘324, Column 3, lines 16-30).
Both modified Anno et al. and Brodnitz et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of making onion flavors. Marx et al. discloses admixing a distillate containing volatile and pungent aromatic flavoring which would have ordinarily been lost when boiling the onion juice had the precaution of collecting the first distillate not been taken (‘826, Page 2, lines 35-49). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Anno et al. and adjust the concentration of thiosulfinate that naturally occurs within onions based upon the intensity of the onion flavor note desired as taught by Brodnitz et al.
Further regarding Claim 21, modified Anno et al. is silent regarding the total solid content of 60 Brix. However, Anno et al. discloses the method for concentration using any method and any concentration equipment suited to each method so long as the water content is reduced and the degree of concentration is not particularly restricted in terms of the concentration of water soluble solids in the concentrate (‘565, Column 4, lines 23-34). Differences in the Brix concentration of the onion juice as a result of the thin film concentration step as well as the Brix concentration of the onion juice as a result of the plate concentration step will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such Brix concentration of the juice as a result of the thin film concentration step and the plate concentration step is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the Brix concentration of the concentrate of the onion juice after each of the concentration steps based upon the desired clarity of the concentrate and since Anno et al. teaches that the degree of concentration is not particularly restricted.
Alternatively, Muller discloses evaporation being performed in a single step or multiple steps where after a certain amount of time has passed or a particular Brix concentration measurement has been reached additional filtration steps are performed such as halting evaporation when the liquid extract reaches a Brix concentration of about 20 and filtered using a gravity sediment removal step and then evaporation is continued to further concentrate the liquid extract (‘030, Paragraphs [0066] and [0071]). This discloses the halting evaporation when the liquid extract reaches a Brix concentration of about 20 falls within the claimed first concentration solid content of 20 Brix to 50 Brix. Muller also discloses the resulting extract is stored in a cool and dry place once concentrated to the desired Brix level (‘030, Paragraph [0067]) and the dilute extract having a low Brix value of between 1 and 3 and the concentrated extract having a Brix value of between about 30 and about 60 (‘030, Paragraph [0063]), which overlaps the claimed solid content of the concentrate being 60 Brix.
Both modified Anno et al. and Muller are directed towards the same field of endeavor of method of preparing a food concentrate comprising concentrating the food to a first desired solid Brix content followed by another concentrating step. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Anno et al. and conduct the concentration steps to the claimed solid content of concentrate of 60 Brix as taught by Muller since where the claimed solid content concentration after the first and second concentration steps overlaps solid content concentration after the first and second concentration steps ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). Muller teaches that there was known utility in the food concentration art to perform a final concentration step to the solid content range of 60 Brix as desired.
Regarding Claim 22, Brodnitz et al. discloses the onion concentrate comprising trisulfides useful for providing alliaceous organoleptic properties to foodstuffs (‘324, Column 1, lines 63-68) to obtain certain desired flavors for the production of onion and related flavors (‘324, Column 3, lines 31-47) which amount of di and trisulfide mixtures are varied over a range to provide the desired flavor and aroma (‘324, Column 7, lines 33-41). Although Brodnitz et al. broadly teaches incorporating generic trisulfides having onion flavor into onion concentrates and does not explicitly disclose examples of the claimed dimethyltrisulfide or methylpropyltrisulfide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of making an onion concentrate of modified Anno et al. which onion concentrate necessarily has trisulfides as taught by Brodnitz et al. and incorporate into the onion concentrate dimethyltrisulfides and/or methylpropyltrisulfides since Brodnitz et al. teaches sulfide mixtures enhances a flavor note is alliaceous vegetables and provides an onion flavor to food compositions (‘324, Column 3, lines 16-47).
Claims 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anno et al. US 6,468,565 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed February 25, 2025) in view of Marx et al. US 1,619,826, Hietsch et al. US 2013/0292242, and Muller US 2018/0289030 as applied to claim 1 above as further evidenced by Mitikkala et al. “On the Quantitative Determination of the Amino Acids and γ-Glutamylpeptides of Onion” (published 1967) (herein referred to as “Mitikkala et al.” in further view of Brodnitz et al. US 3,686,324.
Regarding Claims 23-26, Anno et al. discloses an onion concentrate (‘565, Column 4, lines 24-34). Mitikkala et al. provides evidence that it was known in the food art that onions naturally contain one or more amino acids (Pages 2891) such as glutamic acid (Peak 18, Page 2892), arginine (Peak 46, Page 2892), and histidine (Peak 43, Page 2892). Although Mitikkala et al. does not explicitly disclose the onion concentrate containing the claimed concentration amounts of 10 g/mL or more amino acids, 1.6 g/L or more glutamic acid, 4.5 g/L or more arginine, or 0.16 g/L or more histidine, Marx et al. discloses reintroducing into the concentrated onion juice the volatile and pungent aromatic flavoring ingredients would have ordinarily been lost when boiling the onion juice had the precaution of collecting the first one tenth of the distillate not been taken (‘826, Page 2, lines 35-449). Brodnitz et al. also discloses a foodstuff having flavoring composition comprising amino acids wherein the types and amounts of materials depends upon the precise organoleptic character desired in the final food product and will also vary according to the foodstuffs to which the flavor and aroma are to be imparted (‘324, Column 6, lines 29-50) wherein the foodstuff is onion juice (onion soup) (‘324, Column 10, lines 8-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the concentration of the onion concentrating process of modified Anno et al. that uses onions which naturally contains amino acids including glutamic acid, arginine, and histidine as evidenced by Mitikkala et al. and reintroduce into the concentrated onion juice the volatile and pungent aromatic flavoring ingredients of the amino acids of glutamic acid, arginine, and histidine disclosed by Marx et al. since differences in the concentration of amino acids imparted into the onion concentrate will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such amino acid concentrations are critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would adjust the concentration of the various amino acids of the onion concentrate of modified Anno et al. based upon the precise organoleptic character desired in the finished product as taught by Brodnitz et al. (‘324, Column 6, lines 29-50).
Claims 28 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anno et al. US 6,468,565 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed February 25, 2025) in view of Marx et al. US 1,619,826, Hietsch et al. US 2013/0292242, and Muller US 2018/0289030 as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Wiesmuller et al. US 2006/0292279 and Downton et al. US 5,411,755.
Regarding Claims 28 and 30, Hietsch et al. discloses using gas chromatography to measure the concentration of volatiles (‘242, Paragraph [0030]). However, Anno et al. modified with Marx et al., Hietsch et al., and Muller et al. is silent regarding the onion concentrate having a content of at least one furan based compound selected from the claimed furan compounds or the onion concentrate having a content of at least one pyrazine based compound selected from the claimed pyrazine compounds being 0.1 parts by weight or less with respect to 100 parts by weight of an onion concentrate volatile component. These limitations indicates that the concentration of at least one furan based compound and the concentration of the at least one pyrazine based compound is minimal or completely removed.
Wiesmuller et al. discloses a method for the selective separation of volatile flavorings (‘279, Paragraph [0001]) comprising separating volatile flavorings selectively as valuable product and to remove specifically from the starting materials volatile flavorings having an adverse aroma note wherein the starting material is obtained in dearomatized and/or deodorized state (‘279, Paragraph [0025]). Downton et al. discloses a method of making a juice comprising evaporation of volatiles from the juice to remove undesirable flavor notes (‘755, Column 5, lines 25-37) wherein the removed volatiles can be totally or partially recovered, concentrated and used for other food flavor applications, added back to the juice or discarded (‘755, Column 8, lines 9-21) wherein the resulting juice is essentially free from undesirable off flavor precursors (‘755, Column 5, lines 38-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Anno et al. and remove the desired volatiles from the concentrated product, e.g. furan and pyrazine based compounds as taught by Wiesmuller et al., which would necessarily result in the claimed concentrations of 0.1 parts by weight or less with respect to 100 parts by weight of the concentrate volatile component, in order to remove any undesirable off flavor precursors as taught by Downton et al.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anno et al. US 6,468,565 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed February 25, 2025) in view of Marx et al. US 1,619,826, Hietsch et al. US 2013/0292242, Muller US 2018/0289030, Burke Jr. US 5,405,640, Desai et al. US 2007/0178147, Mukaida et al. US 2018/0117493, and Clark et al. US 2011/0003355.
Regarding Claim 34, Anno et al. discloses a method for preparing an onion concentrate (onion extract) (‘565, Column 1, lines 8-9). The method comprises preparing an onion juice (‘565, Column 7, lines 43-55) and performing first concentrating of the onion juice by thin film concentration (‘565, Column 8, lines 14-18) until the solid content of the onion juice reaches the desired Brix levels (‘565, Column 8, lines 21-22) wherein the thin film concentration is performed through heat treatment such that an evaporation temperature reaches 35°C (‘565, Column 8, lines 14-18), which falls within the claimed evaporation temperature of 30°C to 35°C. Where the claimed evaporation temperature of the thin film concentration step encompasses evaporation temperature of the thin film concentration step disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). Furthermore, differences in the evaporation temperature of the thin film concentration step will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such evaporation temperature of the thin film concentration step is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). Anno et al. also discloses the onion juice is prepared only from onion (‘565, Column 7, lines 44-54) (‘565, Column 8, lines 1-22).
Anno et al. is silent regarding performing a second concentrating of the thin film concentrated onion juice by plate concentration. Anno et al. is also silent regarding the first concentration by thin film concentration being conducted to a solid content of the onion juice reaching 20 Brix to 50 Brix, the thin film concentration being performed at a vacuum degree of 4 kPa and a drum speed of 1500 rpm and the solid content of the onion concentrate after the second concentration step to be 60 Brix to 65 Brix wherein the plate concentration is performed at a vacuum degree of 2 kPa.
Marx et al. discloses a method for preparing an onion concentrate (‘826, Page 1, lines 37-45). The method comprises preparing an onion juice and performing a first concentrating of the onion juice (first evaporation step) (‘826, Page 1, lines 69-104) followed by performing a second concentrating of the onion juice (further evaporating step) (‘826, Page 2, lines 25-34). The evaporation steps are performed under partial or complete vacuum at reduced pressure (‘826, Page 1, lines 95-110).
Both Anno et al. and Marx et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of preparing an onion concentrate comprising the steps of preparing an onion juice and performing at least one concentration step of the onion juice. Anno et al. discloses concentrating the onion juice using any method such as a vacuum concentration method so long as the water content is reduced and the degree of concentration is not restricted (‘565, Column 4, lines 23-34). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Anno et al. and perform a first concentration step and a second concentration step on the onion juice as taught by Marx et al. since volatile and pungent aromatic flavoring ingredients are ordinarily lost when boiling the onion juice in the first concentration/evaporation step. By conducting a first concentrating step, saving the distillate from the second concentrating step, further concentrating the onion juice in a second concentrating step, and then adding the distillate from the first concentrating step, the volatile and pungent aromatic flavoring ingredients which would have ordinarily been lost when boiling the onion juice retains the volatile and pungent aromatic flavoring ingredients that would otherwise have been lost in using only a singular concentrating step (‘826, Page 2, lines 35-49).
Further regarding Claim 34, the combination of Anno et al. modified with Marx et al. discloses the method comprising performing a first concentrating of the onion juice by thin film concentration followed by performing a second concentrating of the onion juice. Anno et al. discloses the onion juice being concentrated to provide an onion extract wherein the method for concentration includes a vacuum concentration method using an evaporator or any other method using concentration equipment suited for each method to be employed so long as the water content is reduced (‘565, Column 4, lines 23-34). However, Anno et al. modified with Marx et al. is silent regarding the second concentrating step being done using plate concentration at a vacuum degree of 2 kPa. Anno et al. modified with Marx et al. is also silent regarding the thin film concentration being performed at a vacuum degree of 4 kPa and a drum speed of 1500 rpm.
Hietsch et al. discloses an apparatus for the distillation of substance mixture comprising temperature sensitive substances (‘242, Paragraph [0015]) wherein the apparatus comprises a thin film evaporator and a fractionating column wherein the fractionating column is attached to the distillate outlet of the thin film evaporator wherein the fractionating column has at least 3 theoretical plates (‘242, Paragraph [0001]) wherein the apparatus is applied to temperature sensitive substances and/or employed for concentrating or purifying such substances (‘242, Paragraph [0024]). The disclosure of the fractionating column having plates being attached to the distillate outlet of the thin film evaporator reads on the claimed steps of concentrating the raw material by thin film concentration and then concentrating the raw material by plate concentration.
Anno et al. discloses a method of concentrating onion juice extract (‘565, Column 1, lines 51-64). Marx et al. discloses prolonged heating at a higher temperature may injure onion pulp (‘826, Page 1, lines 95-110). Therefore, the concentrated onion juice disclosed by Anno et al. modified with Marx et al. is a type of temperature sensitive substance that is generically disclosed by Hietsch et al. Anno et al. also discloses the method for concentration of the onion using an evaporator or any other method (‘565, Column 4, lines 23-30). Both modified Anno et al. and Hietsch et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of concentrating temperature sensitive using two concentration steps. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Anno et al. and perform a thin film concentration step followed by a plate concentration step performed on a thermally sensitive product as taught by Hietsch et al. since the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new and unexpeted results in view of In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.C.). Hietsch et al. discloses that there was known utility in the concentration art to perform a thin film concentration step followed by a plate concentration step on a thermally sensitive product.
Further regarding Claim 34, Anno et al. modified with Marx et al. and Hietsch et al. is silent regarding the first concentration by thin film concentration being conducted to a solid content of the onion juice reaching 20 Brix to 50 Brix and the solid content of the onion concentrate after the second concentration step by plate concentration to be 60 Brix to 65 Brix. Anno et al. modified with Marx et al. and Hietsch et al. is also silent regarding the plate concentration process not repeating.
Muller discloses evaporation being performed in a single step or multiple steps where after a certain amount of time has passed or a particular Brix concentration measurement has been reached additional filtration steps are performed such as halting evaporation when the liquid extract reaches a Brix concentration of about 20 and filtered using a gravity sediment removal step and then evaporation is continued to further concentrate the liquid extract (‘030, Paragraphs [0066] and [0071]). This discloses the halting evaporation when the liquid extract reaches a Brix concentration of about 20 falls within the claimed first concentration solid content of 20 Brix to 50 Brix. Muller also discloses the resulting extract is stored in a cool and dry place once concentrated to the desired Brix level (‘030, Paragraph [0067]) and the dilute extract having a low Brix value of between 1 and 3 and the concentrated extract having a Brix value of between about 30 and about 60 (‘030, Paragraph [0063]), which overlaps the claimed solid content of the concentrate being 60 Brix to 65 Brix. Muller also discloses the plate concentration process being used as an evaporation step using plate evaporators designed for rising flow in a single pass operation to keep the thermal strain of the product as low as possible (‘030, Paragraph [0065]) and the drying step to be achieved using a single step (‘030, Paragraph [0071]), which reads on the claimed plate concentration process not repeating.
Both modified Anno et al. and Muller are directed towards the same field of endeavor of method of preparing a food concentrate comprising concentrating the food to a first desired solid Brix content followed by another concentrating step. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Anno et al. and conduct the first concentration step until the solid content reaches 20 Brix to 50 Brix followed by the second concentration step to the claimed solid content of concentrate of 60 Brix to 65 Brix as taught by Muller since where the claimed solid content concentration after the first and second concentration steps overlaps solid content concentration after the first and second concentration steps ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). Muller teaches that there was known utility in the food concentration art to perform a first concentration step to the solid content range of 20 Brix to 50 Brix and the second concentration step to the solid content range of 60 Brix to 65 Brix as desired. Furthermore, Anno et al. discloses the method for concentration using any method and any concentration equipment suited to each method so long as the water content is reduced and the degree of concentration is not particularly restricted in terms of the concentration of water soluble solids in the concentrate (‘565, Column 4, lines 23-34). Differences in the Brix concentration of the onion juice as a result of the thin film concentration step as well as the Brix concentration of the onion juice as a result of the plate concentration step will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such Brix concentration of the juice as a result of the thin film concentration step and the plate concentration step is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the Brix concentration of the concentrate of the onion juice after each of the concentration steps based upon the desired clarity of the concentrate and since Anno et al. teaches that the degree of concentration is not particularly restricted. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Anno et al. and use a process such that the plate concentration process does not repeat as taught by Muller in order to keep the thermal strain on the product as low as possible using a single pass operation of the plate evaporator (‘030, Paragraph [0065]).
Further regarding Claim 34, Marx et al. discloses the evaporation occurring at partial or complete vacuum at reduced pressure to avoid injuring the onion pulp (‘826, Page 1, lines 95-110). Although modified Anno et al. does not explicitly teach the thin film concentration step occurring at a vacuum pressure of 4 kPa or the plate concentration step occurring at 2 kPa, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the vacuum pressures to fall within the claimed vacuum pressures since differences in the vacuum pressure of the thin film concentration step or the plate concentration step will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such vacuum pressure of the thin film concentration step and plate concentration step is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). Furthermore, Burke Jr. discloses a method of processing an onion comprising subjecting the onion to a critically controlled level of reduced pressure for a controlled period of time at a predetermined temperature wherein undesirable volatile substances are evaporatively removed from the onion without removal of desired substances (‘640, Column 2, lines 16-25) wherein water aspirator devices operating at a vacuum are used to dispose of noxious volatiles derived from the onion (‘640, Column 3, lines 8-22). Additionally, Desai et al. discloses a method of evaporation under reduced pressure using an aspirator or low vacuum from about 1 mm Hg to about 50 mm Hg (‘147, Paragraph [0006]), which encompasses the claimed thin film concentration vacuum degree of 4 kPa (equivalent to about 30 mm Hg) and the claimed plate concentration vacuum degree of 2 kPa (equivalent to about 15 mm Hg).
Both modified Anno et al. and Burke Jr. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of processing onion products at reduced pressures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Anno et al. and conduct the process of modified Anno et al. that already discloses using partial vacuum conditions using the claimed vacuum degrees since Burke Jr. et al. teaches that water aspirator devices operating at vacuum are capable of removing noxious volatiles derived from the onion and since Desai et al. teaches that aspirators used for evaporation are capable of operating at the claimed vacuum degrees. Where the claimed vacuum degree of evaporation steps overlaps vacuum degree of evaporation steps ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.).
Further regarding Claim 34, Anno et al. modified with Marx et al., Hietsch et al., Muller, Burke Jr., and Desai et al. is silent regarding the thin film concentration being performed at a drum speed of 1500 rpm.
Mukaida et al. discloses an evaporator used for concentration of a liquid (‘493, Paragraph [0001]) wherein the food industry uses a falling film evaporator to recover a solvent form a liquid containing foreign substances and impurities or to concentrate the liquid (‘493, Paragraph [0002]) wherein the rotation rate suitable for drawing up the raw material liquid within the agitation vessel varies in accordance with the constituent components and the viscosity of the raw material liquid received in the bottom portion of the agitation vessel and the like and is not necessarily limited (‘493, Paragraph [0071]). Clark et al. discloses a plate evaporator (‘355, Paragraph [0024]) wherein centrifugation is used to provide a liquid fraction comprising the compound of interest and depending on the centrifuge configuration and size, operating speeds varies between 500 to 12000 rpm (‘355, Paragraph [0052]), which encompasses the claimed drum sped of 1500 rpm.
Modified Anno et al., Mukaida et al., and Clark et al. are all directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of concentrating foods using an evaporator. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of modified Anno et al. and conduct the thin film concentration step at the claimed drum speed of 1500 rpm as taught by Clark et al. since where the claimed evaporation drum speed of the thin film concentration step encompasses evaporation drum speed of the thin film concentration step disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists in view of In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (MPEP § 2144.05.I.). Furthermore, differences in the evaporation drum speed of the thin film concentration step will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such evaporation drum speed of the thin film concentration step is critical. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation in view of In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP § 2144.05.II.A.). One of ordinary skill in the art would adjust the drum speed of the thin film concentration step of modified Anno et al. based upon the viscosity of the raw material liquid as taught by Murkaida et al. as well as the centrifuge configuration and size used to perform the evaporation as taught by Clark et al.
Response to Arguments
Examiner notes that the previous Claim Objections have been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Examiner notes that the previous indefiniteness rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the obviousness rejection of Claim 1 under 35 USC 103(a) to Anno et al. modified with Marx et al. and Hietsch et al. have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on this combination of references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument, which was necessitated by the amendment of the new limitations “the plate concentration process does not repeat.”
Applicant's arguments filed February 9, 2026 with respect to the previous obviousness rejections under 35 USC 103(a) to Anno et al. modified with Marx et al, Hietsch et al., and Muller have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Page 6 of the Remarks that Hietsch teaches a fractionating column which has at least three theoretic plates and tush at least three plate concentration process and fails to teach “the plate concentration process does not repeat.”
Examiner argues the obviousness rejections is based on the combination of the primary reference of Anno et al. modified with the secondary references of Marx, et al. Hietsch et al., and Muller. The secondary reference of Muller discloses the evaporation step being conducted with plate evaporators designed for rising flow in single pass operation to keep the thermal strain on the product as low as possible (‘030, Paragraph [0065]) wherein drying is achieved in a single step (‘030, Paragraph [0071]), which reads on the claimed plate concentration process not repeating. Therefore, this argument is not found persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dinnage et al. US 4,561,941 discloses an essence recovery process comprising a mechanical vapor recompression utilized with a single effect evaporator wherein a feed juice is initially placed in a stripping evaporator of the single effect type.
Guatelli US 2002/0174960 discloses an apparatus for concentrating fruit purees and vegetables juices.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICSON M LACHICA whose telephone number is (571)270-0278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-5pm, 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, 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.
/ERICSON M LACHICA/Examiner, Art Unit 1792