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 II: Claims 11-20 in the reply filed on November 4, 2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
An action on the merits of elected Claims 11-20 is provided below.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on June 12, 2023 and February 19, 2024 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-13 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites the limitation “A method of making an onion food product comprising the steps of” in line 1. It appears the claim should recite “A method of making an onion food product, the method comprising the steps of” in order to directly refer to the term that the transitional phrase “comprising” modifies.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “comprising performing filling step in the follow order” in line 1. It appears the claim should recite “comprising performing the filling step in the following order” for grammatical purposes.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the” in line 1 as well as “the” in line 2, line 4, line 6, line 8, and line 10. It appears the word “the” in Claim 13, line 1 should be deleted for grammatical purposes.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “the heat stable flavor” in line 1. It appears the claim should recite “the at least one heat stable flavor” in order to maintain consistency with “at least one heat stable flavor” recited in Claim 11, line 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12 and 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “sodium metabisulfite” in line 2. It is unclear if this refers to “sodium bisulfite” recited in Claim 11, line 2 or to an entirely different sodium metabisulfite.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “at least one stable flavor” in line 3. It is unclear if this refers to “at least one stable flavor” recited in Claim 11, line 2 or to an entirely different at least one stable flavor.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “onion” (singular) in line 4. It is unclear if this refers to “onions” (plural) recited in Claim 11, line 3 or to entirely different onions. Also, it is unclear if there is only one onion (singular) as recited in Claim 12 or if multiple onions (plural) are present as recited in Claim 11.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “an acidified solution” in line 1. It is unclear if this refers to “an acidified solution” recited in Claim 11, line 3 or to an entirely different acidified solution. For purposes of examination Examiner interprets the claim to refer to the same acidified solution.
Clarification is required.
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 11-13, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Tillen Farms Jalapeno Onions, 12 oz.” <https://www.amazon.com/Tillen-Farms-Jalapeno-Onions-12/dp/B07KJFDWBT> (published November 27, 2019) (herein referred to as “Tillen Farms” in view of Postner et al. US 4,430,352 (cited on Information Disclosure Statement filed June 12, 2023), Wang US 2017/0166333, and Strauss “how much salt should i use for my fermentation?” <https://nwedible.com/how-much-salt-fermentation/> (published September 3, 2015) (herein referred to as “Strauss”).
Regarding Claim 11, Tillen Farms discloses a method of making an onion food product. The method comprises the steps of providing a container, filling the container with a heat stable flavor (jalapenos), onions and an acidified solution comprising lactic acid, water, and a brine, and capping the container.
Tillen Farms is silent regarding the container being filled with sodium metabisulfite, the acidified solution having a pH of about 4.0 or less and the brine being a brine acid of 1.0% acid or less, agitating the container, inverting the container, thermally pasteurizing the container, and cooling the container.
Postner et al. discloses a method of making an onion food product. The method comprises the steps of providing a container (tube), filling the container (tube) with sodium metabisulfite, onions, and an acidified solution comprising citric acid, wherein the acidified solution has a pH of about 4.0 or less (‘352, Column 2, lines 6-28). The container is capped (reclosable) (‘352, Column 3, lines 38-39), agitated (mixed) (‘352, Column 3, lines 20-29), and thermally pasteurized (‘352, Column 2, lines 36-39) and the container is cooled (‘352, Column 3, lines 32-37).
Both Tillen Farms and Postner et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of making onion food products packaged in a container. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Tillen Farms and incorporate sodium metabisulfite into the onion product as taught by Postner et al. since the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination in view of Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) (MPEP § 2144.07). Postner et al. teaches that there was known utility in the food art to incorporate sodium metabisulfite as a preservative for onion food products. 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 Tillen Farms and adjust the pH of the acidified solution to the claimed pH of about 4.0 or less as taught by Postner et al. since where the claimed pH of the acidified solution ranges overlaps pH of the acidified solution 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.). Postner et al. teaches that it was conventional to adjust the pH of an onion food product to the claimed pH levels as desired. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Tillen Farms and thermally pasteurize the container as taught by Postner et al. in order to destroy any unwanted bacteria and microorganisms present in the onion food product.
Further regarding Claim 11, Tillen Farms modified with Postner et al. is silent regarding a brine acid of 1.0% acid or less and the container being inverted.
Wang discloses a sealed bottle, container, or pouch including caps and closures wherein the container contains foodstuffs (‘333, Paragraph [0059]) wherein a typical hot fill process involves adding a hot liquid to a bottle while at an elevated temperature typically from about 70 to about 93°C and then immediately sealing the bottle or container with a closure and then inverting the container wherein contact of the hot liquid with the closure sterilizes the closure wherein inversion lasts for about 15 seconds or a time sufficient for sterilization of the closure interior wherein the bottle is cooled to about 40°C following sterilization (‘333, Paragraph [0003]).
Both modified Tillen Farms and Wang are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of packaging food products in a container. 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 Tillen Farms and invert the container as taught by Wang in order to sterilize the cap closure that seals the container.
Further regarding Claim 11, Tillen Farms modified with Postner et al. and Wang is silent regarding a brine acid of 1.0% acid or less.
Strauss discloses fermenting onions in a 2-3% brine solution wherein the concentration of salt in a brine sets up an environment in which the right microbes thrive wherein the more salt is a stronger brine wherein a weaker brine allows for faster fermentation because the lactobacillus and other beneficial microbes are not as suppressed and is good in cooler weather when fermentation needs help to start and less salt allows ferments with softer texture (Strauss, Page 4).
Both modified Tillen Farms and Strauss are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of making food products using a brine solution. 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 Tillen Farms and adjust the concentration of brine acid to fall within the claimed acidity levels since differences in the acidity levels of the brine solution will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such acidity level of the brine solution 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 acidity level of the brine solution based upon the desired rate of fermentation as taught by Strauss.
Regarding Claim 12, modified Tillen Farms is silent regarding performing the filling steps in the claimed order of dosing the sodium metabisulfite, adding the at least one heat stable flavor, adding the onion, and adding the acidified solution comprising water and the one or more acids. However, the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results in view of In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.C.).
Regarding Claim 13, Postner et al. discloses the sodium metabisulfite being added in an amount of from 0.05 to 0.1% of the onion food product and from 0.05 to 0.20% citric acid (‘352, Column 2, lines 20-28), which overlaps the claimed concentration of sodium metabisulfite of about 0.01-0.1% wt% and food grade acid of from about 0.1-2% wt%, respectively. 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 Tillen Farms and incorporate sodium metabisulfite and citric acid in the claimed concentrations as taught by Postner et al. since where the claimed concentrations of sodium metabisulfite and citric acid ranges overlaps concentrations of sodium metabisulfite and citric acid 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 13, modified Tillen Farms is silent regarding the concentration of the heat stable flavor being added in an amount ranging from about 0.1-2 wt/wt% relative to the total weight of the onion food product, the concentration of the onion being added in an amount ranging from about 15-25 wt/wt% relative to the total weight of the onion food product, and the water being added in an amount ranging from about 71-84% wt/wt% relative to the total weight of the onion food product. However, differences in the concentration of the heat stable flavor, onion, and water will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration of heat stable flavor, onion, and water 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 concentrations of the jalapeno heat stable flavor and onion of Tillen Farms based upon the desired intensity of the jalapeno heat stable flavor and onion flavor desired by a particular consumer. Additionally, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the water content of the onion food product disposed in the brine of Tillen Farms to keep the onion and jalapenos moist until ready for use for cooking or consumption.
Regarding Claim 15, modified Tillen Farms is silent regarding the step of adding an acidified solution being the final step for filling the container prior to capping. However, the selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results in view of In re Burhans, 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (MPEP § 2144.04.IV.C.).
Regarding Claim 16, Wang discloses a typical hot fill process involves hot filling a hot liquid beverage to a bottle while at an elevated temperature of from about 70 to about 93°C and then sealing immediately with a closure and inverting while maintaining contact of the hot liquid with the closure to sterilize the closure (‘333, Paragraph [0003]). The disclosure of the inversion step occurring at a temperature of from about 70 to about 93°C for sterilization of the closure converts to an inversion temperature of about 158 to about 199°F, which encompasses the claimed inversion temperature of about 165°F. Where the claimed inversion temperature encompasses inversion temperatures 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, the inversion lasts for a time sufficient for sterilization of the closure interior (‘333, Paragraph [0003]). Differences in the inversion time at the elevated temperatures will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such inversion time at the elevated temperatures 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 amount of time the container of modified Tillen Farms is inverted until such time is sufficient for sterilization of the closure interior as taught by Wang.
Regarding Claim 20, Tillen Farms discloses the heat stable flavor being jalapenos, which reads on the claimed natural flavor.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Tillen Farms Jalapeno Onions, 12 oz.” <https://www.amazon.com/Tillen-Farms-Jalapeno-Onions-12/dp/B07KJFDWBT> (published November 27, 2019) (herein referred to as “Tillen Farms” in view of Postner et al. US 4,430,352, Wang US 2017/0166333, and Strauss “how much salt should i use for my fermentation?” <https://nwedible.com/how-much-salt-fermentation/> (published September 3, 2015) (herein referred to as “Strauss”) as applied to claim 11 above in further view of Fiwek et al. US 5,050,369.
Regarding Claim 14, Wang discloses capping the container with the closure immediately after filling (‘333, Paragraph [0034]), which reads on capping the container within 30 seconds or less of filling. Fiwek also discloses a method of assembling a container with a closure immediately following introducing of a selected quantity of liquid into the container (‘369, Column 2, lines 8-11), which also reads on capping the container within 30 seconds or less of filing. Fiwek et al. discloses avoiding prolonged contact between the contents of the filled containers and the surrounding atmosphere (‘369, Column 1, lines 62-66), which extremely short interval of time greatly reduces the likelihood of splashing, bubbling, or spraying of liquid out of a filled container as well as the likelihood of contamination of the confined liquid as a result of contact with oxygen in the surrounding atmosphere (‘369, Column 9, lines 32-43).
Modified Tillen Farms, Wang, and Fiwek are all directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of packaging liquid food or beverage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the process of Tillen Farms and cap the container immediately with the closure after filling the container with the liquid, which reads on the claimed capping of the container within 30 seconds or less of filling, as taught by Wang and Fiwek since Fiwek teaches that extremely short intervals of time in which the contents of the filled containers and the surrounding atmosphere is exposed reduces the likelihood of splashing, bubbling, or spraying of liquid out of a filled container as well as the likelihood of contamination of the confined liquid as a result of contact with oxygen in the surrounding atmosphere (‘369, Column 9, lines 32-43).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Tillen Farms Jalapeno Onions, 12 oz.” <https://www.amazon.com/Tillen-Farms-Jalapeno-Onions-12/dp/B07KJFDWBT> (published November 27, 2019) (herein referred to as “Tillen Farms” in view of Postner et al. US 4,430,352, Wang US 2017/0166333, and Strauss “how much salt should i use for my fermentation?” <https://nwedible.com/how-much-salt-fermentation/> (published September 3, 2015) (herein referred to as “Strauss”) as applied to claim 11 above in further view of Beach US 2021/0030026.
Regarding Claim 16, modified Tillen Farms renders obvious the limitations of Claim 16 (via Wang) as enumerated in the obviousness rejections above. However, in the event that it can be shown with objective evidence that the claimed time the container being inverted for a minimum of about 2.2 minutes while maintaining a temperature of about 165°F is critical, Beach discloses a method of packaging an herbal energy drink comprising hot filling bottles at a minimum temperature of about 170°F with an infusion liquid, then capping the filled bottles and inverting for at least 5 minutes (‘026, Paragraph [0117]), which overlaps the claimed inversion minimum time of about 2.2 minutes and the claimed temperature of about 165°F.
Both modified Tillen Farms and Beach are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of packaging a food product in a container. 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 Tillen Farms and invert the container for the claimed amount of time as taught by Beach since where the claimed inversion time at elevated temperatures encompasses inversion times at elevated temperatures 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.).
Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Tillen Farms Jalapeno Onions, 12 oz.” <https://www.amazon.com/Tillen-Farms-Jalapeno-Onions-12/dp/B07KJFDWBT> (published November 27, 2019) (herein referred to as “Tillen Farms” in view of Postner et al. US 4,430,352, Wang US 2017/0166333, and Strauss “how much salt should i use for my fermentation?” <https://nwedible.com/how-much-salt-fermentation/> (published September 3, 2015) (herein referred to as “Strauss”) as applied to claim 11 above in further view of Jensen US 2015/0056359.
Regarding Claim 17, Postner et al. discloses a method of making an onion food product. The method comprises the steps of providing a container (tube), filling the container (tube) with sodium metabisulfite, onions, and an acidified solution comprising citric acid, wherein the acidified solution has a pH of about 4.0 or less (‘352, Column 2, lines 6-28). The container is capped (reclosable) (‘352, Column 3, lines 38-39) and agitated (mixed) (‘352, Column 3, lines 20-29). However, modified Tillen Farms is silent regarding agitated the container for about 45 seconds or less.
Jensen discloses a sauce comprising onions combined with vegetables and all remaining ingredients into a preheated pan, cooked, and blended using a puree setting for 10-45 seconds until desired consistency is achieved (‘359, Paragraph [0038]), which overlaps the claimed agitation time of 45 seconds or less.
Both modified Tillen Farms and Jensen are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of making onion food products. 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 Tillen Farms and agitate the container for the claimed amount of time of agitation as taught by Jensen since where the claimed agitation time encompasses agitation times 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 also adjust the agitation time of the contents of the container of modified Tillen Farms based upon the desired consistency of the onion food product desired as taught by Jensen.
Regarding Claim 19, Strauss discloses adding spices and herbs to the brine solution (Strauss, Page 6). However, Tillen Farms modified with Postner et al., Wang, and Strauss is silent regarding adding one additional vegetable ingredient different from onion and the heat stable jalapenos.
Jensen discloses a sauce comprising onions combined with vegetables and all remaining ingredients into a preheated pan, cooked, and blended using a puree setting for 10-45 seconds until desired consistency is achieved (‘359, Paragraph [0038]).
Both modified Tillen Farms and Jensen are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of making onion food products. 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 Tillen Farms and add one additional vegetable ingredient different from onions and heat stable flavors of jalapenos as taught by Jensen based upon the desired flavor profile and ingredients by a particular consumer.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Tillen Farms Jalapeno Onions, 12 oz.” <https://www.amazon.com/Tillen-Farms-Jalapeno-Onions-12/dp/B07KJFDWBT> (published November 27, 2019) (herein referred to as “Tillen Farms” in view of Postner et al. US 4,430,352, Wang US 2017/0166333, and Strauss “how much salt should i use for my fermentation?” <https://nwedible.com/how-much-salt-fermentation/> (published September 3, 2015) (herein referred to as “Strauss”) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Mitra et al. “Onion dehydration: a review” (Journal of Food Science and Technology, May-June 2012) (herein referred to as “Mitra et al.”).
Regarding Claim 18, modified Tillen Farms is silent regarding the onions being dehydrated.
Mitra et al. discloses onions are generally dried from an initial moisture content of about 86% to 7% or less for efficient storage and processing (Mitra et al., Page 269) wherein dehydration of food is aimed to producing a concentrated product which when adequately packaged has a long shelf life after which the food can be simply reconstituted without substantial loss of flavor, taste, color, and aroma (Mitra et al., Page 270).
Both modified Tillen Farms and Mitra et al. are directed towards the same field of endeavor of methods of processing onion food products. 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 Tillen Farms and packages onions in a container containing a brining solution and dehydrate the brined onions as taught by Mitra et al. in order to concentrate the onion product and increase the shelf life of the onion product.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kristen “Waste Free Onion Storage” <https://www.thefrugalgirl.com/waste-free-onion-storage/> (published March 11, 2014) discloses storing dehydrated fruits and vegetables in vacuum sealed jars to further preserve them.
Klopfer “Use These Restaurant Secrets to Reduce the Pungency of Raw Onions” <https://food-hacks.wonderhowto.com/how-to/use-these-restaurant-secrets-reduce-pungency-raw-onions-0161344/> (published May 5, 2015) discloses a method of processing an onion food product comprising the steps of adding chopped onions toa bowl with water, adding salt, and microwaving in order to reduce the pungency of raw onions.
Iqbal et al. “Stability of Capsaicinoids and Antioxidants in Dry Hot Peppers under Different Packaging and Storage Temperatures” (Foods, Volume 4, 2015) discloses the presence of capsaicinoids in hot peppers has a favorable effect on the stability of carotenoids during thermal drying (Iqbal et al., Page 52).
Schmidt et al. US 2020/0060310 discloses a food composition comprising a myceliated high protein food product (‘310, Paragraph [0009]) comprising sodium metabisulfite (‘310, Paragraph [0036]) and onion seasonings (‘310, Paragraph [0042]) wherein the pH of the slurry is adjusted to a range of 4 to 8 using lactic acid (‘310, Paragraph [0123]).
Melwitz US 2011/0262618 discloses a pureed herb and/or vegetable comprising insoluble fibers (‘618, Paragraph [0001]) wherein the herb or vegetable is onion (‘618, Paragraphs [0018]-[0019]) wherein the insoluble fibers are onion fibers (‘618, Paragraph [0024]) wherein the composition has a pH adjusted to 2.0 to 4.0 using any suitable food grade acid such as lactic acid and/or citric acid (‘618, Paragraph [0030])
McIntyre et al. US 4,789,553 discloses rice combined with onions wherein sulfiting agents such as sodium metabisulfite has been used for controlling or reversing discoloration of a wide variety of low acid foodstuffs including fruits and vegetables but tend to produce sulfurous odors and flavors wherein the presence of acid lowers the equilibrium pH of the contents to 4.6 or below and improves the flavor of the thermally processed product.
Kruse US 3,138,464 discloses a method of making a preserved food or partially preserved food from fresh onions (‘464, Column 1, lines 10-17) wherein 0.3% to 0.8% citric acid is added to the comminuted onions (‘464, Column 3, lines 7-19).
Andonian et al. US 4,374,153 discloses a method of controlling the pinking of onions.
Martin US 4,034,118 discloses a method of sweetening or mellowing onions.
Prater et al. US 3,113,875 discloses a method of dehydrating onion fragments.
Miller US 2,406,431 disclose a method of dehydrating onions.
Ananth et al. US 2018/0271134 discloses a method of dispensing a container containing onions (‘134, Paragraph [0059]) comprising inverting and squeezing a squeezable container (“134, Paragraph [0041]).
Harrison et al. US 2013/0216693 discloses a method of preparing maple syrup comprising adding preservatives, salt, flavoring, and color to water using slow speed in a standard mixer, slowly adding gums to the mixture, blending in resistant corn syrup solids while heating to 185 degrees F, holding for one minute, removing heat and adding acid and filling the containers at 180-185 degree F and inverting for one minute and cooling to 75 degree F.
Khairullah et al. US 2004/0224072 discloses a method of making soft frozen pure or particulate composition using vegetable, herbs, and/or spices including onion (‘072, Paragraph [0015]) comprising inverting a cup and coffee filter (‘072, Paragraph [0313]).
Bruno Jr. et al. US 4,560,564 discloses a tomato based sauce product containing textured protein or a mixture of textured protein and meat comprising dehydrated or powdered onion seasonings wherein after the container is sealed it is important that portions of the container not contacted by product is heated to the same temperature as the product wherein a post capping hot water spray is directed at the lid and headspace of the jar used to provide for lid and headspace heating wherein the jars can be inverted after filling and capping for the desired hold time to provide for lid and headspace sterilization and then cooling the product for storage temperatures.
Greff US 5,750,181 discloses a method of making fresh comminuted onions sealed in a container (‘181, Column 1, lines 5-7) comprising the steps of peeling and grinding whole onions and putting from 95% to 97% by weight of the ground onions into a mixture of which also comprises approximately from 0.4% to 0.8% by weight of an acidulant of granular citric acid to adjust the pH of the onions to approximately 4.0 down from approximately 5.5 and further comprises from 0.05% to 0.25% by weight of xanthan gum stabilizer to bind water to the onions and filled into containers (‘181, Column 2, lines 11-46).
Sanderson et al. US 5,783,237 discloses a method for the recovery and reuse of a salt solution obtained from a salty effluent comprising adjusting the temperature of the salt solution to control the concentration of the saturated salt solution.
Dhruv et al. US 2009/0038267 discloses a continuous hot fill process comprising filling bottles with a hot fluid, applying a cap to the containers, and inverting the filled and capped containers for thermal treatment of the caps followed by cooling of the contents of the filled containers from about 182°F to below 100°F (‘267, Paragraph [0036]).
Sell US 2,475,407 discloses a method of sterilizing containers comprising the step of inverting containers to be cleansed and sterilized and filling the container entirely with boiling water so that the hot water comes into direct contact with every portion of the interior surfaces of the jars or bottles to efficiently cleanse and sterilize the same.
Woodyer et al. US 2016/0302463 discloses a sauce containing onions wherein the sauce is hot filled into jars (‘463, Paragraphs [0508]-[0512]).
Silva Paes et al. US 2015/0189902 discloses an onion food product that is heated and comminuted and acidified to make a mixture that is hot filled into a jar (‘902, Paragraphs [0179]-[0188]).
McBride US 2020/0375205 discloses a hot fill process comprising heating a beverage to at least 175 degrees F and then filling the bottle or container when the beverage is at least 170 degrees F and then applying a cap or enclosure while the temperature of the beverage is held at 170 degrees F for a minimum of 30 seconds but no longer than 4 minutes and then cooling the bottle to room temperature (‘205, Paragraph [0220]).
Katsuki et al. US 2020/0337350 discloses an ingredient containing liquid seasoning in a hermetically sealed container (‘350, Paragraph [0001]) comprising onions (‘350, Paragraph [0046]) made by hot filling the ingredient containing liquid seasoning into a container and mixing the seasoning liquid wherein a mixing time of the seasoning liquid is adjusted according to temperature but is 1 to 60 minutes (‘350, Paragraph [0070]).
Abrahamse et al. US 2021/0337845 discloses a method of making a concentrated vegetable flavor comprising preparing a composition comprising a vegetable, an oil and mixing the composition in an extruder at a temperature between 100°C and 160°C and a reaction time of between 1 second and 1 week sufficient for the concentrated vegetable flavor to develop (‘845, Paragraph [0040]).
Biljdenstein et al. US 2018/0199602 discloses a sauce comprising onions and water blended and mixed for 30 seconds (‘602, Paragraph [0110]).
Paloney et al. US 2017/0164647 discloses a brine solution comprising heat tolerant flavors including onion and spice (‘647, Paragraph [0013]) wherein the brine solution comprises 87.5% water by weight (‘647, Paragraph [0021]).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Painter Jr. US 2013/0092035 discloses a brining solution comprising water, salt, onion, and other ingredients used to add flavor including sugar, fruit juice, bay leaves, pickling spices wherein brining takes place in a container (‘035, Paragraph [0007]).
Ekanayake et al. US 2012/0003371 discloses acids are used to decrease the pH of foods to improve its microbial stability and impact taste (‘371, Paragraph [0002]) wherein an acid is added to a food product to adjust the initial pH of the food product wherein the acid is lactic acid or citric acid (‘371, Paragraph [0010] for brine solutions added to vegetables (‘371, Paragraph [0032]) and a puree is packaged in a container (‘371, Paragraph [0038]) wherein the acid is added to an aqueous solution (‘371, Paragraph [0044]).
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