DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 1/5/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
No IDS has been filed. Please file for any material references.
Specification
The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use.
Arrangement of the Specification
As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading:
(a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION.
(b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS.
(c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT.
(d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT.
(e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A READ-ONLY OPTICAL DISC, AS A TEXT FILE OR AN XML FILE VIA THE PATENT ELECTRONIC SYSTEM.
(f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR.
(g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION.
(1) Field of the Invention.
(2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98.
(h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION.
(i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S).
(j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION.
(k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet).
(l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet).
(m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821 - 1.825). A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on read-only optical disc or as a text file via the patent electronic system.
When there are drawings, there shall be a “brief description of the several views of the drawings” (See 37 C.F.R. 1.74.).
The section heading “brief description of the several views of the drawings” as set forth in 37 C.F.R. 1.74 is missing. Please correct.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the term “onions” is listed 2 times. Please delete the extra term.
PNG
media_image1.png
96
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 11-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “high” in claim 11, line 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. A person having ordinary skill in the art could interpret a pressure as being high while another could interpret the same pressure as not being high.
The phrase “a pH of about 1.0 to about 3.0” in Claim 15, lines 1-2 is vague and indefinite as it is unclear how this pH is possible when claim 11 requires a pH of “about 4.0 to about 4.8”.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the dwell time" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "dwell time".
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the duration" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider earlier stating "duration".
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the packaged vegetable pieces" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Applicant is advised to consider stating "the packaged acidified vegetable pieces".
Claims 19-24 are vague and indefinite as it is unclear how these claims further limit the process of claim 11 which is directed to a “process for preparing packaged vegetable pieces” as the process steps are directed to a process of using. Applicant is advised to consider cancelling claims 19-24.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 11-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Atherton et al. (GB 2104370) in view of Bourne (US 5,607,712).
The claims are interpreted as being directed to a “process for preparing packaged vegetable pieces”.
Any language in the claims that is not directed to a “process for preparing packaged vegetable pieces” is interpreted to the extent that it further defines this process.
The claims are not interpreted as being directed a process of using “packaged vegetable pieces” or “vegetable pieces”.
The claims are not interpreted as being directed to “packaged vegetable pieces” or “vegetable pieces” or “packaging materials”.
Claims 19-24 are not interpreted as further limiting the claimed process of “preparing packaged vegetable pieces” but rather a process of using packaged vegetable pieces. Applicant is advised to consider cancelling claims 19-24.
Regarding Claims 11 and 19-24, Atherton (‘370) teaches a process for preparing packaged vegetable pieces (See Abs., claims 7-16. The vegetable pieces, including chips, that are capable of being placed in a container and combined with other food and eaten by a consumer.), the process comprising: immersion blanching vegetable pieces comprising raw potato pieces in an acidic media to create acidified vegetable pieces (See p. 1, l. 65+, p. 2, Example 1, 0.5-1 % acid.), sealing the acidified vegetable pieces in packages to create packaged acidified vegetable pieces (See p. 2, l. 10+.); and subjecting the packaged acidified vegetable pieces to high pressure processing to achieve a shelf life (See p. 2, Example 1, autoclave heating/pressure.), however, fails to expressly disclose the pH of the acidified vegetable pieces is about 4.0 to about 4.8 and a shelf life of at least 75 days at refrigerated temperatures.
Regarding the pH, it is foreseeable and obvious at the time of filing that when Atherton (‘370) treats its potato pieces with an acid the pH of the pieces will be acidic as the pieces will be contact with acid material.
Bourne (‘712) teaches treating root vegetables in a similar manner as taught by Atherton (‘370) wherein the pH of the acidified materials is below about 4.5 or 4.2 to provide a food product that is firm with an extended shelf life (See col. 4, ll. 49-62 and claims 1 and 6 where the pH is within the claimed ragne.).
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date if Atherton’s (‘370) treatment does not provide piece with the claimed pH that one would look to Bourne (‘712) and provide a pH within the claimed range to provide a food product that is firm with an extended shelf life.
Regarding the shelf-life, Atherton (‘370) teaches providing a sealed packaged that is air and moisture tight potato product that has been treated to inhibit enzyme activity and inhibit oxidation that can be stored without being frozen or refrigerated (See Example 1, p. 1, ll. 5-15, 60+, col. 2, 1. 10+.). One can reasonably deduce since Atherton’s (‘370) method is designed to overcome the need of freezing or refrigerating that the shelf-life would foreseeably and obviously be extended as compared to potato pieces that must be refrigerated or frozen.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date that frozen potato products could have been stored for a minimum of a few months and likely for 1 or more year. Since Atherton’s (‘370) process is directed to obviate the need of freezing that its food would foreseeably and obviously have a shelf life for at least a few months and possibly years without being refrigerated or frozen and even longer if refrigerated, which is inclusive of at least 75 days as claimed.
Regarding Claim 12, Atherton (‘370) teaches the process discussed above including immersion blanching following peeling and chipping to provide a product that is not exposed to air (See p. 2, l. 10+, Example 1.), however, fails to teach wherein the vegetable pieces are not exposed to ambient air for more than about 10 minutes prior to immersion blanching.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date to operate Atherton’s (‘370) process efficiently without excessive oxidation and discoloration and blanch the potato pieces immediately after cutting, which is less than 10 minutes. The color of exposure time to air would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 13, Atherton (‘370) teaches wherein additional vegetable pieces that have been steam blanched and exposed to acidic media are sealed in the packages with the acidified vegetable pieces (See p. 1, l. 60 to p. 2, l. 43, Example 1, claims 6-16.).
Regarding Claim 14, Atherton (‘370) teaches the method discussed above including adding additional ingredients to enhance the flavor and provide a desired color profile (See p. 1, l. 36+.), however, fails to teach wherein the additional vegetable pieces comprise one or more of peppers, onions, mushrooms, tomatoes, cilantro, garlic, and onions.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earlies effective filing date to add additional ingredients, including from those claimed to provide a tasteful combination of food pieces that satisfy a consumer. The selection of food combinations would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 15, Atherton (‘370) teaches the method discussed above , however, fails to teach wherein the acidic media has a pH of about 1.0 to about 3.0.
Bourne (‘712) teaches treating root vegetables in a similar manner as taught by Atherton (‘370) wherein the pH of the acidified materials is below about 4.5 or 4.2 to provide a food product that is firm with an extended shelf life (See col. 4, ll. 49-62 and claims 1 and 6 where the pH is within the claimed ragne.).
It is foreseeable and obvious at the time of filing that when Atherton (‘370) treats its potato pieces with an acid the pH of the pieces will be acidic as the pieces will be contact with acid material.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious that for Atherton’s (‘370) acid treated vegetable pieces to have a pH of about 4.0 to about 4.8 and the pH of potato pieces having a pH of about 7 that the pH of the acidic media must be lower.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date if Atherton’s (‘370) acidic media is not of the claimed pH that one would look to Bourne (‘712) and provide a pH within the claimed range to provide a food product that is firm with an extended shelf life.
Regarding Claim 16, Atherton (‘370) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to teach wherein the acidic media comprises about 1% to about 20% citric acid, ascorbic acid, and/or sodium acid sulfate in water.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for providing one amount and type of acid over another.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earlies effective filing date with
to add an amount and type of food grade acid, including what is claimed to provide a food product that is firm with an extended shelf life.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date with Atherton (‘370) and Bourne (‘712) before them to provide a food product that is firm with an extended shelf life. The selection of amount and type would have been within the skill set of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claims 17 and 18, Atherton (‘370) teaches the method discussed above, however, fails to teach way of blanching.
Applicant does not set forth any non-obvious unexpected results for how to blanch.
It would have been foreseeable and obvious prior to the earliest effective filing date with Atherton (‘370) and Bourne (‘712) before them to blanch by any means known in the art to provide a food product that is firm with an extended shelf life.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRENT T O'HERN whose telephone number is (571)272-6385. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 5:00 am - 3:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Emily Le can be reached at 571-272-0903. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRENT T O'HERN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1793
January 12, 2026