Reissue
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 28 July 2025 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Original patent claims 1-19 and new claims 20-32 and 34-43 are pending. Claims 34-43 were added in the most recent amendment filed following submission of the RCE.
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 34-43 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.
New claims 34-43 all require dispensing a quantity of brewed beverage that comprises nitrogen. As argued on pages 21-23 of the Response of 14 August 2025, Patent Owner desires to claim a method and apparatus for delivery of “hot Nitro draft coffee in addition to traditional cold Nitro draft coffee” (Response, page 23).
The Abstract of the ‘781 patent discloses “[c]ontainers may be filled with a gas such as nitrogen to prevent oxidation, thereby preserving freshness during storage or shipping.” This specific use of nitrogen is repeated in col.1, lines 38-40, col.2, lines 39-43, and col.5, lines 20-23 for example. The disclosure of the ‘781 patent additionally discloses the use of a gas, such as nitrogen, to maintain pressure in the container during dispensing. See for example, col.2, lines 43-47 and col.5, lines 19-20. The disclosure does not teach or suggest that the nitrogen is added in such a way so as to diffuse into the beverage such that a Nitro draft coffee is produced. Furthermore, the ‘781 teaches that other inert gases may be used to reduce oxidation of the coffee, such as argon, CO2, an inert gas, etc. (col.5, lines 45-49).
WO 2017/081203 to Hartmann describes the distinction between adding nitrogen under pressure for prevention of oxidation and adding nitrogen for the production of a nitrogen-containing beverage (i.e. Nitro draft coffee). See page 3, line 1 to page 4, line 20. As noted by Hartmann, the production of a nitrogen-containing beverage as discussed on page 2, lines 29 to page 3, line 9 requires nitrogen infusion of the beverage. Hartmann teaches that this process is distinct from systems that supply nitrogen to a coffee storage container headspace so as to minimize oxidation of the stored coffee, which does not result in diffusion of the nitrogen into the coffee.
US 2017/0290354 to Pabst et al. describes storing brewed coffee in kegs that have been purged with nitrogen to prevent oxidation of the coffee as well as mixing the coffee with nitrogen. See paras [0027-0029]. Pabst achieves mixing of the nitrogen with the coffee by increasing the pressure of the supplied nitrogen to at least 45 psi (para [0029]) or through use of a carbonating stone for introduction of nitrogen into the coffee tank (para [0030]). See also, paras [0042-0043].
Similarly, US 2017/0360243 to Crowne discloses producing Nitro draft coffee wherein the coffee is brewed, placed into a storage vessel, and the brewed coffee is nitrogenized by introducing nitrogen under pressure into the storage vessel. The nitrogen pressurizes the storage vessel to a target pressure of 45 psi. See paras [0027, 0034, 0035, 0039].
Thus, as evidenced by Hartmann, Pabst, and Crowne, nitrogenation of coffee may be achieved by either diffusing the nitrogen into the coffee using a diffuser or by pressurizing the coffee with nitrogen at a pressure of at least 45 psi. Merely filling the headspace of a storage container with nitrogen under pressure to prevent oxidation of the coffee or to assist in dispensing is not sufficient to create a Nitro draft coffee. The ‘781 patent is silent to a diffuser or to a pressure at which the nitrogen is held in the storage container. The ‘781 patent also fails to teach dispensing a beverage containing nitrogen diffused therein. Thus, the ‘781 patent does not provide support for any method or apparatus for dispensing a beverage containing nitrogen.
Original Patent
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 251:
IN GENERAL—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue.
MPEP 1412.01 states that the reissue claims must be for the same invention as that disclosed as being the invention of the original patent. MPEP 1412.01 further provides guidelines for determining whether the reissue claims are "for the invention disclosed in the original patent" as:
(A) the claims presented in the reissue application are described in the original patent specification and enabled by the original patent specification such that 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph is satisfied;
(B) nothing in the original patent specification indicates an intent not to claim the subject matter of the claims presented in the reissue application; and
(C) the newly claimed invention is clearly and unequivocally disclosed in the specification as a separate invention with the claimed combination of features.
Amended claims 34-43, filed 14 August 2025, do not meet the “original patent” clause because the newly claimed invention does not meet any of requirements A, B, or C above.
As set forth above, the invention set forth in claims 34-43 is not described in the original patent specification because the original patent does not describe any apparatus or method of dispensing a beverage containing nitrogen. Further, the absence of disclosure in the original patent, as described above, is evidence that applicant did not intend to claim the subject matter of claims 34-43. Finally, the newly claimed invention of claims 34-43 is not clearly and unequivocally disclosed in the specification as a separate invention with the claimed combination of features.
The Federal Circuit, in Forum US, Inc. v. Flow Valve, LLC, Appeal 2018-1765, slip op. 8-9, 2019 WL 2494728 (Fed. Cir. June 17, 2019), stated:
Thus, for broadening reissue claims, the specification of the original patent must do more than merely suggest or indicate the invention recited in reissue claims; “[i]t must appear from the face of the instrument that what is covered by the reissue was intended to have been covered and secured by the original.” Indus. Chems., 315 U.S. at 676 . . . (emphasis added). Stated differently, the original patent “must clearly and unequivocally disclose the newly claimed invention as a separate invention.” Antares, 111 F.3d at 1362. We apply the standard set forth in Industrial Chemicals and Antares to this case and hold that the reissue claims are invalid.
(emphasis added)
The ‘781 patent fails to provide a clear and unequivocal disclosure of a method or apparatus for dispensing a beverage containing nitrogen. As described above, the ‘781 patent teaches only supply of nitrogen under pressure to the headspace of a storage container. There is no disclosure that the pressure is sufficient to nitrogenize the coffee or alternately, that a diffuser was used to add the nitrogen. Furthermore, there is no disclosure in the ‘781 patent that the nitrogen is absorbed in any amount into the coffee, much less absorbed in an amount sufficient to produce a Nitro draft coffee. Thus, claims 34-43 do not satisfy the “original patent” requirement.
Accordingly, claims 34-43 are rejected under 35 USC §251 for not complying with the “original patent” clause.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 13, 18-20, 23, 27, and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FR 2555977 to Huet et al. (hereinafter Huet) in view of US 6,192,785 to Trida et al. (hereinafter Trida).
With respect to claims 1, 4, 13, 20, 23, and 27, Huet teaches method of storage and at least hot delivery of a brewed beverage, comprising obtaining an “industrially” prepared and packaged container 1, that contains a batch quantity of a brewed beverage (English translation, [0003]), wherein said container containing said batch quantity of said brewed beverage is not stored at a heated temperature; coupling said container 1 with a dispensing line (see annotated figure 3 below and para [0013] of translation); coupling said dispensing line with a tankless heat exchanger 4 (three successive resistors, para [0015]), wherein said tankless heat exchanger does not include a tank. See para [0015] of translation. Huet additionally discloses providing a serving quantity of said brewed beverage from said container along said dispensing line coupled to said container and heating said serving quantity of said brewed beverage with said tankless heat exchanger coupled with said dispensing line to a predefined serving temperature that is greater than the storage temperature. Huet specifically teaches to “instantly heat or cool the quantity of drink desired” ([0003]), “everything that
PNG
media_image1.png
452
543
media_image1.png
Greyscale
is heated is delivered to the cup and the heating circuit is empty between two operations” ([0007]), and “the heating body never retains beverage between two uses” (claim 3).
Thus, the heating occurs on demand at a time of dispensing and at or near a point of dispensing while a remaining brewed batch of the brewed beverage in container 1 is maintained at the storage temperature, such that said remaining brewed batch remains stored at the storage temperature before and during said time of dispensing while only said serving quantity of said brewed beverage is heated at said predefined serving temperature at said time of dispensing of said serving quantity; and, dispensing only said serving quantity of said brewed beverage from a dispenser tap coupled with said tankless heat exchanger.
Huet does not disclose that the container 1 is cooled or has been cooled to a cold storage temperature.
Trida teaches a similar method of dispensing hot coffee from a cold stored container C1, C2, wherein the container is stored within a refrigerated housing 31 cooled 37 °C. See col.3, lines 1-20; col.4, lines 43-45. It would have been obvious to store the container 1 of Huet at a cold storage temperature, in the manner of Trida, to prevent spoiling and to prolong the useful life of the pre-made coffee of Huet once opened.
As to claims 18, 19, and 32, Huet teaches accepting an input associated with a desired serving temperature and dispensing said brewed beverage at the predefined serving temperature. Specifically, Huet states in para [0005] that temperature controller 8 (see Figure 1) permits the user to select a serving temperature (“lukewarm, hot, very hot”). In an alternative embodiment Huet discloses that the coffee can be cooled to be served cold (para [0018]) but does not disclose the input permits dispensing at the storage temperature. Trida, however, discloses that the user may select either hot coffee or cold coffee (col.4, lines 55-61). The hot coffee is produced by heating coffee from a cold temperature and the cold coffee is produced by dispensing the coffee at the cold storage temperature. As the option to choose both hot and cold coffee from a single dispensing apparatus would appeal to a variety of customers, it would have been an obvious modification to the invention of Huet.
Claim(s) 2, 6, 14, 21, 25, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huet and Trida as applied to claims 1, 13, 20, and 27 above, and further in view of US 2017/0290354 to Pabst et al. (hereinafter Pabst).
With respect to claims 2, 14, 21, and 28, the combination of Huet with Trida is silent as to adding nitrogen to the container so as to displace oxygen therefrom. Pabst discloses cold storage of coffee wherein the storage tank is first purged with nitrogen to remove oxygen from the tank in order to reduce or eliminate oxidation of the coffee. See para [0042]. Pabst additionally teaches that the system for brewing, cooling, and storage may be sealed such that the coffee is not exposed to oxygen at any point. See para [0026]. In order to prevent unwanted oxidation of the coffee stored by Huet, it would have been obvious to maintain the coffee in a sealed environment free of oxidants and to purge the system/container using nitrogen in the manner disclosed by Pabst.
As to claims 6 and 25, Huet teaches using “liquid coffee in Tetra-brick” containers but does not teach the temperature at which the liquid coffee has been brewed. However, Pabst discloses a method and apparatus for brewing and then cooling a batch of coffee wherein the coffee is brewed at a temperature of at least 180 °F (para [0085]) and further teaches that it was known in the art to brew coffee at temperatures inclusive of 190-210 °F. See para [0014]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to brew the coffee used in Huet at a temperature conventionally used to brew coffee.
Claim(s) 3, 15, 22, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huet, Trida, and Pabst as applied to claims 2, 14, 21, and 28 above, and further in view of 2006/0144865 to Yoshida et al. (hereinafter Yoshida).
The combination supra is silent to adding additional gas into the container during or after dispensing the coffee therefrom. Huet, however, does recognize the need to prevent vacuum during dispensing and instead, places the container 1 in contact with the atmosphere through perforator 6. Yoshida teaches, in a coffee dispenser, adding pressurized inert gas (nitrogen) into the container 12b during dispensing to prevent oxidation of the coffee and to assist with dispensing. See Abstract; paras [0067, 0086]. It would have been obvious to modify the invention of Huet, by adding an inert gas instead of atmospheric air, to pressurize the container during dispensing while also preventing oxidation of the coffee.
Claims 5, 16, 24, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huet and Trida as applied to claims 1, 13, 20, and 27 above, and further in view of US 2016/0236926 to Leyva et al. (hereinafter Leyva) or US 2017/0360243 to Crowne (hereinafter Crowne).
The coffee of Huet is contained within an industrially prepared and packaged container such as a Tetra-brick type. See para [0003]. Leyva, however, discloses a “kegerator” beverage dispensing apparatus including a keg, a spigot, and a flash heater “wherein at the point of dispense the heater is activated in order to dispense liquids at warmer temperature than what they are stored.” See claim 12 and para [0085]. The system of Leyva is particularly suitable for serving either cold or hot coffee from a keg. See para [0032]. Thus, Leyva discloses that it was known in the art at the time of the invention to store cold brewed coffee within a keg and dispense the coffee at either a cold or hot temperature.
Like Leyva, Crowne teaches a “kegerator” beverage apparatus including a keg 210, a dispenser/spigot 260, and a heat exchanger 240. See Figs. 2 and 4; para [0047]. In use, the dispenser can dispense cold nitrogenated coffee or heated nitrogenated coffee. See paras [0020, 0021, 0055]. Thus, Crowne teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention to store cold brewed coffee within a keg and dispense the coffee at either a cold or hot temperature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a keg as the industrially prepared and packaged container of Huet with Trida, as one would have an expectation of success when doing so because an industrially prepared and packaged container and keg are art recognized equivalents. See MPEP 2144.06.
Claim(s) 7, 17, 26, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huet and Trida as applied to claims 1, 13, 20, and 27 above, and further in view of Yoshida and WO 2004/100739 to Hoorelbeke (hereinafter Hoorelbeke).
Huet is silent as to the container containing nitrogen gas or to dispensing the coffee through a restrictor to create foam or froth.
Yoshida is relied upon as set forth above.
Hoorelbeke teaches generating foam in hot beverages, particularly coffee. After passing through a layer of ground coffee 2, liquid coffee is dispensed through spray mouth 6, having multiple restrictors (nozzles) 7 to create a “durable foam layer” on the dispensed coffee. See page 2, line 20 to page 3, line 14; Figures 2 and 3B.
It would have been obvious to produce a frothed coffee in Huet, using the nozzles of Hoorelbeke, so as to provide a beverage with authentic “fresh brewed” frothy characteristics.
Further, in order to prevent unwanted oxidation of the coffee stored by Huet while preventing a vacuum during dispensing, it would have been obvious to add nitrogen to the container as disclosed by Yoshida.
Claim(s) 7, 17, 26, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huet and Trida as applied to claims 1, 13, 20, and 27 above, and further in view of Yoshida and US 2009/0047402 to Schodler (hereinafter Schodler).
Huet is silent as to the container containing nitrogen gas or to dispensing the coffee through a restrictor to create foam or froth. Trida teaches air valve 62’ for injecting air into the liquid coffee thereby producing a frothed coffee. See col.4, lines 43-54. It would have been obvious to froth the coffee dispensed in Huet in the manner disclosed by Trida, to provide a beverage with authentic “fresh brewed’ characteristics.
Yoshida is relied upon as set forth above.
Schodler teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention to produce a frothed warm beverage by adding air into the stream of beverage through an air feeder port 6 having a restrictor 7 to control “the consistency of the generated milk froth’ (para [0021]); Fig.1. In order to prevent unwanted oxidation of the coffee stored by Huet while preventing a vacuum during dispensing, it would have been obvious to add nitrogen to the container as disclosed by Yoshida. Moreover, Schodler evidences that use of a restrictor permits control of the froth consistency in an air valve like that used in the combination of Huet with Trida and for this reason, it would have been an obvious modification of the air valve of the combination.
Claim(s) 8 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huet in view of Trida and Pabst.
With respect to claim 8, Huet teaches a method of storage and at least hot delivery of a brewed beverage (para [0003]) including obtaining a container 1 that contains a batch quantity of a brewed coffee (para [0007]); coupling said container to a dispensing line (shown in annotated figure above); coupling said dispensing line with a tankless heat exchanger 4; providing a serving quantity of said brewed beverage from said container along said dispensing line coupled to said container (paras [0007, 0016]); accepting an input associated with a desired serving temperature (para [0005]); and, when said input indicates hot dispensing, heating said serving quantity of said brewed beverage via said tankless heat exchanger coupled with said dispensing line to a predefined serving temperature that is greater than said storage temperature, wherein said heating occurs on demand at a time of dispensing and at or near a point of dispensing while a remaining brewed batch of said brewed beverage in said container is maintained at said storage temperature (paras [0007, 0008, 0015, 0016]; claim 3), such that said remaining brewed batch remains stored at said storage temperature before and during said time of dispensing while only said serving quantity of said brewed beverage is heated at said predefined serving temperature at said time of dispensing of said serving quantity; and, dispensing only said serving quantity of said brewed beverage from a dispenser tap (shown in annotated figure) coupled with said tankless heat exchanger.
Huet does not disclose that the container 1 is cooled or has been cooled to a cold storage temperature and is maintained at the cold storage temperature.
Trida teaches a similar method of dispensing hot coffee from a cold stored container/keg C1, C2, wherein the container is stored within a refrigerated housing 31 cooled to 37 °C. See col.3, lines 1-20; col.4, lines 43-45. It would have been obvious to store the container 1 of Huet at a cold storage temperature, in the manner of Trida, to prevent spoiling and to prolong the useful life of the pre-made coffee of Huet once opened.
Huet fails to teach adding a gas to the container wherein the gas comprises nitrogen that displaces oxygen from the container to reduce or eliminate oxidation.
Pabst discloses cold storage of coffee wherein the storage tank is first purged with nitrogen to remove oxygen from the tank in order to reduce or eliminate oxidation of the coffee. See para [0042]. In order to prevent unwanted oxidation of the coffee stored by Huet it would have been obvious to purge the container using nitrogen in the manner disclosed by Pabst.
As to claim 11, Huet does not teach the temperature at which the liquid coffee has been brewed. However, Pabst discloses that it was known in the art to brew coffee at temperatures inclusive of 190-210 °F. See para [0014]. Thus, one would have found it obvious to brew the coffee used by Huet at a temperature conventionally used to brew coffee.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huet, Trida, and Pabst as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Yoshida.
The combination supra is silent to adding additional gas into the container during dispensing the coffee therefrom. Huet, however, does recognize the need to prevent vacuum during dispensing and instead, places the container 1 in contact with the atmosphere through perforator 6. Yoshida teaches, in a coffee dispenser, adding inert gas (nitrogen) into the container 12b during dispensing to prevent oxidation of the coffee and to assist with dispensing. See Abstract; paras [0067, 0086]. It would have been obvious to modify the invention of Huet, by adding an inert gas instead of atmospheric air, in order to pressurize the container during dispensing while preventing oxidation of the coffee.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huet, Trida, and Pabst as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Leyva or Crowne.
The coffee of Huet is contained within an industrially prepared and packaged container such as a Tetra-brick type. See para [0003]. Leyva, however, discloses a “kegerator” beverage dispensing apparatus including a keg, a spigot, and a flash heater “wherein at the point of dispense the heater is activated in order to dispense liquids at warmer temperature than what they are stored.” See claim 12 and para [0085]. The system of Leyva is particularly suitable for serving either cold or hot coffee from a keg. See para [0032]. Thus, Leyva discloses that it was known in the art at the time of the invention to store cold brewed coffee within a keg and dispense the coffee at either a cold or hot temperature.
Like Leyva, Crowne teaches a “kegerator” beverage apparatus including a keg 210, a dispenser/spigot 260, and a heat exchanger 240. See Figs. 2 and 4; para [0047]. In use, the dispenser can dispense cold nitrogenated coffee or heated nitrogenated coffee. See paras [0020, 0021, 0055]. Thus, Crowne teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention to store cold brewed coffee within a keg and dispense the coffee at either a cold or hot temperature.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a keg as the industrially prepared and packaged container of Huet with Trida and Pabst, as one would have an expectation of success when doing so because an industrially prepared and packaged container and keg are art recognized equivalents. See MPEP 2144.06.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huet, Trida, and Pabst as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Yoshida and Schodler.
Huet is silent as to the container containing pressurized gas or to dispensing the coffee through a restrictor to create foam or froth. Trida teaches air valve 62’ for injecting air into the liquid coffee thereby producing a frothed coffee. See col.4, lines 43-54. It would have been obvious to froth the coffee dispensed in Huet in the manner disclosed by Trida, to provide a beverage with authentic “fresh brewed” characteristics.
Yoshida is relied upon as set forth above.
Schodler teaches that it was known in the art at the time of the invention to produce a frothed warm beverage by adding air into the stream of beverage through an air feeder port 6 having a restrictor 7 to control “the consistency of the generated milk froth” (para [0021]); Fig.1.
In order to prevent unwanted oxidation of the coffee stored by Huet while preventing a vacuum during dispensing, it would have been obvious to add nitrogen to the container as disclosed by Yoshida. Moreover, Schodler evidences that use of a restrictor permits control of the froth consistency in an air valve like that used in the combination of Huet with Trida and for this reason, it would have been an obvious modification of the air valve of the combination.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huet, Trida, and Pabst as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Yoshida and Hoorelbeke.
Huet is silent as to the container containing pressurized gas or to dispensing the coffee through a restrictor to create foam or froth.
Yoshida is relied upon as set forth above.
Hoorelbeke teaches generating foam in hot beverages, particularly coffee. After passing through a layer of ground coffee 2, liquid coffee is dispensed through spray mouth 6, having multiple restrictors (nozzles) 7 to create a “durable foam layer” on the dispensed coffee. See page 2, line 20 to page 3, line 14; Figures 2 and 3B.
It would have been obvious to produce a frothed coffee in Huet, using the nozzles of Hoorelbeke, so as to provide a beverage with authentic “fresh brewed” frothy characteristics.
Further, in order to prevent unwanted oxidation of the coffee stored by Huet while preventing a vacuum during dispensing, it would have been obvious to add nitrogen to the container as disclosed by Yoshida.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 5, 7, 13, 16-20, 23, 24, 26, 27, and 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crowne in view of Huet.
PNG
media_image2.png
603
317
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
616
593
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 1, 5, 13, 16, 20, 24, 27, and 30, Crowne teaches a system and method of cold storage and at least hot delivery of a brewed beverage, including obtaining a keg/container 210 that contains a batch quantity of a brewed beverage, wherein said container containing said batch quantity of said brewed beverage is cooled or has been cooled to a cold storage temperature (paras [0033, 0034, 0037, 0043, 0047]); coupling said container with a dispensing line (see annotated Figure 2); coupling said dispensing line with a tankless heat exchanger 240 (see also para [0047], disclosing multiple tankless heat exchangers such as a micro-channel and a spiral heat exchanger, among others), wherein said tankless heat exchanger does not include a tank; providing a serving quantity of said brewed beverage from said container along said dispensing line coupled to said container (para [0041]); heating said serving quantity of said brewed beverage with said tankless heat exchanger coupled with said dispensing line to a predefined serving temperature that is greater than said cold storage temperature (para [0038, 0041, 0048]).
It is unclear if Crowne discloses the heating occurs on demand at a time of dispensing while a remaining portion of said brewed beverage in said container is maintained at said cold storage temperature before and during said time of dispensing while at or near said point of dispensing only said second serving quantity of said brewed beverage is heated to said predefined serving temperature.
Huet is relied upon as set forth above. Notably, Huet discloses providing a serving quantity of brewed beverage from a container along a dispensing line coupled to the container and heating the serving quantity of said brewed beverage with a tankless heat exchanger coupled with the dispensing line to a predefined serving temperature that is greater than the storage temperature. Huet specifically teaches to “instantly heat or cool the quantity of drink desired” ([0003]), “everything that is heated is delivered to the cup and the heating circuit is empty between two operations” ([0007]), and “the heating body never retains beverage between two uses” (claim 3). Huet notes that emptying the liquid circuit between operation is critical to avoid alteration to the coffee quality and thus, only the serving quantity is dispensed and heated. See para [0007].
Thus, in Huet the heating occurs on demand at a time of dispensing and at or near a point of dispensing while a remaining brewed batch of the brewed beverage in container 1 is maintained at the storage temperature, such that the remaining brewed batch remains stored at the storage temperature before and during the time of dispensing while only the serving quantity of the brewed beverage is heated at a predefined serving temperature at the time of dispensing of the serving quantity. Moreover, in Huet only the serving quantity of brewed beverage is dispensed from the dispenser tap coupled with the tankless heat exchanger. In order to prevent alteration in coffee quality/taste, it would have been obvious to heat only the serving quantity in Crowne, as taught by Huet. The strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2144 II.
As to claims 4 and 23, Crowne teaches maintaining the container 210 and the coffee therein at a cold storage temperature. See paras [0033, 0034, 0037, 0043, 0047].
With respect to claims 7, 17, 26, and 31, the container 210 of Crowne contains nitrogen gas and under pressure from the nitrogen gas, the coffee is dispensed through a restrictor 250 to create foam. See paras [0020, 0026, 0035].
As to claims 18, 19, and 32, Crowne discloses accepting an input associated with a desired serving temperature and dispensing the coffee at a cold storage temperature or a hot temperature. See paras [0020-0021, 0055].
Claim(s) 2, 6, 14, 21, 25, and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crowne and Huet as applied to claims 1, 13, 20, and 27 above, and further in view of Pabst.
Crowne, Huet, and Pabst are relied upon as set forth above.
As to claims 2, 14, 21, and 28, Crowne teaches adding nitrogen to the coffee in the container prior to the step of obtaining the container “that contains a batch quantity of a brewed beverage.” See paras [0027, 0034]. Thus, the nitrogen is added prior to the step of cold storage. Further, nitrogen is an inert gas that will intrinsically reduce or eliminate oxidation. However, Crowne does not specifically disclose that the nitrogen displaces oxygen from the container.
Pabst discloses cold storage of coffee wherein the storage tank is first purged with nitrogen to remove oxygen from the tank in order to reduce or eliminate oxidation of the coffee. See para [0042]. Pabst additionally teaches that the system for brewing, cooling, and storage may be sealed such that the coffee is not exposed to oxygen at any point. See para [0026]. In order to prevent unwanted oxidation of the coffee stored in Crowne, it would have been obvious to vent the container during nitrogen addition in order to purge oxygen therefrom.
With respect to claims 6 and 25 and the brew temperature of the water, Crowne discloses “different temperatures of the water in step 120 and step 172 may be used (e.g., hot, cold, boiling, etc.)” but does not name a specific hot or boiling temperature. See para [0028]. However, Pabst discloses a method and apparatus for brewing and then cooling a batch of coffee wherein the coffee is brewed at a temperature of at least 180 °F (para [0085]) and further teaches that it was known in the art to brew coffee at temperatures inclusive of 190-210 °F. See para [0014]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to brew the coffee used in Crowne at a temperature conventionally used to brew coffee.
Claim(s) 8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crowne in view of Huet and Pabst.
Crowne, Huet, and Pabst are relied upon as set forth above.
With respect to claims 8, 10, and 12, It is unclear if Crowne discloses the heating occurs on demand at a time of dispensing while a remaining portion of said brewed beverage in said container is maintained at said cold storage temperature before and during said time of dispensing while at or near said point of dispensing only said second serving quantity of said brewed beverage is heated to said predefined serving temperature.
Notably Huet discloses providing a serving quantity of brewed beverage from a container along a dispensing line coupled to the container and heating the serving quantity of said brewed beverage with a tankless heat exchanger coupled with the dispensing line to a predefined serving temperature that is greater than the storage temperature. Huet specifically teaches to “instantly heat or cool the quantity of drink desired” ([0003]), “everything that is heated is delivered to the cup and the heating circuit is empty between two operations” ([0007]), and “the heating body never retains beverage between two uses” (claim 3). Huet notes that emptying the liquid circuit between operation is critical to avoid alteration to the coffee quality and thus, only the serving quantity is dispensed and heated. See para [0007].
Thus, in Huet the heating occurs on demand at a time of dispensing and at or near a point of dispensing while a remaining brewed batch of the brewed beverage in container 1 is maintained at the storage temperature, such that the remaining brewed batch remains stored at the storage temperature before and during the time of dispensing while only the serving quantity of the brewed beverage is heated at a predefined serving temperature at the time of dispensing of the serving quantity. Moreover, in Huet only the serving quantity of brewed beverage is dispensed from the dispenser tap coupled with the tankless heat exchanger. In order to prevent alteration in coffee quality/taste, it would have been obvious to heat only the serving quantity in Crowne, as taught by Huet. The strongest rationale for combining references is a recognition, expressly or impliedly in the prior art or drawn from a convincing line of reasoning based on established scientific principles or legal precedent, that some advantage or expected beneficial result would have been produced by their combination. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 994-95, 217 USPQ 1, 5-6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). See also Dystar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, 464 F.3d 1356, 1368, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1651 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See MPEP 2144 II.
Crowne teaches adding nitrogen to the coffee in the container prior to the step of obtaining the container “that contains a batch quantity of a brewed beverage.” See paras [0027, 0034]. Thus, the nitrogen is added prior to the step of cold storage. Further, nitrogen is an inert gas that will intrinsically reduce or eliminate oxidation. However, Crowne does not specifically disclose that the nitrogen displaces oxygen from the container.
Pabst discloses cold storage of coffee wherein the storage tank is first purged with nitrogen to remove oxygen from the tank in order to reduce or eliminate oxidation of the coffee. See para [0042]. Pabst additionally teaches that the system for brewing, cooling, and storage may be sealed such that the coffee is not exposed to oxygen at any point. See para [0026]. In order to prevent unwanted oxidation of the coffee stored in Crowne, it would have been obvious to vent the container during nitrogen addition in order to purge oxygen therefrom.
As to claim 11 and the brew temperature of the water, Crowne discloses “different temperatures of the water in step 120 and step 172 may be used (e.g., hot, cold, boiling, etc.)” but does not name a specific hot or boiling temperature. See para [0028]. However, Pabst discloses a method and apparatus for brewing and then cooling a batch of coffee wherein the coffee is brewed at a temperature of at least 180 °F (para [0085]) and further teaches that it was known in the art to brew coffee at temperatures inclusive of 190-210 °F. See para [0014]. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to brew the coffee used in Crowne at a temperature conventionally used to brew coffee.
Claim(s) 3, 9, 15, 22, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crowne, Huet, and Pabst as applied to claims 2, 8, 14, 21, and 28 above, and further in view of Yoshida.
Crowne disclosing pressurizing the container with nitrogen to a target dispensing pressure. See para [0027]. It is unclear if Crowne continues to add nitrogen to the container during/after dispensing. Yoshida teaches, in a coffee dispenser, adding inert gas (nitrogen) into the container 12b during dispensing to prevent oxidation of the coffee and to assist with dispensing. See Abstract; paras [0067, 0086]. It would have been obvious to modify the invention of Crowne, by adding nitrogen during dispensing in order to repressurize the container and prevent oxidation of the coffee.
Claim(s) 34-43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crowne in view of Huet and Yoshida.
PNG
media_image4.png
714
688
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
1016
534
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Crowne teaches a system and method of cold storage and at least hot delivery of a brewed beverage, comprising: obtaining a batch quantity of said brewed beverage that is cooled or has been cooled to a cold storage temperature (paras [0033, 0034, 0037, 0043, 0047]); coupling a container 210 holding an amount of cold storage temperature brewed beverage with a dispensing line configured to dispense said brewed beverage that is cold (see annotated Figure 2); coupling said dispensing line configured to dispense said brewed beverage that is cold with a first input (articulation of the handle 260 backward is a “first input”; see para [0055]) configured to provide cold delivery of said brewed beverage that is cold.
Crowne further discloses coupling a second dispensing line (see annotated Figure 2) with a tankless heat exchanger 240 (see also para [0047], disclosing multiple tankless heat exchangers such as a micro-channel and a spiral heat exchanger, among others) at or near a point of dispensing, wherein said tankless heat exchanger does not include a tank and further coupling said second dispensing line with said batch quantity 210 of said brewed beverage; coupling said second dispensing line with a second input (articulation of the handle forward is a “second input”; see para [0055]) configured to provide hot delivery of said brewed beverage; dispensing a first serving quantity of said brewed beverage that is cold and that comprises nitrogen when said first input is actuated without heating said first serving quantity (paras [0020-0021]); and dispensing a second serving quantity of said brewed beverage that comprises said nitrogen when said second input is actuated (paras [0020-0021, 0055]) by heating said second serving quantity of said brewed beverage with said tankless heat exchanger coupled with said second dispensing line to a predefined serving temperature that is greater than said cold storage temperature (paras [0038, 0041, 0048]), and, wherein said dispensing said first serving quantity and dispensing said second serving quantity occur independently when said first input is actuated and said second input is actuated respectively. See para [0055]. Further, as shown in Figure 2 above, the cold dispensing circuit is independent of the hot dispensing circuit. Additionally, Crowne discloses that the control switch may include a single switch or multiple switches to control dispensing the coffee. See para [0055].
It is unclear if Crowne discloses the heating occurs on demand at a time of dispensing while a remaining portion of said brewed beverage in said container is maintained at said cold storage temperature before and during said time of dispensing while at or near said point of dispensing only said second serving quantity of said brewed beverage is heated to said predefined serving temperature.
Huet is relied upon as set forth above. Notably, Huet discloses providing a serving quantity of brewed beverage from a container along a dispensing line coupled to the container and heating the serving quantity of said brewed beverage with a tankless heat exchanger coupled with the dispensing line to a predefined serving temperature that is greater than the storage temperature. Huet specifically teaches to “instantly heat or cool the quantity of drink desired” ([0003]), “everything that is heated is delivered to the cup and the heating circuit is empty between two operations” ([0007]), and “the heating body never retains beverage between two uses” (claim 3). Huet notes that emptying the liquid circuit between operation is critical to avoid alteration to the coffee quality and thus, only the serving quantity is dispensed and heated. See para [0007].
Thus, in Huet the heating occurs on demand at a time of dispensing and at or near a point of dispensing while a remaining brewed batch of the brewed beverage in container 1 is maintained at the storage temperature, such that the remaining brewed batch remains stored at the storage temperature before and during the time of dispensing while only the serving quantity of the brewed beverage is heated at a predefined serving temperature at the time of dispensing of the serving quantity. Moreover, in Huet only the serving quantity of brewed beverage is dispensed from the dispenser tap coupled with the tankless heat exchanger. In order to prevent alteration in coffee quality/taste, it would have been obvious to heat only the serving quantity in Crowne.
Crowne discloses pressurizing the storage vessel with nitrogen to a target dispensing pressure. See para [0034]. Crowne is silent to adding additional gas into the container during or after dispensing the coffee therefrom. Huet recognizes the need to prevent a vacuum during dispensing and places the container 1 in contact with the atmosphere through perforator 6. Yoshida teaches, in a coffee dispenser, adding pressurized inert gas (nitrogen) into a container 12b during dispensing to prevent oxidation of the coffee and to assist with dispensing. See Abstract; paras [0044, 0067, 0086]. It would have been obvious to add nitrogen to pressurize the container of Crowne during/after dispensing, so as to assist with dispensing while also preventing oxidation of the coffee.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 August 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 21-24 of the Response filed 14 August 2025, Patent Owner argues that others had failed to provide a dispensing system that provides hot Nitro draft coffee as now claimed. Patent Owner submits that prior to “the filing date of the Inventor’s earliest priority application, the inventor could not find a hot Nitro dispenser that outputs hot Nitro coffee at all and certainly not one that could also dispense traditional cold Nitro coffee with excellent nitrogen bubbles with cascading effects whether hot or cold.” See Response, page 23.
US 2017/0360243 to Crowne was filed 16 June 2017, with a provisional date of 17 June 2016, both of which predate the filing date of the Inventor’s earliest domestic priority claim (6 September 2017). As discussed in the rejections above, Crowne teaches a hot and cold nitro coffee dispenser with cascading effects from nitrogen. See paras [0021, 0035].
Addressing the combination of Huet with Trida, Patent Owner alleges (page 26) the rejection requires “taking the cooling system (30) of Trida…and adding it to Huet…requiring an increase in the size of the base (Fig.4) and cover (Fig.5) of the Huet device so as to add the insulation material.” See page 26. The rejection did not involve the literal addition of Trida’s refrigerated compartment to Huet, but instead storing the opened container of premade coffee at a cold storage temperature as taught by Trida. Further, the combination does not require using the specific cooling elements of Trida, as other cooling means are known in the art. See Leyva and Crowne, teaching means to cool and refrigerate kegs of coffee. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In this case, Trida suggests to one of ordinary skill in the art to cool a multi-serving container of coffee between uses.
On at least pages 26-27, Patent Owner argues that the modification of Huet with Trida to include a refrigeration means would change the principle of operation of Huet. The principle of operation of a device is changed when the reference is no longer operable for its intended purpose. The intended purpose of Huet is to heat a premade measure of coffee to the desired drinking temperature. This intended purpose is not changed by modification with Trida but instead, is improved. “If a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007).
While Patent Owner asserts that it “does not make sense” to refrigerate Tetra Briks®, the Examiner notes that Huet is in no way limited to a Tetra Brik® container of any size, as Huet teaches to use coffee