Investigating Patentability: MST3K Invention Exchange

If you're of a certain age and  specific interest--meaning over 35 (mostly) and into nerd stuff--you've likely seen at least one episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. While primarily about riffing on exceptionally bad movies, there are interludes with the show's characters. Sometimes, they feature regularly occurring bits, like the invention exchange. This bit was most common in the earlier seasons with Joel Hodgson.

Of course, none of the inventions are remotely serious, but they do offer a fun way to investigate the aspects of patentability. 

Patentability is, at its most basic, whether or not an invention is eligible for a patent. And, again at a basic level, patentability is determined by three qualities: new, useful, and non-obvious. There are other rules, like nothing that would be better categorized as another kind of IP, nothing illegal or "offensive to public morality", no natural phenomena, or laws of nature. But we can typically stick to the three qualifications here.

New: it can't be something previously disclosed. So if you invent a new machine, and then publish an article about its details, share them on social media, or make them available at a conference, it's not new. Keep you inventions secret! Also, if you spill the secrets or someone comes up with the same/similar concept and files for a patent first, it's not patentable, because patents are granted to the first to file.

Useful: is must have a purpose. The purpose does not need to further humankind of advance technology, it can include fun or novelty. So perpetual motion machines are out, but a scuba diving kit modified for a dog isn't.

Non-obvious: it can't be obvious. That means that a "person with ordinary skill in the art" (the technical term for a person familiar with the field of the invention, or who works in that field) could not have immediately or easily conceived of the idea. Basic improvements or simple changes to previous inventions are therefore not patentable, but an alteration that makes a significant difference in its function would be. 

With those defined, let's look at an invention exchange and comment on their patentability!

Ok, we have an air freshener mobile and a baby teether/Alien face hugger. I'd say that both may once have been patentable. Why? The air freshener mobile has, to the best of my knowledge, not been created before this; unfortunately if neither character applied for a patent it's too old now. It's also very useful! Babies make lots of stinky smells and mobiles are a common baby product. And it definitely isn't obvious, because it's just a little too weird to be obvious. As for the teether/face hugger, that meets the same new (at the time) requirement. It is also very useful because it's good for baby and very entertaining for adults, meeting at least the novelty standard. Finally, it's obvious, in my opinion, but again probably because it's just so weird. 

Let's do another!

The "Chinderwear" is maybe patentable, but wouldn't be a strong patent. Ignoring the fact that none of these count as new anymore (which I will from here on out), it may not be considered useful. Why? Because the chin butt isn't something people typically want to cover. As for non-obvious, if we really considered cleft chins as butts, it would be too obvious. So the usefulness of the invention negates its non-obviousness. The Rat Pack chess set falls prey to a rule that isn't covered by the three basics above. Using name, image, or likeness of a person requires direct authorization if they're living; for a deceased person, if it is already being used in other intellectual property (I will assume that's the case for such well-known people) then it's already owned and would also require some kind of permission. Furthermore, it's a little obvious. This isn't a strong case of being too obvious, but the change to the chess set is so simple that it may be marketable but not patentable.

One more?

This clip inspired this post, so I had to include it. The super schnozz isn't patentable because, as was pointed out by Joel and the robots, it's not useful. At all! I don't think it could even count for novelty. Perhaps it could claim a design patent, but not utility. It's also kind of obvious, because it's just a big nose, and that's an obvious thing to make. The same problems plague the big head: not useful, pretty obvious. I'm sure someone has before decided to make a big head, maybe for one of those giant foam hats, so it probably isn't new, either. Stick to the baby items, gentlemen.

Yes, I was feeling a bit silly when I came up with this topic. And as it's almost winter recess, it's a good time to be silly.

Trademarked Chocolate of Kazakhstan

I've been a very bad blogger lately. I apologize. However, things have been very busy for both the PTRC and other aspects of my job, so I hope you'll forgive me in the interest of enjoying the fruits of those labors.

Meanwhile, here's a post I've been planning for some time but just haven't gotten around to composing.

A Kelley Center student worker from Kazakhstan visited home over summer break and returned with a gift for my boss and I: a national chocolate bar.  It was extremely delicious and unfortunately has not reproduced itself.

As I was eating it, I happened to notice that it had a trademarked name, and that piqued my interest. After all, I know nothing about trademarks from Kazakhstan! And it's always fun to look up a trademark, especially for a particularly attractive design. The striking packaging is based on the country's flag.

Chocolate of Kazakhstan! Famous and delicious

The brand appears to be Paxat, and I'd like to find a registration for this specific appearance--the font and oval around it. 

Detail of the brand logo and some other regulatory stuff

I'd also like to try and find something that matches some of these other decorative elements, since they have a registration mark next to them; but I am uncertain if they are just for the name that included or the whole image.

This design motif is one of the parts based on the flag of Kazakhstan, along with the sun and eagle

I found two registrations that appear to match, but neither of them are for a logo or image, just a brand name. Also, one is entirely in Russian and I can't read it, so I must be forced to assume that it matches... It is the right name and is from Kazakhstan, so it seems legit. The other is in English, partially, and has some unrelated goods and services, but it does include among them candies. 

I made a point to look up the Article 6ter Kazakhstan entries--those are basically indicators for states. Read more about them here. For your reference, here's a screenshot of the entry in the 6ter database for the flag:

Article 6ter Database results

Think you can do a better job of finding the trademark? I used WIPO's Global Brand Database. Let me know if you have more success and what you used to find your info!

Desiging Shoe Patents

Some of you may recall how much I love shoes. And some of you may have met me in person, and may know I love shoes from my attire. For those of you who are unaware, I really enjoy shoes.

Unfortunately, I tend to enjoy fun high heeled shoes the most, and occasionally life demands that I must dress "practically", which tends to mean athletic shoes or sensible flats. I wear flats into and out of the office, simply because I know that the nearly mile walk to and from my parking would be disastrous on my heels. I've seen the damage asphalt can cause and rough, broken asphalt is a quick way to to break a heel completely. But what about other times? If a dress code says "sensible" or some other similar, disappointing term?

Last week, in response to my disappointment with an event's sensible dress code suggestion, a coworker joked that she was surprised I didn't have"off-roading" heels. I had that concept stuck in my mind all weekend, and finally did the librarian thing and started searching for some kind of matching concept.

Allow me to explain how shocked I was that among the first set of results was the page for Sneex. Which kind of fit the bill. (Visit the site to understand.)

Now, I had not heard of these on their initial release; despite my love of shoes, I don't really care to follow fashion news closely. That's probably because I know what I like and it isn't always fashionable... like Sneex. I really like these shoes, even though most of the internet seems to think they're a crime against footwear, stilettos and sneakers both. 

But what do these have to do with this blog?

Well, I'm sure you can only imagine my delight when I noticed the product description:

I love shoe patents

That's right, a patented design! Oh, what joy! Shoe patents! 

They have 22 design patents, and most look remarkably similar. I won't list all of them or insert all of them here, but here's a taste: 

Sneex: high heeled sneakers, patented

View the rest of US Patent D1,041,835 here.

Anyway, I'm glad I could share these with you. 

And apologies about my long silence; there are a lot of projects going on that have demanded my attention.

The Mouse Rug

It's kind of fun, when you notice something new on an old item. For example, take a look at something I just recently noticed about my Mouse Rug, a rug-style mouse pad that I received as a gift well over a decade ago. [This was, of course, at a time when more people used a computer mouse and unique mouse pads were still something. After all, some of us still relied on the mechanical model that had an actual ball (taking the ball out and then reassembling the mouse so your parents didn't notice was a great way to make them mad).] It now serves as a trivet, and when I was cleaning it after a spill at dinner, I noticed what it said on the back for the first time:

Underside of the tiny rug replica

That's right, patented worldwide! What a claim. And, as your friendly patent and trademark librarian, I had to find out if this claim was true.

New Orleans IP: Chee Wees

It seems I missed a very important variety of cheese curls back when I blogged about them on Cheese Doodle Day. I can only assume it is because I was looking for doodles rather than curls. 

Are you familiar with the New Orleans favorite, Chee Wees? I certainly was not, until our marketing and communications specialist introduced me just a few days ago. And while my first instinct was to burst into laughter when seeing the name, I soon found myself hoping there was hefty IP backing them up.

Library Cat modeling a bag of bar-b-que Chee Wees

Also, before we begin with the more serious stuff, let me warn you: the bar-b-que (weird spelling, y'all) flavor is a little addicting. I meant to just taste them before writing this, to, I dunno, inspire? But ended up having a hard time putting them down long enough to type.

Delicious Chee Wees

Delicious, delicious Chee Wees

First, the most basic of trademark searches reveals two federal registrations, one live and one dead. The dead registration is for the stylized word mark, first registered (no. 0393362) in 1942, but expired back in 1986. 

The registered stylized word mark, no. 0393362

The plain word mark, however, registered in 1958 (no. 0663902), is still active. I expected the stylized words to be registered, but perhaps this is preferable, as it does not mandate any specific appearance.

What exactly were they doing in the four years between application and existence?!

However, the larger potential IP was for the Elmer's brand, and I was very interested in the mascot mouse (or rat, I guess). I found several marks for Elmer's, but was disappointed to see that none of them included the mouse. What an oversight, in my opinion! That mouse is clearly very strongly tied to the brand. 

Trademark registered since 1954

Nonetheless, the stylized word mark was first registered in 1954 (no. 0596874), and a few variations have emerged since. For example, the addition of New Orleans prompted a new registration in 1970 (no. 0894707). However, that one seems limited to candy, unlike the original, which is both candy and cheese curls. 

Good for candy only, since 1970

But wait! Is there more?

We can't ignore the Limited Edition Juvenile collaboration! It features not only New Orleans artist Juvenile but also super hot snacks! [Whether the heat is referring to temperature of cooking alone, or includes the spiciness, I can't tell. And I won't be sharing today, because a bag of cheese curls for lunch should only happen once a day.] Perhaps this version had some hidden IP.

Library Cat is also very interested in these snacks

It turns out, this is one of the cases where I wish it was clearer why the trademark search returned the results it did. I was unable to find anything that seemed directly connected to the specific snack depicted above, but I found enough results to make me wonder about potential connections.

Not a registered mark: "The Big Cheese of New Orleans"

Unfortunately, I could find no patents in a brief search--not that I expected any. Chances are, Elmer's is too small of a firm to either afford the patents or the research to lead to some kind of patentable food product. A design patent is possible, but I still found nothing.

Visit Fondren soon to taste some Chee Wees!

An Entertaining History of Skee-Ball IP

I was watching a video on YouTube recently posted by a man who owns an old fashioned arcade, dedicated to his vintage Skee-Ball games. As you might expect, it got me thinking about Skee-Ball IP. According to this man, it was introduced to the public nearly 100 years ago on the original boardwalk in Atlantic City. I wanted to find the first Skee-Ball patent, if possible.

Usually, I find it is easier to approach IP mysteries from the trademark angle, so I started by looking up Skee-Ball trademarks, of which there were many. I found the primary entity that holds marks for the game is Bay-Tek Entertainment. However, applying that to a patent search wasn't going to be simple, because they did not have any Skee-Ball patents I could find. 

A screenshot of the webpage that claims a 1908 patent

Upon visiting the Bay-Tek Entertainment website and the page dedicated to modern Skee-Ball machines, I found a claim that it was originally patented in 1908. That was a bit of a surprise, because I wasn't finding a lot of documentation prior to 1928 for Skee-Ball patents or trademarks. I returned to the trademark records, and looked more closely at the record of ownership.

First trademark reassignment

Two transfers have occurred since it was first trademarked in 1929 (filed in '28). The first owner was the Philadelphia Toboggan Company. Today, it's Philadelphia Toboggan Coasters, Inc., and it was historically a maker of carousels and really really old-fashioned roller coasters. Like wooden ones. Their about/history page claims they also made Skee-Ball machines, but sold it in 1985, which is accurate. However, that's the entirety of their website's Skee-Ball documentation.

Second trademark reassignment

Furthermore, I couldn't find any patents that belonged to the Philadelphia Toboggan company or named inventors found on their webpages prior to the 1920s. Keyword searches for Skee-Ball or various game descriptions weren't helping.

I emailed Bay-Tek Entertainment and asked if they could provide any documentation to back up their claim, but haven't received an answer. That isn't surprising, I imagine they have better things to do than research patents for their no-longer-patent-protected merchandise. 

So, loyal readers, I have to admit: I cheated and didn't find the original Skee-Ball patent using my amazing searching skills. Well, I did, just not directly. I mentioned Skee-Ball history to a generative AI app I'm testing, and it gave me the inventor's name. If you query Patent Public Search with "Joseph Fourestier Simpson", it returns US Patent 905,941, Game Apparatus. 

I really want to defend myself and claim that I wasn't trying to get the solution from the AI, but it's how I got it, so there's little point in protest. A stupid AI was useful. Ugh. If only I'd thought to look at Wikipedia first or something. 

Anyway, let us enjoy this patent for the original Skee-Ball, which was once built big enough to be more like bowling. 

Drawing of how it was meant to appear

We can also appreciate and enjoy the upgrades that were patented, like this one granted in 1931, US Patent 1,826,964.

Many Skee-Ball patents have been granted over the decades, yet the actual game has fundamentally changed very little. It's still a ramp connected to rings that ends in a bump. It just has more electronic bits and plastic pieces.

The Trademark Olympics!

Like any big sporting association, the international Olympic games own many marks. In fact, there are so many Olympic committees and associations it's almost impossible to do a search for Olympic trademarks. Do I search for something international or just in the US? And who really owns the concept? 

Truly, I had no idea when I started this, and my ignorance of the legal and organizational scope of the Olympics really only became clear as I tried to find official Olympics trademarks.

"But surely," I told myself, "someone must own that interconnected rings symbol or everyone would put all over everything."

Yeah, they do. And apparently it's everyone who has ever participated in an Olympic Games. I truly did not expect to be so overwhelmed by such a seemingly simple search premise. I think it is due to one culprit in particular, too.

Anyway, here are some Olympic symbols and their owners:  

The above-mentioned culprit! Canada's Canadian Olympic Committee went WAY overboard registering  their marks... in Canada. I did not find that they had registered so many in any other jurisdiction. Also, for all of the registrations that I pulled, they claimed every single class. Seriously! Nice classes 1-45 completely. Either CIPO was feeling lenient towards the Canadian Olympic Committee or they have pretty open ideas about classes of goods and services. 

ALL THE CLASSES (except it can only show 33; note the comma)

This particular mark is one of their committee's symbols. It was registered in 1975, and according to the WIPO Global Brand Database, is still live. 

The Canadian Olympic Association logo, since 1975

The United States Olympic and Paralympic Committee has many registrations in the USPTO database, but it doesn't have them like Canada. This one is for branding some random souvenirs. Still, it's likely just one of many similar logos that is used for multiple purposes and you've likely seen this past week.

Team USA!

I accidentally closed the window with this information about this registered mark, and given how overwhelmed I've felt about this search, thought I would never find it again. But allow me to introduce you to the image search function in the Global Brand Database sometime.

Both color and grayscale, just in case

It's for the British Olympic Association and covers a handful of expected and (probably also) souvenir-related classes. It doesn't seem to be the main symbology, though; that's a lion or lion head. 

The British were not my first guess when I saw this

The Qatar Olympic Committee is another that has worked hard to cover all potential infringement bases. They've registered this symbol in more countries than you might guess. I did not know the name of the IP office in Zimbabwe before this afternoon, but now I do. In this particular case, the image and the related record is from Tunisia, another IP office I was previously unfamiliar with.

I like how it's the ring colors but people

Finally, here is the recognizable international Olympic Games symbol, from the International Olympic Committee (Comité International Olympique) based in Switzerland. The specific registration is with the EPO.

International registration for international committees!

Enjoy the Olympics while they are still taking place, and we'll revisit this IP again in a few years.

Oak Tree Patents and Patent Center

Did you know that among plant patents are included some very large trees? Once such tree is the mighty oak, many of whom were felled recently by Hurricane Beryl. I decided that made this a good time to check out some patented oaks, and also show how to access their color photos in Patent Center, since that is where all color photos of plant patents now reside.

And, with that, I must ask if you have a MyUSPTO account. It isn't necessary to have one to search Patent Center, but it does give you lots of other advantages, like a home page that you can customize to your interests, and a second option for viewing expanded entries in a trademark search, and if you want to apply for a patent or trademark pro se, it is kind of required.  [I am here, in part, to promote the services of the USPTO; so just deal with the occasional plug!]

A view of my homepage in MyUSPTO

However, as I have learned the hard way, you cannot easily download or view patent images in Patent Center with the wrong internet browser. For example, my default at the office, Firefox. 

And because I don't want to mislead anyone, it is not easy to search using Patent Center. You need to know some kind of concrete number information first, like a publication, patent, application, PCT, or international design registration number. So we have to start with either the University of Maryland Libraries Plant Patent Image Database (only up to a certain point), Patent Public Search, or something like Lens. 

...This is getting complicated. Let's just look at some pretty oak pictures. I'll link you to more info for each.

We're going to focus on live oaks, Quercus fusiformis, because those are one of the most abundant in Houston.  

First, the Texas live oak 'Joan Lionetti' PP27,646. It's a cultivar that clearly is meant for our state. Patented in 2017, it's possible growing around us already.

Texas live oaks are abundant on Rice's campus, I wonder if any are patented?

I also quite like the southern live oak named 'Canon-Sharp', PP19,608 but that may be due in part to the very proud plant parent in the official image. It's hard not to like a tree that has so clearly pleased someone they felt the need to pose with it for a patent.

This person felt it was necessary to pose with the tree, when it really isn't

A live oak named 'SDLN', PP12,015, (they really didn't feel the need to name it anything memorable) has a good growth pattern and very nice natural shape. Oaks are nice.

A very forgettable name but a nice tree nonetheless

The southern live oak named 'CLTF2', PP11,097, does not have as nice of a shape as 'SLDN' in my opinion. However, it does have more interesting leaves, so perhaps that's compensation.

Is it just me, or do you also think this one doesn't have as nice a shape?

There are many more oaks out there that have been patented, but I though a few live oaks was sufficient for one day.

Mission(s) to Mars

As always, whenever I see something IP related (do I need to link to that post yet again?), I tend to take note. About half the time, I look up whatever I saw later. 

So of course when I was reading a book from Fondren's excellent leisure reads collection (which may look small but those books aren't discarded later, they just relocate--so Fondy has LOTS of fun books), and I saw a trademark disclaimer at the start, I could not help but want to learn more. Here's an image:

Disclaimer straight from the book

For context, the book is Girlfriend on Mars by Deborah Willis. If you want to read it, I should have it back to Fondy by Tuesday or Wednesday. I'm plowing through print books lately on the offhand chance that the light from screens is affecting my sleep. I don't stay up playing games or watching videos or scrolling through social media, I tend to stay up and read books, but they're on my iPad. When I started having a hard time reading print because it gets dark and the text is small, I defaulted to that option. 

Sorry, that was much more information about my personal reading habits than necessary.

Back to the disclaimer. The book uses a fictitious company and endeavor called "MarsNow", which bears some resemblance to other commercial space efforts owned by billionaires in the real world, but is not related to the real registered Mars Now trademarks. And there are two that my brief search of the USPTO trademark database found, and two more in the WIPO Global Brand Database. 

Marsnow, no. 5031834, the mark registered to Chen Yong jun of China, is just a simple word mark and fora variety of clothing, mostly sports wear. It also has an international entry but is only registered in the US.

Also in the USPTO database is #MarsNow, which is dead, abandoned, never registered, from 2017, for t-shirts, and submitted by the Tee Party Company. I think it wasn't a strong application. Cool specimen, though. 

Specimen photograph from the TSDR files for #MarsNow

There is also a Marsnow registered in South Korea, which was submitted in 2013. It is now dead, the protection ending in November 2023. I am uncertain what it is for (my Korean is nonexistent), other than "electrical and scientific apparatus", which is the given international class for its goods. 

Finally, there is the last Marsnow, registered in India in 2019. It is protected through 2029, and also class 9, but this one includes more specifications. The record claims primarily mobile accessories for phones and Bluetooth equipment. Unlike all other other Marsnow, it has a cool logo and isn't just a basic word mark.

Intellectual Property India, registration no. 4185381

Well, I guess that's Marsnow. MarsNow. I don't think I would have confused any of those with the fictitious company, but I suppose CYA is important.

Whataburger v. What-A-Burger #13

If you aren't carefully following the exploits of the Kelley Center mascot, Ollie, you may have missed out on a recent post featuring a few Whataburger trademarks. If so, a rather serendipitous event occurred in the IP world recently that compels us to examine their registrations once again. And no, I am not referring to the Whataburger app being a power outage map, although that is pretty innovative use.

Ollie at a Texas Whataburger location, for those of you who missed it

It's about a North Carolina restaurant, What-A-Burger #13, being held accountable for infringement by the now-corporate Whataburger. Instead of rewriting the story and the history of each, here's a link to an article.

Let's go over some extant marks, and speculate on how likely it is to confuse the two, since apparently Whataburger intends to leave its roots and branch out into a mega corporation of fast food in many states. (I have opinions about this and the acquisition of the company by a private equity firm in 2019, but we're also avoiding that today.) 

Documentation of 1975 registration

Initially on Instagram and Facebook, we looked at two marks, one for the iconic striped W plus Whataburger name, and the other for a service mark assigned to the name. But those are just two of many, live and dead. And they are for a variety of goods and services--some for the food itself and others for food service; even charities, playing fields, and more. The name Whataburger alone has quite a few registrations; a brief search reveals 7 registrations for the plain word mark and two for a combo word mark and word appearance. There's a second registration for the W, this one without the whole name, registered in 2016.

2016 registered W

And, since this is a Texas-spawned chain, they also hope to one day own Que Hamburguesa. An application for the word mark was filed in November of 2022, and it is currently under review by an examiner. Learn more here. I only wish they had a specimen!

You'll find these marks, although clearly for the same burger establishment, are owned by two different entities: Whatabrands LLC and Tres Aguilas Enterprises, LLC. Both claim Texas as their location, so without more research (I'm focused on another aspect of this IP; look it up for me if you must know) I assume they are subsidies of the non-Texas private equity firm.

Unfortunately, I cannot find any records of marks, dead or alive, for NC's What-A-Burger #13 in the USPTO's database. That may be due to inadequate searching, or they may not have ever pursued federal registration for a very local brand. And because I do not know enough about the state laws for marks in NC, I can't be certain about state-level registration. I found no claims to any marks on their website, either--not even common law indications. (They have copyrighted it.) It's probably too late now, but I imagine that would have helped them make a case against Whatabuger. 

In my inexpert opinion, it seems highly unlikely the two would be confused. There is no similarity to color scheme or fonts, and the addition of the dashes and the number for only one of the two make it even more distinct. In particular, the fact that both have been around for so many years points to a continued lack of confusion by consumers and earned distinctiveness. An argument could be made that a person unfamiliar with either brand would be confused when first introduced to both, but that is not a scenario likely to play out with any frequency, if ever. The two are made distinct by their history, continued use, and style of products.

Anyway, I don't think this is going to end well for either establishment. Either NC What-A-Burger will be forced to change their name and theme, losing a lot of history and recognition and making TX Whatabuger look like big jerks. Or, TX Whataburger will lose, making them look like ineffective bullies and forcing NC What-A-Burger to pour money they don't have into legal defense.

A History of Coffee Making Inventions

It's quite brief and exceedingly non-comprehensive, this history of coffee-making inventions.

But, coffee! Coffee is delicious and some of us can't morning without it. AND some of the earliest patents that still make sense in modern society are for coffee brewing. 

For example, this 1838 (only a few years after the original patent office was lost to fire) patent, no. 952, Apparatus for Making Coffee and Tea, still looks much like a simple camping coffee pot. It is clearly recognizable as some kind of kettle.

I think it's pretty obviously some kind of kettle

A few decades later, in 1865, we have some improvements for a Coffee-Percolator, patent no. 51,741.  Nason's percolator is decidedly more complex, including some springs to help facilitate the expansion during heating/percolating. Nonetheless, it could still be recognizable to anyone today who makes coffee with a stove top percolator. 

Check out that spring action!

But that doesn't mean there haven't been any changes or improvements in percolators. After all, over a century later, this percolator basket assembly was one of a few 1970s patents obtained by Corning Glass Works--the company that owns Pyrex--for their unique, new, sturdier take on a stove top percolator. Percolator Pump and Basket Assembly, patent no. 3,803,998, is essentially what inspired this post. We have a vintage Pyrex glass percolator on my stove. And, thanks to this position's curse, it got me thinking about coffee maker patents. 

It's not exactly the same as what I use

We drink vintage patented coffee in the Edlund-Arthur household

(I've decided to skip over electric percolators, because while that is also an innovation in coffee brewing, it is also less interesting to me.)

Coffee makers have become very sophisticated machines, even when they aren't restaurant grade or large affairs. For example, the Keurig K-Cup system changed how many people prepare and brew their coffee. In 1994, Keurig obtained patent no. 5,325,765 for this Beverage Filter Cartridge, which is very similar to what we now see lining shelves in stores. 

The first K-Cup iteration

About ten years later, in 2004, Keurig would be granted a patent for their puncturing system that is common to many single-use pod coffee brewing systems today. Patent no. 6,708,600 describes the system in Puncturing and Venting of Single Serve Beverage Filter Cartridge. I have something very similar in my kitchen (but I've upgraded to a reusable pod).

It looks exceedingly complex in this dissected view

Reduce, reuse, recycle!

Keurig hasn't stopped updating their machines, applying for and receiving patents for a number of improvements. Here's a more recent example, a 2018 patent, no. 10,136,754, for  Beverage Machine Cartridge Holder. This cartridge holder is size adjustable, which I can appreciate, because I bought an off-brand reusable pod for my first Keurig and found it didn't fit. 

This is not the same coffee maker in the patent nor is it the first model I purchased that had size issues

For those of you who love some iced coffee, there are patented machines for making specific styles. Among some of the most recently granted patents is no. 12,004,677, Japanese-Style Iced Coffee Maker. I've never been a huge fan of iced coffee unless it's a dessert coffee, but I can understand the appeal on some steamy Houston mornings.

Ice included in the patent figure, just in case

Let me know if you'd like to see some other coffee IP. I rather conspicuously picked patents that were most interesting and familiar to my own coffee habits, but I'd be interested in learning about potential Chemex style patents, or who had one of the first drip coffee brewers patented in the US, for example. I know there are many librarians who survive via coffee, so don't be shy to let me know in comments!

Specifically St. Arnold's IP (Hoppy Anniversary!)

I previously wrote about a tiny selection of St. Arnold's trademarks for Beer Bike in a 2023 post, but as we celebrated the 30th anniversary of the oldest craft brewery in Houston on the 8th, I wanted to revisit the topic. There is always more IP to be found, and perhaps more than just trademarks! We could even speculate about trade secrets. So open your choice of carbonated beverage, be it an IPA, amber, or root beer, and settle in for a little local innovation.

Unfortunately, I was unable to find anything that could potentially be a patent for St. Arnold's, yet again. It's not the first time I've tried. There are many reasons a brewery might have a patent, but the primary reason I've looked more than once is due to my memories of some Saturday tours years ago, from before their more recent major expansion in size. 

Please note that this is coming exclusively from my memory, so if anything is wrong, I apologize in advance. During one of my visits, I recall Brock Wagner explained how they encountered an issue when trying to move one of the ingredients--perhaps the grain??--from its storage to the actual brewing vats. Just like you'd expect of any good Rice graduate, they managed to create an innovative solution. I remember it was based on some basic tools, like chain links and pipe, was perfectly functional yet elegantly simple. I only wish I could find some photos of it, to verify my memory. I sincerely hope this isn't untrue; and I've also sincerely hoped someone might have tried to patent the idea. Alas, neither have panned out in my favor so far.

However, St. Arnold's does own many marks, especially as they've expanded over the past three decades. I found, in a very basic search for marks by owner, 18 in the USPTO database. Not all are live; 5 are dead. Of the 13 live marks, one is pending.

The dead marks include the abandoned word marks for Saint Arnold, taproom and bar services; Divine Reserve, beer; Saint Arnold Summerfest, beer; and Headliner, beer. Weedwacker, worldmark, for beer, was cancelled. 

The one pending but live mark is for Hop Spring, a hoppy, non-alcoholic sparkling water.

12 more marks exist, all as word marks, and mostly for specific beers offered: Santo, Art Car IPA, Pumpkinator, Lawnmower, Tarnation. Of course, there is one for Saint Arnold, with various beers listed. It was first registered in July, 1994.

What is most disappointing about these marks is that they are all simply word marks. As best as I can tell, there aren't any for the designs. The stylized Santo, Saint Arnold with his Texas sun/moon and beer stein, event the serif font with signature red color like their building seem like they should be protected.

I certainly associate this bishop image with their product

At least the labels are interesting, here's a specimen from the Lawnmower TSDR record:

Lawnmower always tastes like summer and baseball games to me

I suppose I can close this out with a trade secret speculation, since I suggested it above. While they may not officially have any, I imagine some of the exact brew recipes are held pretty closely and aren't shared with just anyone. The proliferation of microbreweries, and the increase in home brewing that was popular a few years back, could have made it important. Although any beer that isn't technically an adjunct has the exact same three ingredients (water, barley and hops), there is a ton of variation on the types of hop, the ratios of each, and the steps taken. Reproducing a Saint Arnold beer would take either extensive and excessive experimentation or some advance knowledge. So I'll just say it's possible they have some beer formulas that are protected. After all, each recipe is IP.

Albert Einstein, Patent Examiner

 Did you know that Albert Einstein worked at the Swiss patent office in the early 1900s? I did not, until a patron asked about his work with the USPTO. I felt like that was a little factoid I would know, because the USPTO would absolutely love to tell people about it, so I decided to do a little research.

As it turns out, Einstein was not employed by the US Patent Office. However, he did work for the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property.

Much like I had imagined the USPTO would have done had it employed Einstein, the Swiss IGE proudly boasts of his time there between 1902 and 1909, and even has a group of webpages dedicated to information about his time there. 

I wanted to try to search for patents he has examined, but it turns out most patents that old are not well-indexed enough to search for with very specific parameters. Of course the Swiss IGE has a few listed that he most likely examined personally (with a disclaimer) because they aren't 100% certain either. From my point of view, it's also not nearly as fun as trying to craft the exact query phrase to find just his patents. 

If you're interested in learning more, here's a link to the Swiss IGE page about Einstein.

And here's a list of the patents they believe he examined personally, copied from their page:   

• Pat.-Nr. 39561 (pdf): Gravel sorter

• Pat.-Nr. 39619 (pdf): Meteorological station controlled by ambient humidity

• Pat.-Nr. 39853 (pdf): Electrical typewriter with shuttle-type carrier

• Supplementary-Pat.-Nr. 39988 (pdf) (to main patent Nr. 38853):

    Alternative-current commentator motor with short-circuit brushes and opposite-mounted auxiliary coils for spark suppression

• Objections to Alternative-current commentator motor (pdf) 

Anyway, check back next week for a lengthier post about IP I was able to actually search for a post.