Method and System for Making an Espresso Beverage: Starbucks patent application | Hacker News Reader

Method and System for Making an Espresso Beverage: Starbucks patent application

appft1.uspto.gov

21 pointsnh15 comments

Coffeeseur here. There is nothing novel about these methods, they all combine prior art. It is not that different from trying to patent a recipe.

And on a side note, Starbucks has gone downhill a lot since its inception. It depends which store you go to, as each one has differing levels of quality, but in general the quality control is very poor (I notice many employees pouring espresso, pre-made, from a pitcher -- espresso will go flat fairly quick this way). I have recently become a fan of Pete's although their locations also vary in quality. The taste difference between my local Pete's and Starbuck's is very apparent.

Although the automatic machines have more or less normalized the quality compared to the situation with the manual machines, there's no ability for a skilled operator to produce a superior coffee. It also eliminated options the machine can't do, like extra-long or caffè crema.

This is probably why Starbucks has become the default main-stream brand and has opened up an enormous market for upscale/boutique shops that cater to those who want better coffee. Nobody will miss the "brown water" coffee shops that Starbucks displaced.

As a confirmed Peetnik, I must point out: it's called Peet's , not Pete's.

It's utterly ridiculous that I can make a better latte myself with a home machine, Whole Foods espresso beans, and organic skim milk. Starbucks always manages to make lattes that taste burnt, even with flavor shots and 2% milk.

I'm not sure why this is.

Because they use an Italian roast, which is about as far as you can roast a bean before it turns to ash. Dark roasts are usually preferred for espresso, but there is a limit to how dark you can go. For drip brewing, you lose a lot of the bean's flavor by roasting too much. Stick to the lighter roasts and you will taste more coffee flavor and less roast flavor.

This actually sounds like a new device. I'm not an espresso expert so they might actually be patenting something that already exists but it at least sounds significantly different from the espresso machine I have.

Its basically an auto-tamper and automatic espresso machine. I've never heard of applying 500KGs of force to tamp down a shot though..

What is the point of 2-5 [0]? None of these numbers match up and it seems like they could just say 31kg to start, in 1.

[0] 1. A method of preparing espresso comprising: providing ground coffee to a brew chamber of an espresso machine; performing a first compression of the ground coffee with a pressure from about 10 kg to about 60 kg; performing a second compression of the ground coffee with a pressure from about 60 kg to about 500 kg; and forcing heated and pressurized water through the ground coffee, thereby extracting espresso.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the performing a first compression of the ground coffee comprises compressing the ground coffee with a pressure from about 15 kg to about 55 kg.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein performing a first compression of the ground coffee comprises compressing the ground coffee with a pressure from about 20 kg to about 40 kg.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein performing a first compression of the ground coffee comprises compressing the ground coffee with a pressure from about 30 kg to about 33 kg.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein performing a first compression of the ground coffee comprises compressing the ground coffee with a pressure of about 31 kg.

I can see the need for two claims, one which specifies a range ( to protect against similar claims with different numbers ), and a second which specifies the precise, desired pressure. The intermediate ones are mysterious to me.

Could it be to try to "claim" multiple ranges? With the idea being that if someone finds prior art that covers one of the larger ranges, Starbucks gets to "keep" the smaller ranges?

And if so, does anyone know where we can get a good deal on pitchforks?

It should be emphasized that many variations and modifications may be made to the above-described embodiments, the elements of which are to be understood as being among other acceptable examples. All such modifications and variations are intended to be included herein within the scope of this disclosure and protected by the following claims

Potential prior art here in a patent from the early 1990s: http://www.google.com/patents/US5337652

Why is KG being used as a unit of pressure?

500 KG applied over 1 mm^2 is a VERY different amount of pressure from 500 KG applied over 1 m^2.

That's the pressure applied to a standard coffee basket, presumably, so 500KG over the surface area of that.

What is a "KG"? If it's meant to represent kilogram, it should be "kg" (lowercase), and it's a unit of mass, not either force (which is newton) nor pressure (pascal, which is basically newton per square meter).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com