Coffee Roasting Process Control Patents: Leaders & Trends 2026
- 68.1% concentration. The top five assignees account for 32 of the 47 records in scope — a field where a handful of filers have already staked out most of the claim space.
- Filings cooling from a 2022 peak. Activity peaked at 9 records in 2022 and fell -57% from 2021 (7) to 2024 (3), the last year the dataset treats as complete.
- A23F dominates, G05D barely registers. Coffee-specific classes (A23F, A23N, A47J) carry most of the filings, while formal closed-loop control art (G05D) touches only 6.4% of records.
Filing growth compares 2021 (7 records) with 2024 (3) — a three-year span. 2024 is the most recent year we treat as complete: publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025 onwards are still filling in and any growth rate that ends there would understate the field. Top-5 share is the combined record count of the five largest assignees divided by all 47 records in scope (CR5), not by the ranked leaders only.
What this landscape covers
This review covers 47 published records filed between 2015 and mid-2026 that combine coffee-roasting control language — roast profile, bean temperature, development time, crack detection, airflow control, colour measurement, batch repeatability — with the core act of controlling a roast. It is a narrow, mechanically-defined field rather than a broad beverage category, which is why the assignee count stays small and concentration runs high.
Because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, the 2025-2026 tail is still filling in and should not be read as a slowdown. The safer read of momentum is the 2021-2024 span, where the dataset shows a real and quantified decline.
Let an AI agent run this analysis on your own technology
Pick a task. Every answer cites the patents behind it.
Filing trend and technology composition
Two views of the same 47 records: the yearly filing count, and the IPC subclasses those filings sit under. A record can carry more than one class, so the class shares add up to more than the record total.
Filing trend, 2017-2026
Filings rose to a peak of 9 records in 2022, then declined -57% from 2021 (7) to 2024 (3). 2025 and 2026 are shown but understated by publication lag rather than a genuine drop-off.
IPC subclass distribution
A23F (coffee, tea & substitutes) covers 63.8% of the 47 records, with A23N and A47J close behind at 48.9% and 44.7%. Formal control-systems art under G05D appears in just 6.4% of records, and spraying/atomising (B05B) and packaging (B65B) each sit at 8.5%.
Shares are the percentage of the 47 records in scope. A patent can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.
Go deeper on Coffee Roasting Process Control with Eureka
This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about coffee roasting process control and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.
Try EurekaMost-cited prior art in the field
US20060266229A1 — Coffee roasting control system and process
The inventive process comprises micro-processing means utilizing a coffee roaster control algorithm for controlling the roast process of coffee beans. The algorithm utilizes curve fitting techniques to calculate polynomial coefficients used in generating a smooth curve to control the coffee bean temperature during the roast process. Through the use of multiple set points and actual historical data, the polynomial coefficients are generated. The coefficients are then used to plot a graph that indicates the path the roast process will try and maintain.Filed by AMBEX, INC.; the single most-cited record in this dataset at 72 citations, and the closest thing the field has to a foundational reference for curve-fitting-based roast control.
| # | Publication no. | Patent title | Citations |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | US20060266229A1 | Coffee roasting control system and process | 72 |
| 2 | US6053093A | Coffee roaster with roasting profile control | 65 |
| 3 | US20160295906A1 | Apparatus and system for roasting coffee beans | 56 |
| 4 | WO2018053436A1 | Systems, apparatuses, and methods of substance processing | 36 |
| 5 | US20190208798A1 | Systems, apparatuses, and methods of substance processing | 30 |
| 6 | US20190133377A1 | Apparatus and method for roasting coffee beans | 19 |
| 7 | US20190373940A1 | Systems, apparatuses, and methods of substance processing | 17 |
| 8 | US10412988B2 | Apparatus and system for roasting coffee beans | 11 |
| 9 | US11439156B2 | Systems, apparatuses, and methods of substance processing | 10 |
| 10 | US20220183340A1 | Systems and methods for frying food products | 8 |
Citation counts inside a searched corpus favour older filings; read them as a signal of influence on later drafting, not of current commercial weight.
Each row carries its publication number; clicking a row searches Eureka by that number.
Put your own technology through the same analysis
Eureka on the web
When you want the answer in the next five minutes.
The agent works the prompt against patents and technical literature, citing every source.
Run your analysis now →MCP server & REST API
When it has to run inside your own pipeline.
Patent search, landscape analysis and assignee resolution as MCP tools. Drop them into any agent framework, or call REST directly.
Browse MCP servers →What the numbers mean for a filing decision
Three read-throughs from the concentration, trend and class data — useful for deciding where a new filing has room and where it does not.
Claim space is already crowded near the top
The top five assignees hold 32 of the 47 records in scope, and the top ten hold 43 — 91.5% of the field. A new entrant filing squarely on roast-profile or bean-temperature control is filing into ground several established players have already claimed.
Activity has cooled from its 2022 peak
Filings peaked at 9 records in 2022 and dropped -57% from 2021 (7) to 2024 (3), the last year the dataset treats as complete. Whether that reflects a maturing claim space or a shift to trade-secret roast algorithms is not something the patent record alone can answer.
Most filings sit in appliance classes, not control theory
63.8% of records sit in A23F and another 44.7-48.9% in A23N/A47J — the roaster and kitchen-appliance classes. Only 6.4% carry a G05D control-systems classification, suggesting most inventions are described as roasting apparatus first and control algorithms second.
Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to coffee roasting process control, with the prior art for and against each one.
Who is filing, and where the gaps sit
Nineteen companies make up the entire ranked list this dataset returns — not a top-50 or top-100 cut. The leader holds 9 records; fifth place holds 4; tenth place holds just 1, and the tail beyond that is single-filing entrants.
One filer well ahead of the rest
The leading assignee holds 9 of the 47 records, nearly double the fifth-place holder's 4. That gap, combined with the 68.1% top-five share, marks this as a field with an early, well-defended leader rather than a level field.
A long tail of single-filing entrants
Beyond the top ten, which together hold 91.5% of all records, filers drop to a single record each. That is typical of a mechanically narrow field: most participants file once to protect a specific roaster design, then stop.
Co-filing is rare and concentrated on one firm
Only 4 co-assignee pairs appear in the dataset, and the strongest ones all involve the same corporate filer paired with individual named inventors. That points to internal R&D credit rather than cross-company joint development.
| Assignee | Recent year | YoY |
|---|---|---|
| Holsem Brands LLC | 0 | — |
| Koninklijke Douwe Egberts BV | 0 | — |
| JACOBSEN INNOVATIONS INC | 0 | — |
| INTEGRATED ROASTING TECHNOLOGIES INC | 0 | — |
| BELLWETHER COFFEE CO | 0 | -100% |
| IKAWA | 0 | — |
| STERLING L C | 0 | — |
| OTP ENTERPRISES LLC | 0 | — |
Where to take this
The dataset points to a concentrated top and a thin formal-control layer. Two directions are worth checking before committing a filing strategy.
Stress-test a claim against the leader's portfolio
With one filer holding 9 of 47 records and the top five holding 68.1%, any new roast-control claim should be checked against that leader's existing filings before drafting.
Search assignee portfolios in EurekaProbe the G05D gap
Only 6.4% of records carry a formal control-systems classification. A claim drafted around closed-loop architecture rather than appliance mechanics may find more open ground.
Explore IPC white space in EurekaCommon questions on this landscape
It is concentrated at the top: the five leading assignees hold 32 of the 47 records in scope, or 68.1%, and the top ten hold 43 records, or 91.5%. Beyond that, the ranked list of 19 companies thins quickly to single-record filers. That pattern means a new entrant should expect the core claim space around roast-profile and bean-temperature control to already be occupied by a small group, with more room in adjacent, less-classified branches.
Filings peaked at 9 records in 2022 and then fell -57% between 2021 (7 records) and 2024 (3 records), the last year the dataset treats as complete. Years after 2024 are not a reliable guide to the trend because publication lags filing by roughly 18 months, so 2025-2026 figures will keep rising as more records publish. On the evidence available, the honest description is a decline from a 2022 peak, not a flat or rising trend.
US20060266229A1, assigned to Ambex, Inc., describes a microprocessor-based roaster control algorithm that uses curve fitting to generate polynomial coefficients controlling bean temperature against multiple set points and historical data. It is the most-cited record in this dataset at 72 citations, making it a reference point that later drafters have had to design around or build on. Anyone filing a new bean-temperature control claim should read its specific claim scope closely, since its priority date and citation weight suggest it shaped much of the surrounding prior art.
Formal closed-loop control architecture (IPC class G05D) appears in only 6.4% of the 47 records, well below appliance-centric classes like A23F (63.8%) and A23N (48.9%). Specific mechanisms — acoustic crack detection, airflow-modulated development time, inline colour-based endpoint triggering, and batch-repeatability feedback — also sit outside the densest claim clusters. That combination suggests more open ground in control-theory framing than in roaster-hardware framing.
The ranking includes 19 companies in total, drawn from the full set of 47 records — this is the complete list the dataset returns, not a top-50 cut. The leading assignee holds 9 records, compared with 4 for the fifth-place filer and just 1 for the tenth, showing a clear leader followed by a long tail of occasional filers. Co-filing is rare across the field, with only 4 co-assignee pairs recorded, most linking one corporate filer to individually named inventors.
Research Coffee Roasting Process Control in depth with Eureka
Go past this page: query the whole coffee roasting process control corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.
Disclaimer. This page is generated from Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent and scientific-literature records, and is provided for general information and reference only.
Patent data carries inherent limitations: recent filings (typically the most recent 18–24 months) are under-counted due to standard publication lag; counts may be reported at either a patent-family or a patent-record basis and are not always directly comparable; classification, applicant-name, and citation data may contain errors, duplicates, or omissions; and the underlying search query defines and constrains the scope shown. As a result, the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.
Nothing on this page constitutes an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate, or validity search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently and reviewed with qualified patent, legal, and domain professionals. Patsnap makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or fitness for any particular purpose of the information presented.
Machine translation. Assignee and organisation names originally recorded in Chinese, Japanese or Korean have been rendered into English by an AI translation step so that the tables stay readable. These renderings are best-effort and may not match a company’s registered English name; the original name is what the underlying patent record carries, and it is what any Eureka query launched from this page uses.