patentECO Innovations - Agriculture

This post starts a short series that will highlight recent innovations in the patentECO Indexes. We will briefly review a couple of patents issued in each Index in 2012, starting with Agriculture.

Rice — Very Old Food, Very New Methods

Rice has been part of a staple diet for thousands of years. Historically grown using large amounts of water, including flooding of rice paddies, new methods of production are being developed to allow the grain to be grown in areas outside its historic geographic base, and to do so in ways that optimize the use of available water.

Inventors Jacob L. LaRue (Omaha, NE) and Germani Concenco (Uberaba, Brazil) apply new methods of clean tech rice production in patent US Patent 8,087,201 “Method for irrigating and fertilizing rice”, issued on January 3, 2012 and assigned to Valmont Industries, Inc. (Omaha, NE). They seek to both irrigate and fertilize rice using a sprinkler irrigation system. They determine the amount of water and fertilizer to be applied to the rice through the sprinkler irrigation system. Depending upon rainfall, the irrigation water may be applied to the rice an average of about one to two times per week between its planting and emergence, about two to three times per week between its emergence and its panicle initiation stage, about three to five times per week between its panicle initiation stage and its initial ripening stage, and about three to four times per week between the rice’s initial ripening stage and its harvest.

Clean tech aspects of their invention that meet our patentECO definitions include their recognition that “water shortages [are] becoming ever more frequent in many rice-producing regions around the world, [and] efforts have been made to explore other growing techniques in order to reduce the overall water requirements, improve production, and increase overall economic return … a need exists for a method of growing rice utilizing a sprinkler irrigation system wherein the irrigation applications are applied in amounts and at times to optimize the efficiency of the water applied. A need also exists for a method of growing rice utilizing a sprinkler irrigation system wherein fertilizer and pesticide are applied in amounts and at times optimal for curtailing unwanted weeds and other constraints to rice production.”

Claim 1 states:

"A method for irrigating and fertilizing rice using a sprinkler irrigation system, said method comprising the steps of:
providing a sprinkler irrigation system; 
determining an amount of water to be applied to the rice based on external factors; 
determining an amount of fertilizer to be applied to the rice based on external factors; 
applying water to the rice through said sprinkler irrigation system wherein, between a combination of irrigation water and rainwater, the rice receives an average of between about 6 and 25 mm of water per week between its planting and its emergence from the soil’s surface, an average of between about 13 and 75 mm of water per week between said emergence and its panicle initiation stage, an average of between about 19 and 102 mm of water per week between said panicle initiation stage and its initial ripening stage; 
and applying a fertilizer to the rice through said sprinkler irrigation system."

Improve the Crop — Protect the Seeds

Another important approach to improving agriculture in the clean tech arena focuses on yield enhancement. Harald Walter (Rodersdorf, Switzerland) and his co-inventors seek to improve crop yields at the seed stage, prior to planting. Patent US8198215, “Methods for protecting seeds” was issued June 12, 2012 and assigned to Sygenta Crop Protection LLC (Greensboro, NC). The invention provides a method of controlling phytopathogenic diseases on useful plants or plant propagation material by applying a fungicide incorporating trifluoromethyl or difluoromethyl, which they state is particularly effective in controlling or preventing fungal diseases of crop plants.

One of the clean tech aspects of their approach is by applying pesticides to crop seeds in a targeted way that addresses the need for reducing environmental and worker exposure compared to foliar or soil pesticide applications. They say that their method “is especially suitable to increase the yield and/or quality of useful plants, such as crop yield of crop plants.”

You can learn more about the patentECO sphere of clean tech at Way Better Patents.

Green Tech Contraction

USPTO Green Technology Pilot Program Participants– Not Immune …

… to the sudden bankruptcies that seem to plague the “green energy” business.

International Battery, Inc. received five patents under the USPTO Green Technology Pilot Program prior to its closure in mid-February 2012. These patents (US7855011, US7931985, US8076026, US8092557, US8102642) generally dealt with lithium ion battery or ultracapacitor technology. IB filed a Petition to Make Special under the Greentech program for a sixth patent (US7875382, also for battery technology) but that petition was dismissed by USPTO. The company owned two other US patents for lithium ion battery technology, 7855011 and 7837745.

IB abruptly closed in early March 2012, citing its inability to earn a profit. About 60 jobs were eliminated with the closing. Its public relations firm stated that “While International Battery has a unique product and green manufacturing process, it has not been able to reach profitability. Unfortunately, given the challenging market, it was unable to raise additional capital to fund its operations.”

In common with all the other failed clean energy companies over the past few years, International Battery received significant loan guarantees. According to an article in the March 13, 2012 Morning Call, the company received almost $3 million in loans and grants from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

Way Better Patents believes that “Inventions in the clean tech patent ecosystem, when brought to market, have economic features of offering competitive returns for investors, competitive prices for consumers, and realistic profits for producers.” (emphasis added)

For some USPTO Green Tech Pilot Program participants, accelerated examination hasn’t helped them overcome the economic contraction in the green technology renewable power marketplace.

Carbon Dioxide Reduction - Different Strokes for Different Folks

On August 1, 2012 the US Energy Information Administration stated that

"U.S. carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions resulting from energy use during the first quarter of 2012 were the lowest in two decades for any January-March period. Normally, CO₂ emissions during the year are highest in the first quarter because of strong demand for heat produced by fossil fuels. However, CO₂ emissions during January-March 2012 were low due to a combination of three factors:

• A mild winter that reduced household heating demand and therefore energy use
• A decline in coal-fired electricity generation, due largely to historically low natural gas prices
• Reduced gasoline demand."

Their news release went on to say that “The decline in coal-related emissions is due mainly to utilities using less coal for electricity generation as they burned more low-priced natural gas … Natural gas is the least carbon-intensive fossil fuel, producing the lowest CO₂ emissions.”

In this post we’ll look at two Air Index patents issued in 2012. In reviewing these, I’m reminded of the chorus from the song "Let’s Call The Whole Thing Off" by the great Ella Fitzgerald and Satchmo (Louis Armstrong for some of you):

"You say eether and I say eyether,
You say neether and I say nyther,
Eether, eyether, neether, nyther,
Let’s call the whole thing off!
You like potato and I like potahto,
You like tomato and I like tomahto,
Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto!
Let’s call the whole thing off!"

There are many ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere, and these two patents illustrate widely different approaches. One actually reduces emissions, the second – not so much.

Reducing CO₂ in offshore natural gas

Daniel Chinn (Bay Point, CA) and a team of co-inventors were granted US 8,192,524, “Process for upgrading natural gas with improved management of CO₂” on June 5, 2012; their patent is assigned to Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
Chinn et al. state the problem they are attempting to solve:

”Offshore gas fields in many parts of the world produce natural gas containing a significant amount of carbon dioxide (e.g. greater than 10 vol % CO₂). For example, the CO₂ content of natural gas streams originating offshore can be as high as 80 vol %. 

In contrast, at onshore locations where natural gas is to be used, the natural gas should generally have a relatively low CO₂ content. For example, a lower CO₂content corresponds to a higher heating value for the natural gas. CO₂ can also lead to freezing in the low-temperature chillers in liquified natural gas (LNG) plants. 

There are two main approaches to upgrading natural gas offshore. The first approach involves blending the gas with sufficiently low CO₂ gas to reduce the overall CO₂ content. The second, alternative approach involves subjecting the gas to some type of CO₂ removal process. 

… there is a need for a process for producing a CO₂-depleted product gas stream from natural gas containing a significant amount of carbon dioxide (e.g. greater than 10 vol % CO₂). Such process should require minimal equipment weight and energy and take up minimal space. Moreover, such process should exhibit minimal hydrocarbon losses to the CO₂-rich permeate. Accordingly, such process will be useful for upgrading natural gas offshore, will be profitable, and will result in minimal GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions.”

They achieve their goal by using a polymer membrane filtration process in which a natural gas feed stream comprising water vapor and greater than about 10 vol % CO₂ is passed to a membrane unit. The membranes are selectively permeable to CO₂, allowing it to be separated from the natural gas and, according to the patent, “disposed of in any manner known in the art.” In other words, their invention separates the carbon dioxide, it’s up to you to get rid of it.

The drawing for this invention, which illustrates this post, is fully in keeping with the sterile line drawings that we have come to expect from modern patents, and is one of the least meaningful ones that we’ve run across in the universe of clean and green technology.

Emissions Trading, or Sales?

The second patent in today’s lineup is, according to the USPTO, primarily a business method – a clean tech (or green tech, if you prefer) business method invention, with a slight flavoring of hazardous or toxic waste destruction or containment. US 8,126,780, “Method for cultured sea algae” was issued to Katsumi Iwai and Hiroshi Horibata, both of Tokyo, Japan, on February 28, 2012.

Iwai and Horibata seek to provide a “method and apparatus for utilizing, processing, distributing and an accompanying business model for sea algae, particularly forced cultured kombu, to prevent the expansion of global warming, by encouraging a re-purchase of the cultured sea algae, by paying the purchaser back, in a constant rate, a part of the profit from the sales of a CO₂ omission [sic] right, which right depends upon the CO₂ absorption and fixation ability.”
From Wikipedia:

”Kombu (昆布 in Japanese, and 海带 in Chinese, Saccharina japonica and others), several Pacific species of kelp, is a very important ingredient in Chinese, Japanese, and Korean cuisines. Kombu is used to flavor broths and stews (especially dashi), as a savory garnish (tororo konbu) for rice and other dishes, as a vegetable, and a primary ingredient in popular snacks (such as tsukudani). Transparent sheets of kelp (oboro konbu) are used as an edible decorative wrapping for rice and other foods. Kombu can be used to soften beans during cooking, and to help convert indigestible sugars and thus reduce flatulence.”

Both natural and cultured kombu beds are harvested.
So how does a business method patent about cultured kelp help to reduce atmospheric emissions of carbon dioxide?
Claim 1 states:

A method for cultured algae comprising: 

storing, in a computer data base, records of culturing conditions, yield, and carbon fixation volumes for a sea algae culturing facility of a predetermined scale in a specific sea area; 

obtaining, via a remote sensing device configured to perform at least one of space satellite remote sensing, under water remote sensing, and direct artificial sensing, data pertaining to actual culturing conditions, yield, and carbon fixation volumes associated with the sea algae culturing facility; 

storing, in a computer data base, the data obtained pertaining to the actual culturing conditions, yield, and carbon fixation volumes; 

comparing the obtained data pertaining to the actual culturing conditions, yield, and carbon fixation volumes to the stored records of culturing conditions, yield and carbon fixation volumes of the sea algae culturing facility; 

computing a weight of cultured sea algae and a carbon fixation quantity from the obtained data and certifying the computed carbon fixation quantity in the presence of a third party; 

calculating a greenhouse gas omission [sic] right based on the certified carbon fixation quantity and the computed weight of the cultured sea algae; 

selling the greenhouse gas omission [sic] right through a global warming gas omission [sic] right trading mechanism; 

processing at least a portion of the cultured sea algae to produce a product, the product including at least one of a food article, an industrial article, and an agriculture-forestry-marine article; 

and distributing, via a market, the product produced from processing at least a portion of the cultured sea algae.

Kelp, an algae, is a plant. Plants convert carbon dioxide (in this case CO₂ dissolved in ocean water) to sugar through the photosynthetic process. They absorb CO₂ and fix it in sugar stored in their cells. In a nutshell (or maybe thallus since we are discussing kelp), this patent would calculate the amount of carbon dioxide fixed as sugars in the harvested cultured kelp, certify that computation “in the presence of a third party”, calculate a greenhouse gas omission [sic] (note to USPTO: your examiners should do a better job of correcting important errors such as substituting the word ‘omission’ for ‘emission’ in their correspondence with inventors.) ‘right’, sell that ‘right’ “through a global warming gas omission [sic] right trading mechanism” (will Al Gore get a cut? Where has Al Gore been during this very hot, stormy, and drought-ridden summer, by the way?), and processing the kelp and distributing the product to market.

Note that nothing in this patent actually reduces atmospheric CO₂ emissions, it merely provides a mechanism to separate people from their money so they can feel good about having saved the planet from global warming.

Kelp growers/harvesters/processors establish omission [sic] rights? This is an entirely new one to me.

You really owe it to yourself to read through this patent, particularly the Background of the Invention and the Brief Description of Disclosed Invention sections (which constitute a the first major part of the patent “Specification”).

A Successful Clean Tech Failure

An article in my local newspaper points to the success that the free market, if allowed to work, can have to weed out non-viable renewable energy projects.

An article entitled “Too Little of Litter” in the Harrisonburg (VA) Daily News Record describes the recent decision of Fibrowatt LLC to abandon plans to build a poultry litter-to-energy plant here in Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley.

The Commonwealth of Virginia had undertaken a feasibility study of the proposal, but stopped it in June 2012 after learning that Valley poultry operations produce about 345,000 tons of litter per year, in contrast to Fibrowatt’s estimates of close to 500,000 tons annually.

Fibrowatt had originally proposed in 2010 constructing a 40–55 megawatt litter-to-energy plant in Page County, Virginia, but very heavy local opposition to the project led the company to abandon that area as a potential site; they did not subsequently name an alternative location.

The Virginia Tech study by Dr. Jim Pease found, in addition to providing more realistic estimates of annual Valley litter production, that “demand for litter as a fertilizer in the central Valley exceeds the current supply … [f]armers would have to spend more than $13 million collectively to replace the litter needed for fertilizer that would be lost to the plant’s fuel needs,” according to today’s news article.

This is a successful clean tech failure. Market factors and local opposition were used by Fibrowatt in its decision to abandon the project. Government incentives (e.g., loan guarantees, grants, favorable tax rates, infrastructure support) were not lost by a business that went bankrupt. Taxpayers were not left holding the bag. Government agencies were not involved in choosing renewable energy winners and losers.

The market worked, as it can and should if allowed. Kudos to Fibrowatt for making an appropriate business decision, and to state and local officials for not spending taxpayer funds on a project for which there were insufficient raw materials.

Learn more about clean tech innovation.  

Technologies of Freedom and A2K

Today we add a book from the Way Better Patents Reading List that is a little harder to find but worth the hunt.  In this 1984 text Ithiel de Sola Pool discusses how emerging digital technologies are the agents of freedom and protectors of free speech and the ability to be exchange information in ways never possible before.  The book was written well before blogs, Twitter, social media, and the ability to share global communications in seconds.  For many civil society A2K folks, this is their foundational document.  It's worth a read.  And, it's available on Kindle.  How new millennium.



Technologies of Freedom by Ithiel de Sola Pool — A seminal look at how digital technology supports individual freedom and vice versa. A primer on many of the issues in the Access to Knowledge (A2K) movement.

Please send us your favorite IP reads - feedback@waybetterpatents.com.

(We added the link to buy the books at Amazon for two reasons - the pictures of the covers look good and if you buy one of the books from the link on, Amazon pays us a little change.  This helps us keep our product cost low. ) 

54.5 MPG by 2025

On August 28th the Obama administration announced the new aggressive fuel economy standards for 2017-2025.  The new standards will cover cars and light trucks for Model Years 2017-2025, requiring performance equivalent to 54.5 mpg in 2025 while reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 163 grams per mile.

Inventions that increase fuel economy are expected to become a major component in the patentECO Transportation Index.  The USPTO Green Technology Pilot Program offered accelerated examination to patent applications that materially enhanced the quality of the environment, or that materially contributes to the discovery or development of renewable energy resources, the more efficient utilization and conservation of energy resources, or green house gas emission reduction.  Way Better Patents' analysis of the patent granted under the program revealed that 68% of the patents granted under the program through February 2012, a significant number of inventions, were inventions associated with internal combustion engines -- not electric vehicles or hybrid vehicle technology.  Internal Combustion Engines patents are for exhaust, fuel, or control system inventions.  The commercialization of these new technologies will help auto manufacturers meet the new fuel and greenhouse gas emissions standard.

The patentECO Green Technology Report provides a unique look at the impact of an accelerated examination program, and the companies and technologies that benefitted from it.  To learn more visit Way Better Patents.

Robo Caller Revenge

In the season of issues, compelling public debates, and political activism we bring you the Grass Roots Edition.

Gone are the days of The Federalist Papers when Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote essays about how the new government would operate and why this type of government was the best choice for the United States of America. Today's democracy is an incessant stream of digital messages and electronic discourse, talking heads and bleeding edge blogs. Information is being created with such speed it's hard to digest let alone think about the impact of the changes and issues on the table today. If Congress was forced to write the bills by hand I doubt there would be any bills that were 2,000 pages long, but I digress.

The Congressional Management Foundation (CMF), is a nonpartisan nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting a more effective Congress and a group that clearly has their work cut out for them. It's report, "Communicating with Congress: How the Internat Has Changed Citizen Engagement" reports that in 2004 the Congress received 200 million communications from constituents - a four fold increase over the volume received in 1995. The increase was a direct result of internet-based communications. By 2008 they report that 44% of adults in America had contacted a Senator of Congressman in the last five years. 43% of those communications were via online methods.

91% people who contact Congress via the Internet cared deeply about the issue that triggered email. And they expected a reply. Only two-thirds actually got a response and most were dissatisfied with what they got. (Not surprising.) The form letter writing machine is alive and well up on Capitol Hill.

CMF's Beverly Bell presents the flip side in a letter to the Washington Post in which she notes that policy-makers in the Executive and Legislative Branches feel overwhelmed by citizen communications, and, because so much of it is identical, they find it increasingly difficult to manage and trust. Does this mean that basically they are ignoring constituent concerns? During the health care debate several Congressmen announced that they intended to vote the way they wanted even if it was against what their constituents wanted. How does advocacy work these days?

The election season is in full swing and it isn't even labor day yet.  Incessant advocacy Robo-calls from political luminaries across the political spectrum and the robo political survey, "say or hit 1 if you support..."  In the days leading up to the election the we will be bombarded. I was wondering how all this technology impacted the dynamics of the new digital citizenry and everything that goes with it. 

That brings us to patent 6,311,211 - Method and apparatus for delivering electronic advocacy messages. The patent, owned by Juno Online Services, presents a way to automate sending advocacy messages to your representatives. Sixty-three claims of reverse robocaller messaging bliss. The patent is describes an invention that is the Citizen's Revenge on the Robo-caller.

The inventors claim:
1. A method of operating an advocacy network, comprising the steps of:

accessing a user database, the user database comprising information about users and information identifying a representative associated with each user;

automatically selecting a user based on information in the user database; and

sending an advocacy message to the selected user through a first communication network.

So, they have your name in the database along with the names of your representatives. Then they have the capability to automatically send an advocacy message to your representatives.

Ok, now for the saturation elements...

Claim 6 adds...wherein the response message comprises one of an e-mail message, a facsimile message, a printed letter and a telephone call.

My problem with this claim is that it should say "where in the response message comprises ALL of the messages... an email, a fascimile (does anyone use those anymore) a printed letter and a telephone call.

Then there is the ability to send a message at a predetermined time.

Then add: the response message comprises a telephone call automatically established between the representative and the selected user.

Jackpot... but I wonder how long the person answering the phone will listen before hanging up?

Is Juno enforcing it's patents? Wouldn't that put a stop to all the Robocalls?