Electric Motors, New & Old

Several high school students zip by my house in the mornings and afternoons on bicycles with tiny 2-stroke gas engines. I perceive them from a long distance, hear the Doppler effect as they approach and recede, and cringe as they pass the house – the motors may be small, but they are SHOCKINGLY LOUD AND PENETRATING.

Surely there might be a less noisy solution to their desire not to have to pedal? One might ask why bother to ride a bike, but I won’t.

E-bikes (electric bikes) would solve my local students’ need for locomotion, and my, and my neighbors’, need to retain our hearing.

Enter the US Patent Office’s Green Tech Pilot Program, and patent US 8,222,786, issued in July 2012 to David G. Calley and co-inventors, all in Flagstaff, AZ; their patent is assigned to Motor Excellence, LLC.

Their invention is entitled “Transverse and/or commutated flux systems having phase offset”, and is described in the abstract:

"Electrical machines, for example transverse flux machines and/or commutated flux machines, may be configured to achieve reduced overall cogging torque via implementation of a sixth-phase offset. Individual cogging torque waveforms in the electrical machine may be evenly distributed across one-sixth of a voltage phase or other suitable spacing, resulting in a reduced magnitude and/or increased sinusoidality of the overall cogging torque waveform for the electrical machine."

In claim 10 one learns that “The stator of claim 2, wherein the stator is coupled to a wheel of an electric bicycle.”

Inventor Calley has 14 patents assigned to Motor Excellence for which he is the first-named inventor; five of these issued from the Green Tech Pilot Program. Four of the Green Tech patents are found in the patentECO Energy | Energy efficiency | Motors & alternators | Design hierarchy (Index | Category | Technology | Feature), and the fifth is categorized as Transportation | Electric vehicle | Motor | Stator.  A fascinating aspect of all of Calley’s Motor Excellence (ME) patents is that they cite US 1,361,136 as the earliest citation. In other words, ME’s key technology derives from a patent issued in 1920. The ‘136 patent, “Dynamo-Electric Machine,” “relates to an improved method and form of construction of dynamo electric machines which is especially applicable to comparatively small sizes of motors, generators and the like. The main objects are to simplify the method of construction and reduce the amount of labor necessary and also reduce the cost of material while producing a strong and durable construction with reduction of size and weight of the machine.”

The Motor Excellence web page states:

"Motor Excellence (Me) is an innovative clean technology company that has designed a new class of high-efficiency electric motors for use in a vast range of applications. Unique in their design, Me boldly offers a 21st century answer to a world tied to inefficient, wasteful and polluting 19th century motor technologies. Me motors enable highly efficient, more cost effective and less resource-intensive electric-powered machines, which will ultimately reduce the world’s reliance on unsustainable energy sources."

No word on 20th century tech.

The company owns a subsidiary, Me eBike LLC, that “provides motors with unprecedented range, acceleration and hill climbing ability to the global electric bicycle industry. Electric bikes (e-bikes) are two or three wheel pedal-driven bicycles with an electric hub motor that provides propulsion assistance to a rider.”

Motor Excellence, founded in 2007, is one of the Young Gun companies in Way Better Patents’ Discovery and Analysis report on USPTO’s Green Tech Program. They completed a move to new Flagstaff headquarters in 2009, and expanded into additional manufacturing space in 2011. This expansion was funded in part by “a $962,000 grant from the 21st Century Grant Program coordinated by the Arizona Commerce Authority (ACA) in 2009, it hired five new workers the next day. The grant program is designed to utilize federal stimulus funds to invest in and promote energy efficient and renewable energy products manufactured in Arizona,” according to a company press release. The Arizona Daily Sun reported in late December 2011 that Motor Excellence had laid off 24 workers and eliminated one management position in November/December 2011. A cached version of inventor David Calley’s Linkedin profile states that he continued with Motor Excellence to July 2012, when “Motor Excellence’s assets were purchased and the new company is called Electric Torque Machines.” A subsequent patent awarded to Calley and assigned to ETM also reaches back to the 1920 ‘136 patent.

According to Pike Research, the electric bicycle market in the US is expected to triple by 2018 with global sales exceeding 47 million vehicles generating nearly $12 million in revenue.  China dominates the global market for e-bikes sales accounting for 92% of the total sales.  The US market accounts for only about 89,000 e-bikes this year.  (The e-bikes are a popular favorite for food delivery people in big cities.)  Sales of e-bikes in the US are expected to reach 265,000 by 2018.

Of course, the ME and ETM patents for electric bike motors refer to many other intervening patents and technologies, as you will see if you review some of them. However, Calley and his co-inventors determined how to improve on an old design in a way that meets USPTO criteria for

• what can be patented (process, machine, article of manufacture, composition of matter, improvement of any of the above)
• novelty
• nonobviousness
• adequately described or enabled (for one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention)
• claimed by the inventor in clear and definite terms.

Another thing that reduces the noise from 2-stroke bike motors is cool weather – the high school boys apparently aren’t members of the Polar Bear Club. Or the gasoline has gelled. Either way, wunderbar, as they say in Deutschland.

Another Solar Bankruptcy

Another Solar Bankruptcy.

On November 14, 2012, GT Advanced Technologies Inc. (NASDAQ: GTAT), with headquarters in Nashua, NH,

"announced it has acquired certain capital assets and intellectual property of Twin Creeks Technologies, Inc., a privately owned company that has developed an ion implanter technology that enables the production of lower cost thin substrates with minimal material (kerf) loss. The assets were purchased from Twin Creeks’ lenders in a private sale for approximately $10 million and royalties that will be based on future sales. 

"GT expects that Twin Creeks’ unique Hyperion™ ion implanter technology will have broad application in the production of engineered substrates for power semiconductors and thin wafers for solar applications. In addition, GT expects to pursue the development of thin sapphire laminates for use in applications such as cover and touch screen devices. The Hyperion ion implanter has the potential to minimize, or in some cases eliminate, the need for wafering saws, which would significantly lower the cost of production. 

"The assets acquired by GT relate primarily to the Hyperion ion implanter as well as Twin Creeks’ portfolio of approximately 30 granted US patents and over 70 pending US and international patent applications."

GT Advanced Technologies is a leading global provider of polysilicon production technology, and sapphire and silicon crystalline growth systems and materials for the solar, LED and other industrial markets. Its manufacturing equipment and services support the growth of the Solar and LED industries and accelerate the adoption of renewable energy.

We reported in Way Better Patents’ USPTO Green Tech Pilot Program Discovery and Analysis Report that Twin Creeks had not received any patents from the program. This was correct for the time period covered by Way Better Patents’ report – patents granted through the close of the US Patent Office program on February 16, 2012. Three weeks later, on March 6, Twin Creeks was issued its first (and thus far, only) Green Tech Program patent. US 8,129,613, “Photovoltaic cell comprising a thin lamina having low base resistivity and method of making,” was granted to Mohamed M. Hilali (Sunnyvale, CA) and Christopher J. Petti (Mountain View, CA), and provides for,

"Fabrication of a photovoltaic cell comprising a thin semiconductor lamina may require additional processing after the semiconductor lamina is bonded to a receiver. To minimize high-temperature steps after bonding, the p-n junction is formed at the back of the cell, at the bonded surface. In some embodiments, the front surface of the semiconductor lamina is not doped or is locally doped using low-temperature methods. The base resistivity of the photovoltaic cell may be reduced, allowing a front surface field to be reduced or omitted."

As with other now-bankrupt cleantech companies, Twin Creeks received substantial loan assistance, in this case $50 million from the State of Mississippi, plus $4 million in manufacturing site infrastructure improvements from the state and city of Senatobia, MS.

Patent Alphabet Soup - FTC, DOJ, PAE, NPE

DOJ and FTC to discuss PAEs aka NPEs.

The Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice will host a one-day event on Monday, December 10, 2012 in the FTC Conference Center to explore the impact of patent assertion entity (PAE) activities on innovation and competition and the implications for antitrust enforcement and policy. FTC differentiates between PAEs and non-practicing entities NPEs such as universities, hospitals, and post-doctoral research organizations.  Panelists for the workshop will include academics, economists, industry representatives, and private attorneys.   The agenda can be viewed here.

According to the Wall Street Journal, DOJ and FTC is looking at, specialized patent-holding companies as part of a broad review of how holders of patents use them as strategic weapons against competitors. In particular, the agencies have expressed concern about companies that make aggressive legal claims based on patents that are part of industry technology standards. Antitrust enforcers also are interested in mergers or acquisitions that result in large transfers of patents.  Federal regulators are grappling with the changing face of the patent business. Nowadays the specialized patent company that tries to wrest royalties from a big technology company might not be an independent enterprise. Rather, it might be the creation of other big companies.

The workshop will provide interesting insight into the current mindset within the anti-trust and consumer protection communities on the issues surrounding the business practices and economic impact of patent assertion entities (non-practicing entities like universities are apparently off the hook here.)

Indicia of Extortion — filing nearly identical patent infringement complaints against a plethora of diverse defendants where the plaintiff follows each filing with a demand for a quick settlement at a price far lower than the cost to defend the litigation. The term was used by Judge Lourie in the CAFC decision in Eon-Net LP v. Flagstar Bancorp.

Clean Tech and the Science of Life

Significant aspects of clean tech are directly related to the life sciences. For example, many of the patentECO Industry Index patents issued by the USPTO Green Tech Pilot Program related to bioengineering and incorporated technologies such as genetically modified organisms (GMOs), fermentation (the use of yeast to convert sugars to alcohol), or non-GMO organisms. Although most of the citations in these patents are relatively recent, it is interesting to consider a life sciences repository that covers life sciences discoveries over thousands of years – the Science of Life – and how this body of information relates to clean tech innovations now being patented. This repository is the Indian art and science of Ayurveda. Ayur and Veda literally mean Science of Life.

The Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR)’s Department of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and Homeopathy, part of the Indian Government, is compiling a massive database of of traditional medicines and ancient remedies that it wants to protect from being patented in other countries. The goal is to protect the collective traditional knowledge of India by making it available to patent examiners around the world in a way that is accessible and usable.

The Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) contains information on Ayurveda, Unani, Siddha, and Yoga. It contains over 1200 formulations including 500 representative Ayurveda formulations, 500 Unani formulations and 200 Siddha formulations, all linked to the International Patent Classification system (IPC). It includes easy to understand information on how the compounds are formulated, what the treatment is useful for and the dosage information. It also contains a list of prior art documents and publication dates.

Information in the TKDL has been successfully used as prior art to force the withdrawal of patent applications using traditional formulations. The formulations sections contain the Title of the Traditional Knowledge Resource and “Knowledge Since” information which has entries with listings citing 1000 years. Now that’s some prior art.  (Here is a list of some of the patent applications challenged using the information in the TKDL.)

For those of you who are classification junkies the TKDL has identified approximately 200 subgroups on medicinal plants where they recommend the TKDL be linked to aid patent examiners in looking for prior art that relates to India’s traditional knowledge. The list is available here.

Among their more recent achievements is documenting over 900 yoga poses to block entrepreneurs from obtaining yoga-related patents. Yoga has been around for over 6,000 years embodying both a physical and spiritual practice. Yoga has grown into a $250 billion industry internationally.

This is an awesome resource for researchers, representing the intersection of digital life sciences and the digital science of life. Have any of our readers used this resource in the development of their inventions?

Going on a Troll Hunt - The Study

First, unlike many of the "patent system is broken" prognosticators who foresee the death of innovation due to perceived innovation stifling and other nefarious activities of patent trolls, the pejorative term for non-practicing entities, Way Better Patents doesn't see impending invention doom.  What we see is a significant case of the economic impacts of asymmetric information.  Some organizations, practicing and non-practicing, benefit from having an asymmetric information advantage.  They know their way around the patent system.  They tend to sit on the "we're holding all the cards side" of the patent licensing negotiation and IP strategy negotiation while the rest of us don't have their patent picking or enforcement prowess.  This is not a crime but an operational reality in the patentsphere.  Or put another way, trolls are patent smart.

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) (P.L. 112-29) mandated the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study on the consequences of patent litigation by non-practicing entities (NPEs) or patent assertion entities.

GAO issued a a Request for Quote for that study back in July 2012.  This looks like part of a larger 20 year study defined in the law.

The definition in play for the study says, "while the term NPE is not defined in the law, it generally refers to a wide spectrum of entities that own and assert patents but do not practice or produce (i.e. design, manufacture or distribute) products using the patented technologies."  In lots of industries these definitions are blurred by many complex business models and structures where practice and produce have many definitions.  Some of the largest NPEs are US and post-doctorate research organizations - they invent and patent but they rarely product the inventions they create.   They don't seem very trollish but we digress.

According to the RFQ GAO is going to buy three specific things:

One — A Patent Litigation Database
Access to a complete database of all patent infringement law suits. GAO wants to collect data on the volume of recent patent infringement litigation in the all 94 federal district courts from 2001 through 2011 (even though there are places in their RFQ that say "and the present" which implies 2012 cases as well. GAO wants access to all of the patent infringement cases filed in the International Trade Commission going back to 2001 as well. The database must ensure that all court filings and documents associated with a particular case are linked to that case and are not counted as separate events (i.e. procedural events, transfers of venue, etc.).

GAO want all suits including patent marking cases, trademark and declaratory judgement cases (cases of non-infringement, invalidity, or unenforceability) as part of the patent litigation cases.  (The presence of trademark cases seems a little odd here but we wanted to make sure that it was clear we didn't make this up.)  GAO wants the capability to slice and dice the cases by federal district, judge, case outcome and patent class. A surprising addition - actually trying to figure out what the technology in the case involves. It will be interesting to see how they define the different areas of the technology. Since many non-practicing entities use the US classification to determine the tranche (domain) for licensing fee calculation.

Oh, and the contractor is supposed to demonstrate to GAO that it has methods for ensuring that data are complete and free from errors. (Good luck with that free of errors one.)

Two — A Random Sample
Then the contractor is supposed to generate random sample of 100 patent infringement cases per year from the database for cases filed each year from 2007-2011. It looks like the vendor needs to extract that set and deliver the sample to GAO who will retain ownership of the sample. Depending on membership in the random sample will directly impact the outcome of the study.

Three — An Analysis
Then comes the analysis. The contractor will then identify the key characteristics of the litigants.  GAO expects, "For the sample of 100 cases per year, contractor shall provide an objective and auditable framework for characterizing the extent to which infringement claimants (patent owners) practice, or make products related to, the patents they are asserting." (Practice what? Plenty of firms that own patents practice licensing too.) It looks like GAO is going to have to have a framework of some kind to deal with the continuum of "practice" because just like Intellectual Ventures and GE sometimes a firm is an inventor and sometimes it's  licensee and at other times it is a NPE.

GAO will approve the framework methodology before making the contract award. (Another sign that GAO knows who will be doing the work since most government contractors won't bid on something unless the scope of work is defined.)

"Contractor shall employ legal analysts to identify key infringement claimant (patent owner) characteristics. Contractor shall analyze court documents, Securities and Exchange Commission filings, corporate websites, and other sources of data as necessary. Contractor must employ expertise in patent infringement litigation to identify evidence that is relevant to objectively characterizing litigants involved in each case. Contractor shall record these characteristics for each case in a Microsoft Excel file. GAO needs to be able to trace all characteristics back to supporting documents.

"Contractor's legal analysts shall compile the characteristics into a Microsoft Excel file and then have at least one other analyst confirm each characterization according to the objective framework." Lots of billable hours on this task.
For each suit in the sample, the contractor shall also report:

• Patent and Trademark Office patent classifications and patent numbers (Which ones - the USPC origin and cross references, the IPC? or the new Cooperative Patent Classification (CPC) symbols
• Number of Defendants per case
• Venue (which federal district court the suit was ultimately heard in)
• Characteristics of the alleged infringer (defendant) as per the above auditable and objective framework
• Outcome – Categories to be reported (with quotes from court records):
• i. whether the case settled and how long it took to settle (e.g. X months after litigation filed)
• ii. whether attorney fees or costs were awarded to one side;
• iii. case outcomes
• iv. whether there were Rule 11 (civil procedure) sanctions
• v. whether an injunction was granted
• vi. whether damages were awarded and how much

There are some other interesting gems in the RFQ:

The contractor has to have this work done by December 31, 2012. The expected award date is September 3 according to FedBiz Ops.

GAO wants the access to the data within two weeks of contract award. There were only two questions posed by potential contractors - not a sign that GAO is likely to get a broad range of responses from interested firms. (Either the fix is in or the data is coming from one of your favorite litigation reporting systems.  The RFQ and the very short response time implies that they know who they want to do the study.)

What is also interesting here is what is missing from the mix.

Patent litigation is generally a tool. File the law suit when the potential infringer doesn't want to talk then negotiate and settle when the specter of a multi-million dollar lawsuit looms. How will this be accounted for? How will the outcomes be described when most are covered by Non-Disclosure Agreements?

There doesn't seem to be any attempt to determine how the NPE acquired the patent. Was the patent acquired from a practicing entity who is working with the NPE on monetizing their intellectual property assets. (See the discussion on 'practice' above.) Firms like Acacia Research have a wide range of agreements with practicing entities to maximize the value of the practicing entities intellectual property. These relationships are important in understanding the true nature of the litigation and who the real players are. Just because you don't manufacture stuff doesn't mean you don't work for someone who does. Counting these as solely evil troll litigation seems to be a misrepresentation of the nature of the action and the business models.

How will the contractor determine the "real parties in interest"?

How will GAO determine the universe of NPEs and patent assertion entities? Many firms engaged in this work establish separate entities for each transaction not unlike real estate developers who want all their projects in separate business entities. There are plenty of legitimate reasons for these types of entities — and plenty that are solely for the purpose of obfuscating ownership.

How will GAO evaluate the age of the patents being enforced? The Boston University study on NPEs which has gained urban legend status in the patensphere  cited shows the average age of a patent in NPE litigation is over eight years old.

What about considering how many of these cases required Special Masters of some kind because of the complexity of the underlying inventions and science that form the foundation of the case?

What about licensing pools, such as the MPEG Licensing Authority that enforced the intellectual property rights of its members? It is clearly a non-practicing entity but it represents a very large universe of practicing entities.

How will publicly traded patent aggregators like RPX and firms like Acacia Research be evaluated. Both have different models for creating shareholder value (assuming that creation of shareholder value is still a good thing.)

What about taking into consideration the difference between highly structured industries like pharma and biomedical inventions (the chemical domain) versus the world of software, business methods and all things related to electrical and communication patents?

And finally, how will GAO combat patent urban legend like — Intellectual Ventures (IV) owns 40,000 patents — (at the time of this writing, there is a crowdsourced request for money out there looking to raise $80,000 to develop a comprehensive view of the IV patents; there are over 250,000 patents covering smartphones (Google's general counsel seemed to be counting all the claims in all the patents to come up with the total; that there have been more than 40,000 in troll related litigation; NPEs cost firms billions of dollars each year (see the Boston University analysis on that one) and finally, trolls hinder innovation.

This is clearly a difficult and challenging task. Hopefully the research and analysis will be equally compelling.  According to the RFQ the task is to be complete by December 31, 2012.  GAO will need to create and publish it's report after that.

Let the troll hunt begin.

Water Treatment for Fracing and Other Sources

Debate over the the geotechnical technique known as hydraulic fracturing (aka, “fracing” or “fracking”) continues. Much of the expressed concern focuses on perceived potential for groundwater contamination. Some of this ignores the fact that the fracing fluid is injected multiple thousands of feet below groundwater aquifers and that the potential for contamination may be related to improper or faulty well linings. Other concerns are directed toward the nature of chemicals used in the fracing fluid.


Jerome Angelilli (Irving, TX) and four co-inventors were awarded patent US 8,211,296 on July 3, 2012 for their “Portable water treatment system and apparatus”. The patent, assigned to NCH Ecoservices, LLC (Irving, TX), was issued under the USPTO Green Tech Pilot Program, analyzed in Way Better Patents’ USPTO Green Technology Pilot Program Discovery and Analysis Report. Their invention is found in Way Better Patents Water Index.

The abstract provides a succinct summary of Angelilli et al.’s invention:

"A portable water treatment system and apparatus is disclosed that can effectively and efficiently treat aqueous fluids by quickly and reliably adjusting and controlling the free residual level of disinfectants, contaminants or additives through the addition of one or more treating agents such as oxidizing chemicals and/or other special-purpose additives, and that can continuously store, log, retrieve and report the related fluid composition data and other operating parameters on a real-time basis at either the use site or a remote location. A preferred use for the subject system and apparatus is managing the chemistry of disinfectant, contaminant and/or additive levels in aqueous fluids used in hydraulic fracturing operations, and controlling the free residual levels of the disinfectant or contaminants within the fluids, including fluids maintained in frac tanks during temporary cessation of a hydraulic fracturing operation."

The inventors envision other uses for the portable water treatment system, including industrial cooling water, HVAC cooling water, fruit and vegetable wash water, or poultry wash water, primary and secondary disinfecting of potable water, and treatment of aqueous fluids for subsurface applications such as disinfection, drilling, fracturing, well stimulation, sour well conversion, and well cleanout. Their oxidizer of choice is chlorine dioxide; this compound is also used for bleaching wood pulp, bleaching flour, and municipal water disinfection.

A multiple-use portable water treatment system that can help improve the quality of flowback from fracing operations. This is a good example of clean tech.

Post Note:  NCH Ecoservices was awarded a related patent using the same technology - 8226832

Agriculture in the Green Tech Pilot Program

Agriculture inventions under the USPTO Green Technology Pilot Program?

There was almost next-to-none.

Patents continue to issue from the now-closed USPTO Green Tech Pilot Program – 1500-plus thus far. Very few patentECO Agriculture Index patents have issued from the program. The USPTO initially allowed “Environmentally Friendly Farming” applications related to

Alternative irrigation technique
Animal waste disposal or recycling
Fertilizer alternative
Pollution abatement, soil conservation
Water conservation
Yield enhancement.

The requirement that applications fall within selected US classifications was quickly dropped replaced by a requirement that the inventor explain the green technology/environmental benefits of the invention.  (We believe the inventors can demonstrate the environmentally friendly aspects of their invention better than a classification system can.)

Let’s take a look at some inventions in the agriculture domains that USPTO hoped to issue; we’ll include examples that were filed with the patent office after the December 2009 start of the program. These could conceivably have filed a petition for accelerated examination under the program, but did not.

Alternative Irrigation

US 8,192,109, “Subsurface irrigation system,” was granted to Abdulreidha Abdulrasoul AlSaffar (Mubarak Alkabeer, Kuwait) in June 2012. The invention provides:

A subsurface irrigation system includ[ing] an athletic field … or covering an entire agricultural field and with an excavation depth of about 25 to 50 centimeters. The system also includes a generally impervious plastic sheet or the like that covers the excavation and extends upwardly above the sides thereof. A source of water is disposed outside of the field and a plurality of distribution pipes and water distributors are disposed in the excavated area and extend substantially over the length and width of the excavation. In addition, a main channel connects the distribution pipe to the source of water and a plurality of water distributors are operatively connected to the distribution pipes for receiving water therefrom. Each of the water distributors includes an upwardly extending short pipe having a plurality of small holes around its periphery and a plurality of generally hemispherical covers that extend downwardly in the form of a right circular cylinder over the openings to protect the small holes from being clogged by a mass of soil added to the excavation to cover the subsurface irrigation system and support the growth of ground cover thereon.

Essentially, this invention is the equivalent of pumping water into a drain tile system underlying an agricultural field. Makes sense given the dry nature of Kuwait. See also a previous Inkling post regarding US 8,087,201 “Method for irrigating and fertilizing rice.”

Animal Waste Disposal or Recycling

No patents meeting our time criteria were issued in the classifications originally deemed by USPTO to cover animal waste disposal or recycling. We offer a substitute that falls within this subject category.

US 7,992,344, “Artificial soil and method for growing vegetation on sloped surface using the same,” was issued to Young-Koo Kim (Seoul, South Korea) in August 2011. (There is a certificate of correction associated with this patent) It is assigned to Transcorea Development Co. Ltd. (Seoul, South Korea). Kim’s invention provides:

An artificial soil and a method for growing vegetation on a sloped surface … The artificial soil is produced by mixing peat or grass peat, paper chip or pulp chip, saw dust or bark, fermented animal waste or dried animal waste, and a microbe activator, frisol; and by adding clay or Silt(SILT) or granular to the mixture. The method comprises forming a vegetation base layer by applying the artificial soil to a sloped surface; waiting until the vegetation base layer has a crack by a shrinkage; and applying a seed mixture of artificial soil over the vegetation base layer, the seed mixture of artificial soil obtained by adding a myocardium catalyst, a microbe activator, a material binder, an evaporation prevention material, and grass seeds, weed seeds, and tree seeds to the artificial soil with water.

Fermented or dried animal waste to artificial soil – that counts for both disposal and recycling. See also a previous Inkling post on US 7,563,302 “Apparatus and method for manure reclamation.”

Fertilizer Alternative

US 8,221,516, “Potassium polyphosphite composition for agricultural use and associated methods,” was granted to Carl Fabry (Zellwood, FL) in July 2012. Fabry’s innovation is

A bactericidal and fungicidal composition having fertilizer properties, the composition containing a percentage of potassium polyp[h]osphite is disclosed. The composition is useful as a fungicide, bactericide, and as a fertilizer for application to plants and, particularly, commercial crops. A method of making the polyp[h]osphite composition is described, as well as methods of using same.

The innovation here? It’s the incorporation of the phosphite ion (PO3–3), which according to the inventor “has never played an important role in the commercial fertilizer industry.” The advantages of incoporating phosphite in an agricultural formulation are described in the patent

Inorganic phosphite compositions such as potassium phosphite are known to be useful as fungicides. … [P]otassium phosphite would be particularly useful because it would provide the second important nutrient of the three critical plant nutrients, potassium. Moreover, a polyphosphite can be expected to provide the sequestration and slow release advantages known with polyphosphate, although phosphites are more active fungicides.

A slow-release ag fertilizer with fungicide and bactericide – an example of innovations to be found in Way Better Patents  Agriculture Index. See also a previous Inkling post on US 8,066,793 “Bio-processed mineral fertilisers including micro-elements.” For high-precision application of fertilizer and other agricultural amendments and practices, consider US 6,553,299 “Methods and apparatus for precision agriculture.”

Pollution Abatement, Soil Conservation

US 8,113,295, “Conservation tillage implement, system and method,” was granted on February 14, 2012, the last day of patent grants prior to the closing of the USPTO Green Tech Pilot Program. As with the other patents discussed in this post, it was not issued from the program. Granted to Jacobus A. Rozendaal (Salford, Ontario, Canada) and four co-inventors, the patent is assigned to Salford Farm Machinery Ltd. (also in Salford). A sibling patent was granted to the same team of inventors in June 2012 (US 8,196,672, same title). The invention is

A conservation tillage implement having three or more rows of individual coulter wheel assemblies laterally spaced apart and removably mounted on a cultivator frame, a coulter wheel assembly in a given row being staggered with respect to the coulter wheel assemblies in a longitudinally adjacent row. The coulter wheel assemblies may be laterally adjustable and may be mounted to the cultivator frame using a mounting means that permits rotation about a vertical axis. The coulter wheel assemblies may comprise a coil spring having a horizontal spring axis to permit upward deflection in response to impact with an obstacle. Leveling attachments may optionally be mounted to the cultivator frame, along with additional field working tools. The implement is used in the management of crop residue as part of a minimum tillage strategy. The implement is particularly resistant to plugging and can be operated at high speeds without undue damage upon impact with obstacles. Advantageously, the implement can be operated in standing water, as found in the growing of rice.

Conservation tillage is a very important agricultural technique for reducting soil erosion, abating nonpoint source pollution, and conserving soil water. This invention, once on the market, will provide another tool for the world’s first conservationists – farmers. See also a previous Inkling post on US 7,814,848 “System for distributing poultry litter below the soil surface.” We’ve also looked at rice irrigation and fertilization – perhaps these new patents from Canada will work together with the US 8,087,201 rice patent as part of an integrated system.

Water Conservation

US 7,937,187, “Computer controlled fertigation system and method,” was granted in May 2011 to Craig Kaprielian (Reedley, CA) and assigned to FW Enviro, LLC (also in Reedley). The invention is for

A system and a method of computer controlled irrigation and fertigation composed of one or more sensors positioned in order to quantify the amount of water and/or nutrients that a plant is consuming. By controlling the fertigation, the plant or a part thereof, has improved yield and quality.

This one crosses several of USPTO’s original agriculture topic areas – water conservation, alternative irrigation, and yield improvement. It is also interesting from the standpoint of the prior art that it cites. The earliest patent this one refers to was issued in 1896 (US 560,966, “Orange-Tree Jacket”). For those of you who are familiar with riparian buffer planting and reforestation methods, check out the drawing in this old patent. It puts tree tubes in a different perspective (they aren’t new). See also a previous Inkling post on US 5,868,087 “Agricultural water retention and flow enhancement mixture.”

Yield Enhancement

US 8,188,005, “Liquid composition for promoting plant growth containing titanium dioxide nanoparticles,” issued in May 2012 to Kwang-Soo Choi (Wansan-Gu, South Korea), and assigned to the inventor, is truly high-tech through its incorporation of nanotechnology into agricultural yield enhancement products.

Disclosed herein is a liquid composition for promoting plant growth containing titanium dioxide nanoparticles. The liquid composition contains, as an active ingredient, an aqueous solution prepared by adjusting the pH of colloidal titanium dioxide, a plant growth promoting component, to 0.4–0.6, in order to prevent rapid precipitation of the colloidal titanium dioxide, and then diluting the colloidal titanium dioxide with water to a predetermined concentration. The colloidal titanium dioxide, an environmentally friendly substance harmless to plants and the human body, which is contained in the plant growth promoting composition, is prevented from rapidly precipitating when it is diluted for application to plants. The plant growth promoting composition is harmless to organisms, reduces environmental contamination caused by over-application of biochemical fertilizers and is inexpensive, leading to an increase in farmer’s income.

Titanium dioxide is a common pigment called titanium white, pigment white 6, or CI 77891. It is used in a wide range of products including paint, sunscreen, and food coloring. It is also added to paints, cements, windows, tiles, or other products for its sterilizing, deodorizing and anti-fouling properties. According to this patent, it also promotes plant growth. See also a previous Inkling post on US 8,198,215 “Methods for protecting seeds.”

The End of the Tour

The patents listed here were not issued from the USPTO Green Tech Pilot Program, and based on the search criteria we used, did not need its accelerated examination to achieve pendency rates equivalent to patents that did issue under the program. There are a number of reasons why inventors and their attorneys or agents might not have taken advantage of the program. You can learn about them, and patents that the USPTO program did issue, in Way Better Patents' USPTO Green Technology Pilot Program Discovery and Analysis Report.