Taxpayer Subsidized Green Beer

Spent brewing grain. Source: blog.syracuse.com

It's not St. Patrick’s Day yet but it's time to take a look at renewable energy, federal grants, and green beer.

A flurry of recent media attention was paid to the Alaskan Brewing Company (ABC), which has installed a new $1.8 million boiler that uses spent brewing grain as the fuel. The company is using the new boiler for its grain drying process, and for some of its process steam. ABC anticipates a 150,000 gallon annual savings in fuel oil by burning its spent grain.

Commentary on the project were uniformly lauding this as a new advance in combustion technology and brewing science. Like many green technologies being adopted under green technology agendas, the innovations aren't really new.  Consider these inventions, some of which are over 20 years old.

Process and apparatus for incinerating wet refuse

US patent 5,010,830 issued to Masahiro Asuka (Ube, Japan) and co-inventors in April 1991. Assigned to Japan’s Ube Industries, Inc., the patent provides,

"An apparatus to be applicable as a boiler for incinerating wet refuse in a combustion chamber with a fluid and heat medium of solid particles fluidized by an air feed to form a fluidized bed, with the aid of combustion of auxiliary fuel effected below the fluidized bed, is provided with additional one or more adjacent upper fluidized fed chambers in series to have the wet refuse dried and partially incinerated in the lower primary fluidized bed chamber with the balance of the refuse in a form of unburnt carbon particles being forced to fly upward into the additional upper fluidized bed chambers and be incinerated therein. Heat recovery is carried out from a topmost fluidized bed chamber."

The Background of the Invention states that the “term ‘wet refuse’ as used herein refers mainly to manufacturing waste expelled from food production plants; for example, waste materials from barley and hops used by breweries, so called ‘beer dregs’, or coffee grounds, orange pulp or tea leaves expelled from a canning plant involved. These plants also emit sludge and other waste products which fall into the category of ‘wet matter’, and these products are treated in a similar manner.  The generated heat energy is utilized in the same way as that of a boiler or the like.”

Waste incineration heat conversion system

Also from Japan, Toshiko Fukushima and co-inventors were granted US 5,678,420 in October 1997. The patent was assigned to Hitachi, Ltd. It provides for,

"A waste incineration heat conversion system has an incinerator for burning waste discharged from an installation, a heat recovering section for recovering the heat generated by combustion of the waste in the incinerator, a cold generating section for generating cold by utilizing the thus recovered heat, and a pipe line for conveying the thus generated cold to the installation so that the thus conveyed cold is utilized in the installation for a purpose."

The Summary of the Invention explains that the “combustible waste discharged from the installation is incinerated by the waste burning means of the system of the invention to generate heat which is directly or indirectly recovered by the heat recovering means as a thermal energy. … The installation may be a brewing plant and the combustible waste may comprise combustible brewer’s grains and sludge discharged from the brewing plant.”

Process for thermally utilizing spent grains

Not to be outdone, Austrian inventor Leopold Werner Kepplinger and his team were granted US 6,167,636 in January 2001. Brau-Union Osterreich Aktiengesselschaft was assigned this patent, which claims,

"a process for thermally utilizing wet spent grains (1), the wet spent grains (1) are mechanically predried in a first drying stage (2), thermally dried in a further drying stage (4) and finally thermally utilized by burning or gasification. In order to be able to realize a process of this kind economically, the mechanically dehydrated spent grains (15) in the further drying stage (4) are heated by the aid of a smoke gas occurring within the energy system of a brewery."

The patent specification teaches the following:

"When producing beer, the wet spent grains, or brewing draff, which occur in large quantities, constitute a problem of disposal and utilization. About 20 kg of wet spent grains occur per hectoliter beer such that large-scale breweries have to dispose of, or utilize, hundreds of tons of spent grains per week."

Due to their composition, spent grains constitute a valuable fodder; it is, however, difficult to use the spent grains as a fodder in a cost-effective manner. The proper time for selling same as a fodder without problems is in winter–on the other hand, spent grains occur in larger quantities in summer than in winter. Moreover, spent grains cannot be stored without predrying. Drying is expensive, since only indirect drying is possible due to the demands set on fodder; which means poor heat transmission. Appropriate driers are expensive, involving high energy expenditures.

Apparatus and method for resource recovery from organic substance

Back to the Japanese. Hiromu Shishido and Norio Omoda obtained US 6,474,067 in November 2002; it is assigned to Chugoku Maintenance Co., Ltd. of Hiroshima, Japan. A more advanced invention:

"In a gasification furnace, a combustible gas is generated from an organic substance for gasification containing biomass of organic wastes or the like. An engine of a cogeneration is operated using this combustible gas to generate electricity by an electric generator driven by the engine, and hot water is generated by heating water in a radiator. The hot water is heated by a superheated steam generator of a heat storage type utilizing the electric power from the electric generator to generate superheated steam. Furthermore, a dry-distilled gas and a carbide are generated by dry-distilling and carbonizing an organic substance for carbonization containing biomass of organic wastes or the like with this superheated steam in the carbonization furnace. Thus, the resources are recovered from the organic substances containing biomass of organic wastes or the like by gasifying or carbonizing the organic substances with the superheated steam."

It can be applied to a wide range of organic fuels as described in claim 20:

"the organic substance for carbonization heated in the carbonization step is at least one selected from the group consisting of agricultural wastes including chaff and straw, livestock wastes including fowl droppings and droppings of pigs and cattle, forestry wastes including lumber from thinning, waste wood and bamboo, industrial wastes discharged in a food production process, a brew process or a lumber production process, domestic wastes including food refuse, domestic garbage and waste edible oil, organic resources, waste rubber materials and resins including fiber reinforced resins."

Method for thermal processing of a slurry and biomass

Not to be left out is German inventor Jurgen Buchert, whose patent US 7,799,960 was issued in September 2010; Buchert retained ownership. He envisions an electricity-producing system:

"In a method and apparatus for thermal processing of slurry, the slurry is combined with a bio-mass to produce a mixture which is then subjected to a cracking temperature in a receiving tank, thereby liquefying and allowing the mixture to catalytically undergo a cracking reaction. The cracking reaction which the liquefied mixture undergoes is continued in a mixer pump to thereby produce a reaction mixture. The reaction mixture is outgased in an intermediate tank to separate an outgased fraction from a non-outgased fraction. Subsequently, the outgased fraction is allowed to cool down, thereby producing fuel, while the non-outgased fraction is returned to the receiving tank and subjected again to the cracking temperature. Residual matter of the non-outgased fraction settles in the intermediate tank and is periodically removed."

Further, “the bio-mass may be biological waste material, e.g. rape residues or wood residues, e.g. sawdust, sugar beet residues, husks obtained during beer brewing or liquor production, animal meal, cellulose from paper production, press cake from feedstock production for animals, straw and the like, as well as other substances, such as various grains, corn, etc.”

Process for a disposal of waste solutions

Not only can breweries use their spent grain for boiler fuel, steam generation, or electricity generation, they can also build their facility with it according to Hugh Bogle and Charles Buchanan of Sarasota, FL and Nazareth, PA, respectively. Their patent, US 4,571,175, issued in February 1986 and was assigned to Roan Industries, Inc. They use spent grain in cement:

"A method of disposing of aqueous waste in which the aqueous waste is mixed with cement raw materials to form a slurry for the preparation of Portland cement or the like, for example in a rotary kiln. Prior to forming the slurry, the aqueous waste is treated to remove volatiles and other pollutants which vaporize when heated to a temperature below the boiling point of water. Such volatile materials are removed by contacting the aqueous waste with the effluent exhaust gases from the kiln itself and with the effluent air from the clinker cooler with suitable controls to avoid loss of the water component of the aqueous waste through boiling. The treated aqueous waste is then embodied in the slurry fed to the kiln and the pollutants in the water which can be combusted by the high temperature in the kiln are destroyed. The gaseous effluent which is cooled by contact with the aqueous waste may be discharged or further treated to recover the volatiles and other components which may be salvaged."

The aqueous waste? “One example of a waste solution is brewery waste which not only includes ethyl alcohol, but also is extremely odoriferous because of the yeast, malt and alcohol contained in it.”

Why Are US Tax Dollars Paying For This?

An Alaskan Brewing Company executive was quoted as saying that “Reducing our energy use makes good business sense” If it makes good business sense, why do you need a federal grant to the tune of $450,000?

It's unclear why, given current economic conditions and the fact that the Alaskan Brewing Company is achieving a significant cost savings why USDA is funding this type of a project.
The web page for USDA’s Rural Energy for America Program explains,

"REAP creates opportunities for economic development for rural businesses by supporting renewable energy and energy efficiency projects, via loan guarantees and grants. The program provides assistance to qualified applicants to finance renewable energy (renewable biomass, anaerobic digesters, geothermal for electric generation, geothermal for direct use, hydroelectric (30 megawatts or less), hydrogen, small and large wind, small and large solar and ocean (including tidal, wave, current, and thermal) and energy efficiency projects. It expands the existing private credit structure by providing a credit enhancement via a loan guarantee."

It's surprising that this technology hasn't been more widely adopted and that it takes federal funding to get inventions like these into production.  The question is what will the taxpayers return in investment be.

These technologies can be found in Way Better Patents’  Energy Index.

Deja Vu - Blimps, Aerostats and Airships

Lighter-than-air (LTA) aircraft are currently in the news with the successful “first-float” maneuver completed for the prototype Aeroscraft designed by Worldwide Aeros CEO, Founder, and Chief Engineer Igor Pasternak. The Aeroscraft uses a pressurized helium system to achieve buoyancy. Its development has been supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the US Defense Department Defiance’s Rapid Reaction Technology Office, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Pasternak received a US design patent, D663,255, “Rigid body airship,” in July 2012.

(On the accompanying patent drawing, 100 is the airship, which includes a shell (102), a strake (104), and a tail (106). A strake is an aerodynamic surface mounted on the fuselage of an aircraft to improve airflow and flight characteristics.)

Rather than relying on helium for buoyancy, the Boeing Company (NYSE: BA) envisioned a system in which both a lighter-than-air gas and heated air would be used in concert. Issued US Patent 8,033,497 in October 2011 for “Hybrid thermal airship,” inventors David Kwok and co-inventors designed,

"[a]n airship [that] comprises a shell, a gas storage system, an air storage system, a cargo storage system, a heating system, and a propulsion system. The shell encompasses a volume. The gas storage system is located within the volume, wherein the gas storage system is capable of storing a lighter than air gas. The air storage system is located within the volume, wherein the air storage system is capable of storing heated air. The heating system is capable of heating air. The propulsion system is capable of propelling the shell during flight."

The airship’s design would allow it to operate at an altitude of about 30,000 feet above sea level, and it was intended to provide cargo transportation. The inventors stated that “cargo is placed into the cargo storage system while a negative buoyancy is present [i.e., when the airship is on the ground]. After the cargo has been placed into the cargo storage system, the temperature of the stored air in the gas storage system is changed to create a variable buoyancy.

Further, “[i]t is also a general goal to reduce the drag force of airships so that less fuel is burned. Alternatively, it is desirable to reduce drag so that the airship may fly faster with the same fuel consumption.” The Boeing hybrid thermal airship can be considered clean tech within the Way Better Patents  Transportation Index.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, Future Aerostat and Airship Investment Decisions Drive Oversight and Coordination Needs, issued in October 2012 identified 15 key aerostat and airship efforts that were underway or had been initiated since 2007, and the Department of Defense (DOD) had or has primary responsibility for all of these efforts.  Most of the aerostat and airship efforts have been fielded or completed, and are intended to provide intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) support. The estimated total funding of these efforts was almost $7 billion from fiscal years 2007 through 2012.  Most of the total estimated airship investment from fiscal years 2007 to 2012—approximately $1.1 billion—consists of research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) costs.  A significant investment that should yield many new inventions.

(Airships,  which use a lifting gas—most commonly helium, are manned or unmanned, self-propelled vehicles that have directional control. Aerostats are the airship's tethered siblings.)

News reports a little over a month before the patent issued said that Boeing was no longer working on the airship. The US Air Force and other have dramatically reduced spending on airship and aerostat development. Perhaps another company will purchase or license the Boeing patent, and this clean tech will be brought to market.

Blimps, aerostats, and airships are likely to make another appearance in the future not unlike the other clean technology like the windmill that have returned to the fore.  In any event, innovative approaches to solving problems incorporating aspects of clean tech continue to be brought forth by the nation’s inventors.

Curious Green Tech Patents - SUV Tents

The curious patents issued by the USPTO’s Green Technology Pilot Program continue with US 8,230,870, issued on the last day of July, 2012. “SUV tent traveler” was invented by Robert D. Horejsh of Altoona, WI. The patent abstract provides a summary:

"An elevated floor camper tent for SUV (Sport Utility Vehicle) type vehicles having electric, hybrid or other energy-saving, lower horsepower engines and top hinged rear doors. The entire tent assembly fits inside the vehicle for aerodynamic maximization and the state-of-the-art materials minimize the total weight. A set of continuous slides provides support and, with integrated footpads, facilitates setup on hard or soft surfaces. The campers sleep within the relative safety of the vehicle and utilize the main part of the tent as a living area. The standard features, under actual test conditions, suggest the design as safe, effective and user-friendly plus the stable, framed living area having built in rail-type support braces and kick panels help prevent the users from accidents."

The specification of a patent is the “written description of the invention and the manner and process of making and using the claimed invention.” Much useful information can be found there, and for clean tech inventions particularly inventors’ statements regarding why they think their innovation is clean tech.

The spec of the ‘870 patent contains several statements of Horejsh’s intent:

• The higher-mileage, hybrid and electric vehicles could be utilized for camping thus enhancing their versatility and general usage in the camping community. Our camper-tent invention is designed from the ground up to be specifically used by the vehicles of now and in the future.
• The “SUV Tent Traveler” (name used for identification purposes only) is a concept of a tent, tent frame, elevated camper floor contained entirely within the vehicles’ storage area and mounted on continuous slides.
• Earth-friendly vehicles are limited for camping although we purchased a Ford Escape Hybrid knowing the towing capacity was only 1,000 lbs. (passengers and cargo included). What we didn’t know was that already optimistic rating was based on a flat surface at lower altitudes and campers under 1,000 lbs. were barely available, those being very expensive. Alternatives involved roof top units with a MPG robbing aerodynamic drag; mini trailers with the inherent problems of pulling another object; and tents, set directly on the ground with a boot to connect to a vehicle. We found the vehicle rear area too short to comfortably sleep in so, in effect, that alternative (attached ground tent) was really just camping out. Earth-friendly vehicles include hybrid, electric, enhanced, dual or multiple mode-powered vehicles, or generally any vehicle with lower rated horsepower for higher MPG, designed by the manufacture to save energy through aerodynamic design with top hinged rear doors.
• The key to its uniqueness is a continuous flat plane slide system comprised of a plurality of sections adjacent to each other to extend the main floor panel longitudinally out from under the cargo floor panel.

How is a tent that can be stored in a vehicle considered to be clean tech?

The tent does not decrease vehicle weight (to the contrary, it increases weight).

The SUV tent does not increase vehicle fuel efficiency (it decreases it since it represents extra weight).

It does not improve vehicle aerodynamic form (it’s stored within the vehicle except when set up (during which time the vehicle is not traveling and incurring aerodynamic friction), just as your normal, everyday pup tent would be).

The invention is classified under CLASS 135, TENT, CANOPY, UMBRELLA, OR CANE.

The patent has only two claims.

The time between filing and grant was less than a year, short even by Green Tech program standards.

And what about the prior art?  A walk around Bonnaroo (or a look at the photo stream of the parking/camping area) or a visit to a college football tailgate will yield lots of prior art small SUV tent configurations.

This invention is from an independent inventor who generally have a harder time commercializing their inventions even if accelerated patenting is helpful.  We'll skip the the intent of the program to "accelerate the development and deployment of green technology, create green jobs, and promote U.S. competitiveness in this vital sector."  (See the press release announcing the program here.)

At the risk of being cynical - is this a quota making invention that gets to wear the green label?

This type of interpretation of what is within the boundaries of an accelerated examination program should provide interesting material to innovation researchers in light of upcoming changes under the America Invents Act that enable the Director of USPTO to designate "economically important" technology.

Another curious patent granted under the Green Tech Pilot Program.

The Curious Case of Green Tech Bolts

A recent post covered General Electric receiving a patent from the US Patent Office’s Green Technology Pilot Program for a wind turbine doorway. When I initially ran across the patent, I halfway jokingly told a colleague “Makes me wonder whether the bolts that are used to hold the door to the door frame are also considered green tech.” Little did I know at the time …

Exactly three weeks later, USPTO granted GE and inventor Denis Heide (Munster, Germany) US 8,186,923, “Connecting arrangement and method of fastening a bolt.”
The abstract provides a summary:

A connecting arrangement is provided. The connecting arrangement includes a bolt with a fastening portion at one end thereof, which has one or more grooves; a cotter having a conical shape and one or more convex cuts on the inner side of the cotter adapted for fitting with the one or more grooves of the fastening portion of the bolt; two support blocks, each having a thread on the outer side, wherein at least one of them is on the inner side adapted for fitting to the conical shape of the cotter; and a fastener having a thread on the inner side, wherein the fastener is adapted for being screwed on the support blocks.

Claim 1 provides some excellent patent-speak:

A connecting arrangement, comprising:
a bolt including a fastening portion including one or more grooves, whose circumference is differentiable between at least two portions;
a cotter including at least two parts and including an essentially conical shape on the outer side and a axial bore when the at least two parts are put together, wherein the axial bore provides one or more convex cuts on the inner side of the bore, wherein the convex cuts are adapted for fitting with the one or more grooves of the fastening portion of the bolt;
at least one first support block including a thread on the outer side;
at least one second support block including a thread on the outer side, wherein the at least one second support block is on the inner side adapted for fitting to the conical shape of the cotter;
and a fastener including a thread on the inner side, wherein the fastener is adapted for being screwed on the support blocks.

What does this have to do with clean tech? According to the Background of the Invention, “Especially in very large applications, such as wind energy systems, the screw connection has to meet high security demands. The flange connections of wind energy systems are also screwed and the required strength is achieved by using large screws.”

Curiously, the same sequence of events occurred for this ‘923 patent as for the ‘674 patent - the filing of the Petition to Make Special, some volleying back and forth with the examiner and then, USPTO miraculously, accepting the petition. In this case, GE submitted the petition to USPTO on July 12, 2011. The same Tech Center 3600 QA Specialist dismissed the petition on July 22, 2011. Once again, item 4 requirements were the basis of the Tech Center dismissal. The detail continues a theme we saw in the ‘674 doorway patent:

In regard to item 4, the claimed bolt-nut/connecting system for being used in a wind energy system would not materially contribute to the development of renewable energy resources or energy conservation since the bolt-nut/connecting system cannot generate energy or convert the mechanical energy into electrical energy. It is unclear which part of the bolt/connecting system conserves energy. A bolt-nut/connecting system plays no role in the operation of the wind energy system. In addition, as the claimed bolt-nut/connecting system and the resulting support structure may not necessarily be used in a wind energy system, petitioner’s assertion of the bolt-nut/connecting system’s contribution to the development of renewable energy resources or energy conservation is entirely speculative. As stated in the notice, the materiality standard does not permit an applicant to speculate as to how a hypothetical end-user might specially apply the invention in a manner than [sic] could materially contribute to category (A) or (B). Also see MPEP §708.02 (VI). Accordingly, it is not agree that the application on its face meets that materiality standard.

(emphasis added)

GE filed a Request for Reconsideration on August 24, 2011 which contained some artful linguistic gymnastics on why a bolt is critical to green energy.  This time they,

"respectfully submit[ted] that the Federal Registry does not require that an invention generate energy or convert mechanical energy into electrical energy in order to materially contribute to the development of renewable energy resources or energy conservation. … Embodiments of the present invention materially contribute to the development of renewable energy by providing an arrangement and methods of fastening a bolt that increases the fatigue resistance of a connection in wind energy systems. These measures increase the availability of wind energy as a viable power generating option by reducing maintenance and decreasing costs, and also by reducing wind turbine down time. As a result, embodiments of the present invention promote increased energy production, and thus materially contribute to the development of renewable energy resources or energy conservation.

However, here is text from Federal Register 74FR64666 (found in section III of the Notice) which seems to undercut GE’s argument:

Patent applications are also eligible for the Green Technology Pilot Program if the applications are for inventions that materially contribute to: (1) The discovery or development of renewable energy resources; (2) the more efficient utilization and conservation of energy resources; or (3) the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The term “renewable energy resources” for purposes of the procedure specified in this notice includes hydroelectric, solar, wind, renewable biomass, landfill gas, ocean (including tidal, wave, current, and thermal), geothermal, and municipal solid waste, as well as the transmission, distribution, or other services directly used in providing electrical energy from these sources. [emphasis added]

Admittedly, this wording is somewhat open-ended, but “development of renewable energy resources”, and the last emphasized clause, strongly suggest that USPTO did not intend the connection and fastening of bolts to be considered eligible under the program. This is supported by the wording of their petition dismissal.

No matter, however, as the USPTO accepted GE’s arguments and granted their petition on September 29, 2011. This decision was also signed by the same Tech Center 1700 QA Specialist as the corresponding one for the ‘674 patent.

Did we mention that as of May 29, 2012, the date of the ‘923 bolt patent, the USPTO Green Tech Pilot Program had granted 213 GE patents, out of a total of 1126 issued, or 18.9%? GE’s next closest competitor in terms of total program patent grants through May 29 was Ford Motor Company, and its subsidiary Ford Global Technologies, LLC, with 108 patents (9.6%). Certainly, GE has very successfully used the Green Tech Pilot Program to reduce the pendency of its clean tech inventions over the past few years. Given GE’s vast patent portfolio (more than 37,000 as of November 6, 2012), IP prosecution experience, and very large IP staff, these results are not surprising.

Doorway To Green Technology - Green Tech Doorway

A clean tech door: the doorway 102,
a doorway frame 106,
a doorway opening 122, and
an outer face 134.

Curious Green Tech Program Patents - #1

While reviewing patents issued under the USPTO’s Green Technology Pilot Program], I was struck by the title of US 8,171,674 – “Doorway for a wind turbine tower.”

A doorway receives a green tech/clean tech  patent from the US Patent Office?

First, details on the ‘674 patent, issued in early May 2012. The inventors – Bharat Bagepalli of Niskayuna, NY and Russell Earle Walthers, from Saratoga, CA. The assignee – General Electric Company. The technology, according to USPTO,  static structures including a component designed to receive a disparate article having disparate article mounted thereto on shaft or tower. Isn’t government-speak great?

In other words, an object (in this case, a doorway) mounted on a tower. The abstract:

A doorway for a tower of a wind turbine is disclosed. The doorway may generally comprise a doorway frame having a substantially rectangular shape and including an inner face and an outer face. An opening may be defined between the inner and outer faces and may be configured to provide access to an interior of the tower. Additionally, at least one of the inner face and the outer face may define a substantially planar surface along at least a portion of its width.

The patent contains 13 claims, of which claim 1 is representative:

A tower for a wind turbine, the tower comprising:
a tower segment having a first end and a second end, the tower segment defining a curved shape between said first and second ends; and
a doorway disposed between said first and second ends, said doorway comprising:
a doorway frame having a substantially rectangular shape and including an inner face and an outer face and,
an opening defined through said inner and outer faces, said opening configured to provide access to an interior of the tower,
wherein at least one of said inner face and said outer face defines a substantially planar surface along a substantial portion of its width.

Wondering how a patent for a doorway was issued as a green tech/clean tech, a review of the various documents supporting the patent ensued.

Applicants wishing to have their inventions considered under the US Patent Office’s Green Tech Pilot Program were required to complete a form (it’s government, after all) to specifically request accelerated examination under the program. The inventor duly filed the form (received at USPTO 5/24/11); here is an excerpt:

Applicant respectfully submits that Special Status is sought on the basis that the present invention materially contributes to the development of renewable energy resource or energy conservation.  

Materially?  Do real inventors say materially or is this a lawyer term?  In this case it's a USPTO term.

The petition to make special was routed to Art Unit 3633 for a decision. On June 7, 2011, USPTO (a Tech Center 3600 Quality Assurance Specialist, specifically) replied:

The petition is DISMISSED.

The Patent Office’s reasoning was that “[t]he petition lacks item 4”. Item 4 in the requirements for achieving Green Tech accelerated exam status was:

If the disclosure is not clear on its face that the claimed invention materially contributes under category (A) or (B) [A) materially enhances the quality of the environment or B) materially contributes to: i) the discovery or development of renewable energy resources, ii) the more efficient utilization and conservation of energy resources, or iii) greenhouse gas emission reduction.] [^1], the petition must be accompanied by a statement by the applicant, assignee, or an attorney/agent registered to practice before the Office explaining how the materiality is met.

Additional justification for dismissal was provided by USPTO:

In regard to item 4, the claims are directed to a doorway used in a tower which can be used to support a wind turbine. Since the wind turbine is not claimed, the claimed doorway or tower in and by itself would not ordinarily contribute to the development of renewable energy resources - a doorway or a tower cannot generate energy or convert the mechanical energy into electrical energy. There is no evidence in the present application that the claimed doorway or tower materially contributes to the development of renewable energy resources. In addition, as the claimed doorway or tower would not necessarily result in a tower used to support a wind turbine, petitioner’s assertion of the claimed method’s contribution to the development of renewable energy resources or energy conservation is entirely speculative. As stated in the notice, the materiality standard does not permit an applicant to speculate as to how a hypothetical end-user might specially apply the invention in a manner than [sic] could materially contribute to category 9A) or (B). Also see MPEP §708.02 (VI). Accordingly, it is not agreed that the application on its face meets that materiality standard.

This seems to be a very reasoned and well-supported dismissal.

GE disagreed and filed a Request for Reconsideration of the Patent Office’s denial of the request for accelerated examination under the Green Tech Program; this was received by USPTO on June 30, 2011. The heart of GE’s request to reconsider is contained in the penultimate paragraph of their Request:

Embodiments of the present invention materially contribute to the development of renewable energy by reducing the thickness of tower segments required for wind turbines and reducing the time and expense necessary to form the tower doorway. As such, these measures promote investment in wind turbine technology by making it a more cost-effective alternative to other non-renewable energy technologies, which in turn promotes increased energy production.

GE is arguing that reducing the thickness of tower segments, and reducing time and expense (to them, the manufacturer) to form a wind tower doorway constitute sufficient reasons for the application to be accepted for accelerated examination under the program. They are arguing here that thinner wind turbine tower segments, and reduced manufacturing time and expense for GE do materially contribute to the development of renewable energy resources or energy conservation. But none of those aspects address either the requirements of Item 4, provided above, under which the accelerated exam request was dismissed, orthe USPTO’s specific, detailed reasoning supporting that dismissal.

On August 4, 2011, USPTO agreed with GE’s request (what a surprise); this time, however, the reply came from a QA Specialist in Tech Center 1700:

The petition is GRANTED.

USPTO did not provide any reasoning for supporting their grant of the petition to make special, nor any reasoning to explain why they now viewed GE’s wind turbine doorway as meeting program requirements, when just a few weeks previously they had given a well-written, logical set of reasons for rejecting the application for acclerated examination under the program.

Thus, the bottom line in GE’s and USPTO’s thinking is that a wind tower door is clean tech.
Did we mention that GE has received the largest number of patents of any assignee under the USPTO Green Tech Program? Or that GE was definitively involved in the program prior to its announcement on December 7, 2009? See the USPTO press release announcing the program on that date with a quote from Carl Horton, Chief Intellectual Property Counsel of General Electric, who “hailed the new initiative” (I’m sure he did, considering how well GE subsequently did under the program)  ”We hail this initiative as an excellent incentive to fuel further innovation of clean technology and a terrific mechanism to speed the dissemination of these patented technologies throughout the world,” Horton said. ’) Or that Jeffrey Immelt, Chairman of the Board and CEO of GE, is head of the Obama Administration’s Jobs Council (nothing more need be said here?)  Representatives from GE introduced their colleague who wrote many of the patent applications and crafted the green tech justifications at the USPTO Green Technology Partnership meeting too.

Inventors, remember, precedent has been established. A doorway is clean tech, if you tie it to a wind turbine.  (Improving a the driving experience of an electric vehicle also qualified.)

Amazing. One might think the Office was under some pressure to produce clean tech/clean energy patents from this program. Naahh, that couldn’t be, could it?

[^1] Pretty limited criteria for energy-related clean tech inventions, wouldn’t you agree?

Transportation Cleantech - Ships

Ship Fore Nozzle

US ships and boats, not including military vessels, used 626,000 barrels (26.3 million gallons) of petroleum per day in 2010 according to USDOE statistics (its EERE office, referred to in previous posts in this short series). With an average container ship consuming about 3600 gallons per hour, fuel costs represent a major fraction of the operation of a cargo ship.

“Device for reducing the power demand for the propulsion of a ship”

This patent, US 8,123,578, was issued to Friedrich Mewis of Dresden, Germany, (assigned to Becker Marine Systems GmbH & Co., Germany), on February 28, 2012. The invention consists of a nozzle housing fins or hydrofoils; the assembly is mounted to the ship’s hull just forward of the propeller(s).

It is a passive device (other than being able to be tilted to provide proper alignment with respect to the prop). The nozzle/hydrofoil assembly operates by increasing the speed of water flow against the propeller in areas where the main flow stream is very high, and of decreasing the flow against the propeller in areas where the main stream is low. In addition, the nozzle itself provides some thrust. The fins or hydrofoils arranged within the fore-nozzle generate a rotational swirl, that serves to counteract the swirl (and resulting energy losses) imparted by the propeller. Both of these effects increase the overall efficiency of the propulsion system.

Claim 1:

A device for reducing a power demand for the propulsion of a single-propeller or multi-propeller ship, wherein the device is attached to a hull of the ship proximate to the propeller, the device comprising a fore-nozzle with fins or hydrofoils arranged within the fore-nozzle, wherein the fore-nozzle, at a top thereof, is tilted forwards relative to a horizontal transverse axis that extends through the center of the fore-nozzle, wherein the fore-nozzle is rotation-symmetrically arranged with an upwards-shifted axis that is situated above the propeller axis, and wherein the fins or hydrofoils have different lengths.

As part of his invention summary, Mewis states:

"With a device constructed in this manner it is possible to reduce the power demand for the propulsion of a ship. The possible gain increases as the extent of thrust loading on the propeller increases. The device is particularly suitable for slow, broad-built ships, such as tankers, bulk transports and tugs, and also for not-very-fast ships of any type. The device itself is affixed to the hull so that it is upstream of the propeller of the ship, with said device comprising the two functional elements of fore-nozzle and fins or hydrofoils."

He estimates that,

"[t]he power savings which can be achieved by the device depend substantially on the propeller load, they are from 3% for small multi-purpose ships to 9% for big tankers and bulkers. The power savings are almost independent of the draught of the ship and from the speed."

A potential 9% power saving for large tankers and cargo vessels translates to a significant fuel and cost savings.

2012 Transportation Cleantech - Airplanes

Illustration of drag reducing aircraft fuselage

The USDOE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) estimates that US aircraft consumed 1,040 thousand barrels (43.7 million gallons) of petroleum per day in 2010. This represents slightly less than eight (8) percent of the daily total transportation petroleum consumption in the country that year, and is slightly less than 25% of the daily car usage of petroleum. Still, 44 million gallons is a considerable volume, and steps to improve the fuel economy of aircraft can play a part in allowing us to more efficiently use our fossil fuel resources.

There are multiple ways of improving aircraft fuel efficiency, ranging from engine design, to flight profiles and routing (along with changes in air traffic control), to reducing the drag of the aircraft.

“System and method for drag reduction”

David T. Birkenstock of Herndon, VA was awarded patent US 8,113,466 of this title on February 14, 2012. Interestingly, this was the last day patents issued from the US Patent and Trademark Office prior to its closing the Green Technology Pilot Program two days later. Birkenstock did not take advantage of that program, which might be unfortunate, as it probably would have reduced the time from his initial filing to patent issuance by a considerable length of time.

The patent provides a fuselage design that reduces drag and allows thrust output, fuel efficiency or both to be maximized.  The rear portion of a body or motor vehicle may be modified to increase thrust output, fuel efficiency or both by creating a stagnation area, a suction inlet and a convex cusp area formed on the rear portion of the motor vehicle. Increasing the concavity or camber or sharpness of the radius of the stagnation area results in a greater local pressure coefficient, yielding greater thrust output. The size and shape of the suction inlet and the convex cusp area will also have an effect on thrust output and fuel efficiency.
Claim 1 states:

A method for increasing efficiency of an object moving through a fluid, comprising the steps of:

• forming a convex cusp area at substantially a rear of the object;
• extending one of a suction inlet and a blowing outlet with a convex transition portion on an end of said convex cusp area;
• extending a stagnation area from an end of said blowing outlet, said stagnation area having a concave shape;
• and varying a pressure thrust on said object by varying a sharpness of the convex cusp area.

Although the USPTO considers this to be an aircraft invention, Birkenstock’s claim wording, and the patent specification and drawings, show that some embodiments can include road vehicle design.  The USPTO examiners did not consider the auto sedan design aspects worthy of inclusion as cross-reference classifications, nor did they include any land vehicle classifications in their prior art searches. We include two drawings from the patent, one for an aircraft, and one for an auto sedan, showing Birkenstock’s drag reducing design concept.

Illustration of drag reducing auto sedan

Power From Travel

“Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both …
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I,
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.”

From The Road Not Taken, by Robert Frost

In terms of renewable energy, the choice of the road you take could make all the difference.

Jack Shihzong Jang of Delaware, OH was granted, on April 24, 2012, patent US 8,164,204.

His invention? “Electrical generator apparatus, particularly for use on a vehicle roadway.” The invention provides

[a]n electrical generator apparatus, which is configured to convert an external actuation force applied by a vehicle traveling on a roadway into electrical energy, [and] includes

a rotatable top portion adapted to receive the external actuation force applied by the vehicle traveling on the roadway;
a plurality of linkage members operatively connected to one another in succession, the rotatable top portion being operatively coupled to a first one of the plurality of linkage members operatively connected to one another in succession;
a first wheel operatively coupled to a last one of the plurality of linkage members operatively connected to one another in succession;
a second wheel operatively coupled to the first wheel via a tangential coupling element;
a rotatable shaft operatively coupled to the second wheel;
at least one flywheel operatively coupled to the rotatable shaft;
and at least one electrical generator operatively coupled to the rotatable shaft, the electrical generator adapted to convert a rotational movement of the rotatable shaft into electrical energy. The second wheel of the electrical generator apparatus is configured to rotate at a higher angular velocity than the first wheel.

Jang desires to provide “an electrical generator apparatus … designed to capture the otherwise wasted kinetic energy of moving vehicles travelling on a roadway [providing] more efficient use of energy resources. The present invention materially contributes to the efficient utilization and conservation of petroleum-based energy resources by making better use of the energy consumed by vehicles.”

Foot powered grinding wheel

One of the patent drawings illustrates the invention. The invention is basically an in-road pedal connected to a flywheel (114 in the drawing), connected to a generator. Not much different in concept from a foot-powered grinding wheel (I remember my Granddad using one) connected to a generator. In clean tech, there really is not much new under the sun. No word on how the device will withstand being waterlogged from rain, clogged with road grit and debris, frozen with snow or ice, or scraped by the blades of snow plows. Also, no clear indication of how much electricity (e.g., current in amps, or power in watts) the device will produce, although the patent’s specification does state (drawing references removed for clarity) that

a plurality of generators wired in parallel is electrically connected to an electrical storage device. The plurality of generators produce direct current (DC) power. In a preferred embodiment, the electrical storage device comprises one or more batteries for storing the electrical energy generated by one or more electrical generator apparatuses. However, in other embodiments of the invention, a different type of electrical storage device could be employed, such as capacitors or ultracapacitors. A voltage regulator for automatically maintaining a constant voltage level is electrically connected to the electrical storage device. On its output side, the voltage regulator is electrically connected to an inverter that converts the incoming direct current (DC) from the voltage regulator into alternating current (AC) for power use. After passing through both the voltage regulator and the inverter, the output power from the electrical generator apparatuses has the same voltage and frequency as the local power grid.

Lest you think the idea for generating electrical power from the action of vehicles moving over a roadway is new, check out patents US 3,859,589 (1975), US 3892136 (1975), US 3,944,855 (1976), and US 4,004,422 (1977), all cited by the ’204 patent.



Granted under USPTO’s Green Technology Pilot Program, Jang’s patent represents an invention considered by the Office to be clean tech. Read about the Patent Office program in Way Better Patents USPTO Green Technology Pilot Program Discovery and Analysis Report.

2012 Transportation Cleantech - Locomotives

2012 Transportation Cleantech – Part 2, Locomotives

Railroads are one of the most efficient means for transporting freight and passengers over relatively long distances. In the US, two major forms of railroad locomotive are currently in use, as pointed out by the inventors of our next patent:

Diesel-electric locomotives employ a diesel engine to drive an electric power generator, which in turn drives a set of traction motors that rotate the locomotive wheels. Diesel-electric locomotives have the advantage of requiring a minimal amount of support infrastructure and thus are particularly suited for providing transport across remote geographical regions. On the other hand, because diesel-electric locomotives consume diesel, they contribute to urban air pollution and are subject to operating costs tied directly to the cost of oil.
Catenary-electric locomotives run directly from an electricity source, typically electric lines running above the railroad tracks. Catenary-electric locomotives are cleaner-operating on a locomotive-by-locomotive basis than diesel-electric locomotives; however, catenary-electric locomotives must be viewed as small parts of a much larger distributed power system, which includes an electricity generation plant, transformers, and a system of transmission lines required to bring electricity to the locomotives as they run down the tracks. This large distributed power system is typically unsuitable for remove geographic regions and overall is less efficient than a system utilizing diesel locomotives.

Back to the 2010 USDOE EERE statistics. Railroad locomotives consumed a daily average of 240,000 barrels of petroleum (10.1 million gallons). Electric locomotives (whether the catenary type, or the electrified third-rail type – think Washington DC’s Metro subway system) used about 20,870 million kW-hrs of electricity in 2010, roughly the equivalent used by 1.82 million average US homes.

It’s An Engine, Or a Mobile Electricity Source

Arnold R. Miller of Lakewood, CO and three co-inventors were granted patent 8,117,969 in February, 2012 for “Hydrogen fuel cell hybrid locomotives,” their patent is assigned to the BNSF Railway Company. The invention provides a set of batteries for driving multiple electric traction motors (as are currently used in diesel-electric locomotives) for moving the locomotive “and a fuel cell power plant for charging the set of batteries and driving the electric traction motors. The fuel cell power plant includes at least one fuel cell power module for generating electrical current by reacting hydrogen fuel and oxygen from intake air, the amount of electrical current being proportional to an air mass flow of the intake air. An air system selectively provides an air mass flow to the fuel cell module to generate an amount of electrical current required for corresponding operating conditions of the locomotive. A cooling system cools the at least one fuel cell power module in response to the amount of current being generated.”

Advantages of a hydrogen fuel cell locomotive include

[a]mong other things, such hydrogen hybrid fuel cell locomotives help reduce particulate air pollution in urban rail yards, as well as reduce the amount of greenhouse gases expelled into the atmosphere. Furthermore, the use of hydrogen as a fuel reduces the dependency of the railroads on imported oil and decouples locomotive operating costs from the volatile fossil fuel markets. Moreover, hydrogen hybrid fuel cell locomotives can act as mobile electricity sources, for example in disaster recovery scenarios.

Extra Energy for Wind Turbines

A large proportion of the inventions approved by USPTO’s Green Technology Pilot Program are directed toward wind turbines. All aspects of wind energy have been patented under the program – towers, turbines, nacelles, blades, generators, control systems, even construction techniques. Wind turbines convert the kinetic energy of wind to rotational motion of the blades (or rotor), thence to electrical energy via the coupling of the rotor to a generator housed in the turbine nacelle.  In operating wind turbines for generating electricity it is sometimes necessary to reduce the power output of the turbines in a wind farm.  Conditions requiring reduced turbine power output might include maintenance periods, low or high wind conditions outside the operating envelope of the turbine, or periods when electricity generated by the wind turbine is not needed. Reduced wind turbine output (or “wind turbine curtailment” in the technical parlance) means that the aerodynamic energy present in wind is not captured, and from a clean tech standpoint, is wasted.

The New

Figure from US 7,750,490

“Method and system for extracting inertial energy from a wind turbine”, US 7,750,490, was issued to Hartmut Scholte-Wassink (Lage, Germany) on July 6, 2010. The patent was assigned to the General Electric Company. GE has been a very significant participant in the Green Tech Program receiving more patents than any other assignee. The patent provides two sets of claims: claims 1–8 are systems claims, and claims 9–15 are methods claims. Claim 9, the independent method claim states:

"A method for operating a wind turbine during curtailment of the wind turbine, the wind turbine comprising a generator and a rotor having at least one rotor blade, the wind turbine also comprising a drive train that includes at least one shaft coupled to the rotor and configured to drive the generator, said method comprising:

operatively coupling a control system to the wind turbine, the control system configured to adjust wind turbine operation to facilitate increasing a speed of rotation of the rotor during curtailment of the wind turbine;
and, operatively coupling an extraction device to the generator, the extraction device configured to extract inertial energy stored in the drive train upon release of the curtailment."

The extraction device in this invention constitutes a frequency converter (shown as 44 in the patent’s Figure 2) that is used to extract the potential energy stored in the increased shaft rotation speed described in claim 9 and other claims.

The Old

Figure from US 452,546 - May 1891

The earliest wind turbine patent related to the ‘490 patent, via the same original classification, was not issued by the Green Tech Pilot Program. It preceded the start of the Program by more than 118 years. J.M. Mitchell of Lawrenceville, GA was awarded patent US 452,546 in May 1891 for a “Wind apparatus for generating electricity and charging secondary batteries.” Mitchell explains:

"My invention relates to that class or type of mechanism whereby the natural powers or forces are sought to be utilized for the generation of one or more electric currents, the object being to supply electric currents having suitable energy for the operation of electric-arc lamps or other devices, or, on the other hand, for incandescent lamps, or doing other work, such as operating motors, and for other purposes. 

"It is the purpose of my invention to provide a simple and efficient apparatus in which the motive power is the wind, and to so construct the parts and organize the same that the wind-wheel shall be at all times presented to the direct action of the air-currents without breaking the electrical connections between the poles of the dynamo turning with said wheel."

Mitchell’s patent describes in detail all aspects of the turbine nacelle, transmission, generator, and includes battery storage (38 in his figure). A clean tech man ahead of his time.

Patents issued in the USPTO Green Technology Pilot Program, many of which are based on technology well over a century old, are described in Way Better Patents Discovery and Analysis Report.

Water Innovations - 2012

Rainwater and sunlight. Both have been around a long time. People have collected rainwater for drinking, cooking, bathing, and agricultural purposes for thousands of years. Collection devices have taken many forms including rain barrels and cisterns. For the grandest cistern of them all, do a web search using the site of your choice for ‘Istanbul Sunken Palace’.  Also search for images of this colossus. I wonder if it was the inspiration for the underground city of the dwarves, Khazad-dûm in Moria, in Tolkein’s Lord of the Rings trilogy, and Peter Jackson’s film treatment of the novels?  Looks like it to me.

Rain barrels are easier to fit next to your house, as the 1903 photo of a Nebraska farmstead shows (back left corner of house).

Source: Library of Congress, American Memory Collection

“Sunlight is the best disinfectant” – received wisdom from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. He was referring to openness and transparency. However, solar water disinfection (SODIS) is an effective means of water purification. The Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Sciences and Technology (Eawag) provides an informative web site on SODIS. To purify water with this method, according to the site,

[a]ll it requires is sunlight and PET bottles. How does it work? Clear PET bottles are filled with the water and set out in the sun for 6 hours. The UV-A rays in sunlight kill germs such as viruses, bacteria and parasites (giardia and cryptosporidia). The method also works when air and water temperatures are low. 

People can use the SODIS method to treat their drinking water themselves. The method is very simple and its application is safe. It is particularly suitable for treating relatively small quantities of drinking water.

The two following cleantech patents illustrate 2012 innovations in water harvesting and sunlight water disinfection.

Keep Debris Out Of Your Rain Barrel

Scott William Allan of Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, invented a “Water harvesting device” for which he was awarded patent US 8,097,151 in mid-January, 2012.  Allan assigned his patent to Green Ripple Innovations Inc., Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. The problem he seeks to solve regarding rain barrel design is that,

"[o]ne major concern of these devices is to provide adequate means for collecting water most efficiently while also ensuring that foreign matter or debris is not collected with it or that may cause an obstruction to water flow. In the example of rainwater harvesting from a building collection systems, debris such as twigs, leaves from trees and other matter often accompany rain water exiting from conventional eaves and downspouts and without adequate management of these items water inlet areas can fill and clog with debris resulting in ineffective water collection or even backing up of the water toward the building structure. There are prior art devices for rainwater collection, filters and the like for installation within the eaves and downspouts but failing to install these or properly maintaining them raises the needs to have these safeguards directly integrated with the water harvesting device. Furthermore, many prior art devices that capture such debris requires frequent and regular maintenance is required to keep the inlet are clean resulting in time consuming maintenance for the user. These debris items, twigs for example are often shaped such that they can also enter the water inlet and potentially cause damage to internal components of a water harvesting device. In the example of a rainwater harvesting device, filtering devices or mosquito safety screens installed at the inlet are susceptible to damage from entering debris. Once a tear or hole is pierced in the safety netting mosquitoes are free to enter the device and lay their eggs, potentially leading to the undesired breeding of the West Nile Virus. 

"Another concern with these devices is that adequate means water and debris management all year around is not provided. During each season, water and debris should be managed so each may be directed in a proper manner so as to: avoid collection of water into the tank potentially freezing and causing damage to the device; and avoid clogging of flow and potential backing up of water-flow due to debris build-up. Current rainwater harvesting devices do not facilitate management of this debris as such."

His solution, summarized in the ‘151 patent’s Claim 1 is:

A debris diversion enabled water harvesting device comprising;

a tank portion for containment of water and at least one water entry area for the entry of water into said tank portion;
wherein said water entry area includes a diversion apparatus for diverting unwanted debris away from said water entry area;
a water overflow located in the upper area of said tank portion wherein said water overflow may release excess water from within the said tank portion;
wherein said water overflow includes a screen.

One of the patent drawings illustrates the invention. Would the Darwin Gilpin family shown in the 1903 photo have used this?

SODIS-Plus

How is this invention different than the method described by Eawag, above?

Patent US 8,142,652, “Container for purification of water by sunlight,” was granted to Petra Wadström (Åkersberga, Sweden) on March 27, 2012. The invention, in contrast to the simple PET bottle, provides a sectioned container which passes sunlight through the first section (to provide UV-A disinfection) and absorbs sunlight and emits infrared radiation in the second section (to provide heating of the water).

Claim 1 summarizes, with figure feature numbers removed for clarity:

"Container for purification of water by utilizing sunlight, including a first section, which at least partly includes a sunlight permeable layer, and a second section, which at least partly is opposite the first section and at least partly includes a sunlight absorbing and infrared radiation emitting (IR-emitting) layer, wherein the first and the second section together enclose a volume, in which the water can be received to be heated by and exposed to sunlight, characterized in that the first section, is formed such that the permeable layer is essentially flat, and the second section is arranged such that the volume includes at least a first and a second portion, wherein the first and the second portion, respectively, have a first and a second distance, respectively, between the permeable layer and the sunlight absorbing and IR-emitting layer, where the first and second distances are mutually different, wherein a temperature difference between the water in the first and second portion is created after a period of sun exposure."

The inventor’s concerns:

"In poor countries, boiling of water is done over an open fire, whereby a considerable amount of wood is consumed. Approximately 1 kg wood is needed for 1 liter of water to reach 100 °C. To fetch wood takes a long time and can be costly, at the same time as it has a negative effect on the environment. Here, the environment is harmed by deforestation, which results in soil erosion.
Thus, the traditional purification method has a number of disadvantages regarding environmental effects, usage possibilities and the work effort.
Other methods for purification of drinking water could be pasteurization and filtering. Pasteurization is performed by heating the water to a high temperature during a long time, which is costly. The filtering is only able to filter out microorganisms being bound to relatively large particles."

The inventor is concerned with deforestation and soil erosion, among other items, in poor countries, but a) wouldn’t people in those countries also use fires for cooking in addition to water purification?; b) isn’t the ability of people, anywhere, to obtain suitable drinking water by whatever method they have available, more important than worrying about “harm” to the environment from “deforestation”?  Or is the environment, viewed from an affluent developed-world perspective, more important? Surely, cooking fires built with wood from renewable trees (after all, they re-seed and re-grow, you know) are not going to result in “deforestation.” Maybe a better approach to ensuring that people in ”poor countries” don’t “deforest” their environment is to help them develop their economies using principles of capitalism – all boats rise on a rising tide (except, of course, those that are sunk), and “teach a man to fish”.

University Research – Big Business

A September 11, 2012 article by Jameson Berkow in the Financial Post entitled “Army of innovators lines energy’s road to success” discusses the nexus between university research, industrial R&D, and commercialization of research results. Although the focus is on Canada’s energy industry, the article’s findings can be more broadly applied.

Syncrude Canada Ltd., a consortium of Canadian oil sands developers, provides research support to the University of Alberta “equivalent to 10% of Syncrude’s annual internal research budget,” according to the FP article. The company also provides significant support to other institutions around Canada. Syncrude holds 21 active patents, according to its web page. These include eight US patents issued from November 2009 through April 2012. None of these eight were issued under the USPTO Green Technology Pilot Program. They include inventions pertaining to bitumen and thermal recovery from oil sands, bitumen treatment methods, and water treatment, among others.

Syncrude supports projects at the University of Calgary as well. These include evaluating the nature of small earthquakes within oil and gas reservoirs, which has implications for hydraulic fracturing (see earlier Inkling posts here, here, and here). Another project examines the application of biology to improve the recovery of petroleum products from oil sands. We’ve looked previously at using biology to reclaim uranium mines.

University research, and the commercialization of inventions that emerge from that research, is big business in Canada and the US. In 2009, the top five US research universities in terms of their total research expenditures were:

• Johns Hopkins University – $1.9 billion
• University of Michigan - Ann Arbor – $1 billion
• University of Wisconsin - Madison – $0.9 billion
• University of California - San Francisco – $0.9 billion
• University of California - Los Angeles – $0.9 billion

Source: The Center for Measuring University Performance at Arizona State University

During the same period, the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) reported that university research organizations filed 18,214 total U.S. patent applications and were granted 3,417 issued 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.

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.  

USPTO Green Technology Pilot Program

Way Better Patents Releases USPTO Green Technology Program Discovery and Analysis Report 

Way Better Patents has released its USPTO Green Technology Pilot Program Discovery and Analysis Report. The report is the first comprehensive look at the inventions and technologies patented under the USPTO’s Green Technology Pilot Program to accelerate the examination of certain “green” technology patent applications.

The Report

Using Way Better Patents patentECO Index as the framework to look at the innovations covered by the program, the report analyzes the first 836 patents granted under the program, from its inception in early December 2009 through its close in mid-February 2012. The report, available online and in an upcoming ebook format, documents which companies received patents including the top assignees, the “Young Guns” — the young companies that disproportionately impact economic growth and job creation, and the participation of independent inventors. The report is organized around Way Better Patents' patentECO Indexes.

Way Better Patents' analysts also looked at vintage prior art in each of the major program domains - Wind, Solar, Energy Efficiency, Water, Renewable Energy, Transportation, Biofuels, and Industry. The report also provides deep dive patent analytics on the geography, complexity, pendency, and specific inventive technologies patented under the program.

This report is an important look at the impact of accelerated examination programs as the USPTO implements the America Invents Act Section 25, under which

the Director of the USPTO and at the request of the patent applicant, may provide for prioritization of examination of applications for products, processes, or technologies that are important to the national economy or national competitiveness without requiring the applicant to pay the aggregate extra cost of such prioritization.

This report provides science and technology policy makers, researchers, and economic development experts with a unique perspective on an accelerated examination program like that soon to be allowed under Section 25 of the American Invents Act.
The report presents important information about the program’s participants and notable patents granted under the program including:

• How a patent for improving the driving experience for drivers of electric cars was considered an important aspect of green technology
• Which major wind and solar market leader that was in on the program from day one received the most patents
• How one inventor took methods used to cool semiconductors to dramatically improve the fuel utilization for heating commercial cooking pots
• A plant sunscreen invention that improves the life of produce
• How patents for internal combustion engines lead the way in patents granted in the “green” transportation inventions
• How two different Young Guns patented inventions for urban wind power solutions.

Is Green Technology More Than a Buzzword?

The goal of the analysis was to discover what green technology was patented under the program and frame it in a way that is understandable and useful for inventors and researchers, talent scouts, for real estate and economic developers who want to see what’s coming next in the green tech marketplace. Product managers will find the results useful in looking for technology and investors and business developers looking to see the which companies have accelerated the protection of their intellectual property in the Clean Technology space.

Is There a Benefit To Accelerated Examination?

Public policy professionals will find the report a useful and important look at the impact of accelerated examination of a particular class of technology. The report shows how the USPTO vision of the technology morphed into the vision of the technology held by innovators and their decisions on which inventions they selected to move to the front of the patent examiner’s docket. This is an important piece of analysis for framing discussions around the new ability of the Director of the USPTO to grant accelerated examination to economically important technology under the America Invents Act.

Is Green Tech New? Review the Prior Art.

Many green technologies are not new — wind technology, solar energy, electric motors — the report includes a section on green technology prior art and the timelines of some of these important “vintage” inventions.

This report is the only published detailed analysis of the results of the USPTO Green Technology Pilot Program. The Program essentially defines the USPTO’s view of what constitutes clean technology. It is required reading for anyone with an interest in past, present, or future clean technology inventions in the US.