For the best experience, this project uses the Webflow Input Enhancer extension. We highly recommend installing it. Click here to download (use preview mode to access link)
Carbon dioxide (Co2) is one of the atmospheric "greenhouse gases" that absorbs and radiates heat gradually over time and contributes to the natural warming of the Earth known as the greenhouse effect. Notably, increases in atmospheric CO2 are responsible for about 2/3 of the total energy imbalance that is causing Earth's temperature to rise.
The built environment generates nearly 50% of annual global CO2 emissions. Of those total emissions, building operations are responsible for 27% annually, while building materials and construction are responsible for an additional 20% annually.
As a result, measures are being taken to create structures and building materials that are carbon-neutral, and even carbon negative, to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. One such project was announced this week by the U.S. Department of Energy.
About the project
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced Monday that it is awarding $39 million in grants, primarily to universities, for 18 projects seeking to develop technologies that can transform buildings into net carbon storage structures.
The awards are part of DOE’s Harnessing Emissions into Structures Taking Inputs from the Atmosphere (HESTIA) program, and will prioritize overcoming barriers associated with carbon-storing buildings, including scarce, expensive, and geographically limited building materials. The overarching goal is to increase the amount of carbon that can be stored in buildings so they become “carbon sinks”— materials or processes that absorb more carbon from the atmosphere than they release. The decarbonization goals for this program fall in line with President Jo Biden’s call for the federal government to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.
Why it's significant
Of the greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide is known to absorb less heat per molecule than the greenhouse gases methane or nitrous oxide, be more abundant, and stay in the atmosphere much longer. When it comes to how CO2 factors into buildings, the DOE reports that greenhouse gas emissions associated with material manufacturing and construction, renovation and disposal of buildings at the end of their service life are concentrated at the start of a building's lifetime. As a result, it's important to address greenhouse gas emissions when it comes to materials, design, and building techniques.
According to U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm, “There’s huge, untapped potential in reimagining building materials and construction techniques as carbon sinks that support a cleaner atmosphere and advance President Biden’s national climate goals. This is a unique opportunity for researchers to advance clean energy materials to tackle one of the hardest to decarbonize sectors that is responsible for roughly 10% of total annual emissions in the United States.”
Who’s working on the project
The teams are comprised of universities, private companies, and national laboratories, and will develop and demonstrate building materials and net carbon negative whole-building designs. HESTIA project titles, locations, and award amounts are listed below. For more detailed information on each project, visit HESTIA project descriptions.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory – Golden, CO; High-Performing Carbon-Negative Concrete Using Low Value Byproducts from Biofuels Production - $1,749,935
Texas A&M University – College Station, TX; Hempcrete 3D Printed Buildings for Sustainability and Resilience - $3,742,496
University of Colorado Boulder – Boulder, CO; A Photosynthetic Route to Carbon-Negative Portland Limestone Cement Production - $3,193,063
University at Buffalo – Buffalo, NY; Modular Design and Additive Manufacturing of Interlocking Superinsulation Panel from Bio-based Feedstock for Autonomous Construction - $2,179,852
University of Pennsylvania – Philadelphia, PA; High-Performance Building Structure with 3D-Printed Carbon Absorbing Funicular Systems – $2,407,390
National Renewable Energy Laboratory – Fairbanks, AK; Celium: Cellulose-Mycelium Composites for Carbon Negative Buildings/Construction - $2,476,145
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory – Richland, WA; The Circular Home: Development and Demonstration of a Net-Negative-Carbon, Reusable Residence - $2,627,466
Oregon State University – Corvallis, OR; Cellulose Cement Composite (C3) for Residential and Commercial Construction - $2,500,000
Oak Ridge National Laboratory – Oak Ridge, TN; Renewable, Carbon-negative Adhesives for OSB and Other Engineered Woods - $1,098,000
University of Wisconsin-Madison – Madison, WI; Carbon-Negative Ready-Mix Concrete Building Components Through Direct Air Capture - $2,256,250
Northeastern University – Boston, MA; 4C2B: Century-scale Carbon-sequestration in Cross-laminated Timber Composite Bolted-steel Buildings - $3,150,000
Purdue University – West Lafayette, IN; Strong and CO2 Consuming Living Wood for Buildings - $958,245
University of Tennessee-Knoxville – Knoxville, TN; Lignin-derived Carbon Storing Foams for High Performance Insulation - $2,557,383
Clemson University – Clemson, SC; An Entirely Wood Floor System Designed for Carbon Negativity, Future Adaptability, and End of Life De/re/Construction - $1,042,934
Aspen Products Group – Marlborough, MA; High Performance, Carbon Negative Building Insulation - $1,152,476
BamCore – Ocala, FL; Maximizing Carbon Negativity in Next Generation Bamboo Framing Materials - $2,230,060
SkyNano – Knoxville, TN; CO2mposite: Recycling of CO2, Carbon Fiber Waste, and Biomaterials into Composite Panels for Lower Embodied Carbon Building Materials - $2,000,000
Biomason – Durham, NC; Soteria - Carbon Negative Bioconcrete Unit Production Concept- $1,812,118
Given the funding the DOE is devoting to decarbonization technologies, it's safe to say that research and investment into the area is on the rise. According to our data, there are 1584 players in the market operating across 3723 technologies. To learn more about innovation activity in the decarbonization space, visit cypris.ai and get started with access to the innovation dashboard.
Subscribe to receive the latest blog posts to your inbox every week.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Carbon dioxide (Co2) is one of the atmospheric "greenhouse gases" that absorbs and radiates heat gradually over time and contributes to the natural warming of the Earth known as the greenhouse effect. Notably, increases in atmospheric CO2 are responsible for about 2/3 of the total energy imbalance that is causing Earth's temperature to rise.
The built environment generates nearly 50% of annual global CO2 emissions. Of those total emissions, building operations are responsible for 27% annually, while building materials and construction are responsible for an additional 20% annually.
As a result, measures are being taken to create structures and building materials that are carbon-neutral, and even carbon negative, to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. One such project was announced this week by the U.S. Department of Energy.
About the project
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) announced Monday that it is awarding $39 million in grants, primarily to universities, for 18 projects seeking to develop technologies that can transform buildings into net carbon storage structures.
The awards are part of DOE’s Harnessing Emissions into Structures Taking Inputs from the Atmosphere (HESTIA) program, and will prioritize overcoming barriers associated with carbon-storing buildings, including scarce, expensive, and geographically limited building materials. The overarching goal is to increase the amount of carbon that can be stored in buildings so they become “carbon sinks”— materials or processes that absorb more carbon from the atmosphere than they release. The decarbonization goals for this program fall in line with President Jo Biden’s call for the federal government to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.
Why it's significant
Of the greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide is known to absorb less heat per molecule than the greenhouse gases methane or nitrous oxide, be more abundant, and stay in the atmosphere much longer. When it comes to how CO2 factors into buildings, the DOE reports that greenhouse gas emissions associated with material manufacturing and construction, renovation and disposal of buildings at the end of their service life are concentrated at the start of a building's lifetime. As a result, it's important to address greenhouse gas emissions when it comes to materials, design, and building techniques.
According to U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm, “There’s huge, untapped potential in reimagining building materials and construction techniques as carbon sinks that support a cleaner atmosphere and advance President Biden’s national climate goals. This is a unique opportunity for researchers to advance clean energy materials to tackle one of the hardest to decarbonize sectors that is responsible for roughly 10% of total annual emissions in the United States.”
Who’s working on the project
The teams are comprised of universities, private companies, and national laboratories, and will develop and demonstrate building materials and net carbon negative whole-building designs. HESTIA project titles, locations, and award amounts are listed below. For more detailed information on each project, visit HESTIA project descriptions.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory – Golden, CO; High-Performing Carbon-Negative Concrete Using Low Value Byproducts from Biofuels Production - $1,749,935
Texas A&M University – College Station, TX; Hempcrete 3D Printed Buildings for Sustainability and Resilience - $3,742,496
University of Colorado Boulder – Boulder, CO; A Photosynthetic Route to Carbon-Negative Portland Limestone Cement Production - $3,193,063
University at Buffalo – Buffalo, NY; Modular Design and Additive Manufacturing of Interlocking Superinsulation Panel from Bio-based Feedstock for Autonomous Construction - $2,179,852
University of Pennsylvania – Philadelphia, PA; High-Performance Building Structure with 3D-Printed Carbon Absorbing Funicular Systems – $2,407,390
National Renewable Energy Laboratory – Fairbanks, AK; Celium: Cellulose-Mycelium Composites for Carbon Negative Buildings/Construction - $2,476,145
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory – Richland, WA; The Circular Home: Development and Demonstration of a Net-Negative-Carbon, Reusable Residence - $2,627,466
Oregon State University – Corvallis, OR; Cellulose Cement Composite (C3) for Residential and Commercial Construction - $2,500,000
Oak Ridge National Laboratory – Oak Ridge, TN; Renewable, Carbon-negative Adhesives for OSB and Other Engineered Woods - $1,098,000
University of Wisconsin-Madison – Madison, WI; Carbon-Negative Ready-Mix Concrete Building Components Through Direct Air Capture - $2,256,250
Northeastern University – Boston, MA; 4C2B: Century-scale Carbon-sequestration in Cross-laminated Timber Composite Bolted-steel Buildings - $3,150,000
Purdue University – West Lafayette, IN; Strong and CO2 Consuming Living Wood for Buildings - $958,245
University of Tennessee-Knoxville – Knoxville, TN; Lignin-derived Carbon Storing Foams for High Performance Insulation - $2,557,383
Clemson University – Clemson, SC; An Entirely Wood Floor System Designed for Carbon Negativity, Future Adaptability, and End of Life De/re/Construction - $1,042,934
Aspen Products Group – Marlborough, MA; High Performance, Carbon Negative Building Insulation - $1,152,476
BamCore – Ocala, FL; Maximizing Carbon Negativity in Next Generation Bamboo Framing Materials - $2,230,060
SkyNano – Knoxville, TN; CO2mposite: Recycling of CO2, Carbon Fiber Waste, and Biomaterials into Composite Panels for Lower Embodied Carbon Building Materials - $2,000,000
Biomason – Durham, NC; Soteria - Carbon Negative Bioconcrete Unit Production Concept- $1,812,118
Given the funding the DOE is devoting to decarbonization technologies, it's safe to say that research and investment into the area is on the rise. According to our data, there are 1584 players in the market operating across 3723 technologies. To learn more about innovation activity in the decarbonization space, visit cypris.ai and get started with access to the innovation dashboard.
Double patenting is a complex issue that often arises in the U.S. legal system, creating potential challenges for R&D managers, engineers, and scientists alike. This advanced blog post will delve into the intricacies of double patenting and provide valuable insights to help you navigate this multifaceted area of patent law.
We will begin by exploring the statutory prohibition against double patenting as well as obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP) in detail. Following this, we’ll discuss some notable challenges to OTDP’s legality through case examples such as SawStop Holding LLC.
Furthermore, our analysis will cover terminal disclaimers as a means for overcoming ODP rejections and their associated limitations. Finally, we’ll outline practical strategies for avoiding double patent issues including drafting narrower claims, filing divisional applications, and sequential prosecution of separate filings.
Double patenting is a legal concept that prevents inventors from obtaining multiple patents on the same invention, ensuring fair competition and preventing unjust extensions of monopoly power. Rooted in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and codified in 35 U.S.C. §101, double patenting can be divided into two types – the statutory prohibition against double patenting and obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP).
The statutory prohibition against double patenting arises directly from the language of the Patent Act. According to this provision, an inventor may only obtain a single patent for each distinct invention they create. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) examines each application to ensure that it does not claim subject matter already covered by an earlier-filed or earlier-issued patent.
Obviousness-Type Double Patenting (OTDP)
In contrast to statutory prohibitions, OTDP is a nonstatutory doctrine developed by courts as part of their authority to create substantive patent law. This type of double-patenting issue occurs when two related applications or patents have claims that are considered “patentably indistinct,” meaning they would be deemed obvious variations over one another if compared side-by-side during a hypothetical patent trial.
The purpose of OTDP is to prevent an inventor from obtaining multiple patents with claims that are not patentably distinct, thereby extending their monopoly beyond the patent term granted by Congress. This doctrine has been upheld and refined in various court decisions, such as those involving Magna Electronics and Geneva Pharmaceuticals.
In order to avoid double patenting issues during the application process, it’s essential for R&D managers, engineers, scientists, and other professionals involved in innovation to understand both statutory prohibitions and OTDP principles. By being aware of these legal concepts when drafting applications or managing portfolios containing related inventions or families of patents owned by a single entity (COO) under a common control (e.g., parent company), teams can minimize risks associated with the overlapping subject matter while maximizing the potential value derived from their intellectual property assets.
Double patenting in the U.S. legal system is a complex issue that has been subject to debate and judicial interpretation for many years. Challenges to obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP) have recently come into focus with cases such as SawStop Holding LLC, which will be discussed further in the next heading.
Key Takeaway:
Double patenting is a legal concept that prevents inventors from obtaining multiple patents on the same invention, and it can be divided into two types – the statutory prohibition against double patenting and obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP). The purpose of OTDP is to prevent an inventor from obtaining multiple patents with claims that are not distinct, thereby extending their monopoly beyond the patent term granted by Congress. It’s essential for R&D managers, engineers, and scientists to understand both statutory prohibitions and OTDP principles to avoid risks associated with the overlapping subject matter while maximizing the potential value derived from intellectual property assets.
Challenges to OTDP’s Legality
The doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP) has been challenged by some as unconstitutional since it goes beyond what Congress intended under 35 U.S.C. §101. Critics contend that the OTDP’s non-statutory nature permits courts and USPTO to formulate patent law, a prerogative that should solely be retained by Congress.
One notable challenge comes from SawStop Holding LLC, who sued after their claims were rejected based on OTDP grounds due to similarities with another previously issued SawStop-owned patent.
SawStop Holding LLC Case Example
In a recent patent trial, SawStop argued that its later-filed patent application was improperly rejected because it was not “patentably indistinct” from an earlier-issued patent owned by the same company. The court ultimately upheld the rejection based on obviousness-type double patenting, but this case highlights ongoing concerns about whether such rejections are legally justified.
In response to these challenges, proponents of OTDP maintain that it serves important public policy goals by preventing unjust extensions of monopoly power through multiple patents covering essentially the same invention or obvious variations thereof. They point out that although not explicitly codified in statutes like the statutory prohibition against double patenting, courts have long recognized and applied this doctrine in various forms throughout history as part of their inherent authority over matters relating to patents.
To date, no Supreme Court decision has directly addressed the constitutionality of obviousness-type double patenting, leaving the issue unresolved. However, it remains an important consideration for R&D managers and engineers when filing multiple related patents.
The legal challenges of OTDP are complex and can be difficult to navigate, but filing a terminal disclaimer may offer an effective solution. Nevertheless, filing a terminal disclaimer has restrictions that must be considered.
Terminal Disclaimers for Overcoming ODP Rejections
In the world of patent prosecution, terminal disclaimers can be a valuable tool for overcoming obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP) rejections. A terminal disclaimer is a legal document filed by the applicant to overcome an ODP rejection while agreeing to limit the term of their second patent so that it expires at the same time as their first one. This approach allows inventors and companies to secure patents on related inventions without ignoring OTDP rules.
Limitations Imposed by Filing Terminal Disclaimers
Reduced Patent Term: By filing a terminal disclaimer, applicants agree to reduce any potential Patent Term Adjustment awarded for overcoming delays during prosecution. This means that if your later-filed patent would have otherwise enjoyed an extended term due to such adjustments, you will lose this benefit when you file a terminal disclaimer.
Common Ownership Requirement: In order for a terminal disclaimer to be effective in overcoming an OTDP rejection, both patents must remain under common ownership throughout their entire terms. If either patent is not kept in the same ownership or given out separately, this could lead to one or both patents becoming invalid.
No Revocation: A significant limitation imposed by filing a terminal disclaimer is its irrevocability once accepted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). This means that even if circumstances change, the applicant cannot revoke or modify the terminal disclaimer to extend the patent term.
Despite these limitations, filing a terminal disclaimer can be an effective strategy for overcoming OTDP rejections and securing patents on related inventions. Before making a decision, it is essential for applicants to thoroughly assess their choices and seek counsel from proficient patent lawyers.
Terminal disclaimers can be a useful tool to overcome double patenting rejections, but they also come with certain limitations that should be considered. To further reduce the risk of encountering such issues, it is important to consider strategies like drafting narrower claims and filing divisional applications or sequential prosecution of separate filings.
Key Takeaway:
A terminal disclaimer is a legal document that can help overcome obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP) rejections by agreeing to limit the term of the second patent. However, filing a terminal disclaimer has limitations such as reduced patent terms and common ownership requirements, which should be carefully considered before deciding on this approach.
Strategies for Avoiding Double Patent Issues
To minimize issues related to overlapping subject matter across different commonly owned applications or families, applicants should consider alternative strategies. These include drafting narrower claims focused on specific aspects unique within each invention, filing divisional applications prior to the issuance of original patents that might trigger subsequent rejections based upon similarities identified between them later on down the line when examined side-by-side against one another, and prosecuting these separate filings sequentially rather than concurrently whenever possible.
Drafting Narrower Claims
One effective strategy for avoiding double patenting issues is to draft narrower claims that focus on specific aspects unique within each invention. By doing so, you can ensure that your patent application does not overlap with any earlier-filed patents or pending applications under common ownership.
This approach requires a thorough understanding of both the prior art and the inventive concepts in order to craft claims that are both novel and non-obvious while still providing adequate protection for your innovation.
Filing Divisional Applications
In some cases, it may be beneficial to file divisional applications before an original patent is issued. This allows inventors to split their inventions into separate filings with distinct claim sets targeting different aspects of their technology.
Filing divisional applications early in the process can help prevent potential obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP) rejections by ensuring there are no substantial overlaps between parent and child application claims during an examination at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).
Sequential Prosecution of Separate Filings
Another strategy to avoid double patenting issues is the sequential prosecution of separate filings. This approach involves prosecuting one application at a time, allowing the applicant to address any potential OTDP concerns raised by examiners before moving on to subsequent applications within their portfolio.
By addressing these issues early in the process and making necessary amendments or disclaimers as needed, applicants can reduce the likelihood of facing rejections based on double patenting during later stages of examination.
Avoiding double patenting issues requires careful planning and strategic execution throughout the entire patent application process. By employing tactics such as drafting narrower claims, filing divisional applications early in the process, and engaging in sequential prosecution when appropriate, inventors can minimize potential obstacles related to overlapping subject matter while maximizing protection for their innovative technologies.
Key Takeaway:
To avoid double patenting issues, R&D and innovation teams should consider strategies such as drafting narrower claims, filing divisional applications early in the process, and prosecuting separate filings sequentially. By doing so, inventors can minimize potential obstacles related to overlapping subject matter while maximizing protection for their innovative technologies.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is crucial for R&D managers, engineers, product development teams, scientists, and senior directors involved in research and innovation to understand the implications of Obviousness-Type Double Patenting (OTDP). By recognizing the origins of OTDP in 35 U.S.C. §101 and the federal district court’s recognition of it, companies can avoid potential legal issues that may arise from overlapping patents.
Strategies such as careful claim drafting to avoid obviousness arguments overlap, filing divisional applications before issuance of original patents, or prosecuting each individual case separately can help overcome double-patenting issues during the patent application process.
Take your R&D and innovation teams to the next level. To ensure a smooth patent application process without any double-patenting issues, consult with Cypris today!
Navigating Double Patenting Challenges in U.S. Patent Law
.jpeg)
