Plant Patents Saving the Planet

Every now and then, a plant patent catches our eye. Sometimes it's for mundane reasons--like the length requiring a special high-capacity stapler--and sometimes it's for a particularly unusual... not plant.

There is a whole class category for plant patents that are technically not plants: fungi. Mushrooms are grouped under U.S. Patent Class (USPC) 394. But what about algae, which is grouped into multiple kingdoms of life? That, apparently, belongs to USPC 395, which is "Miscellaneous". 

Earlier in 2022, Blue Ocean Barns was granted a patent for a new Asparagopsis taxiformis variety called 'Brominata'. That alone makes it stand out, as algae are not a commonly patented plant (or whatever kingdom of life).

PP34,607: Asparagopsis taxiformis 'Brominata'

Plant patent no PP34,607 is even more interesting, as it is meant to provide "a source of halogenated compounds to inhibit methanogenesis in animals (e.g. ruminant animals)." For those readers like myself, a bit of translation into common parlance might be needed. Basically, this algae was created as a feed additive for cattle to reduce their methane production (via flatulence), and therefore reduce their contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. 

'Brominata' parent plant image from the patent

Yes! Finally! An invention that will alter cow farts, making them less damaging to our ecosystem. 

Patents are saving the planet, one ruminant, one methanogenesis event, at a time.

A photomicrograph of undesired 'Brominata' spores from the patent

A photomicrograph of 'Brominata' gland cells from the patent

 

Finding University Patents, Part II

After the conclusion of the Rice's First Patents Saga, it occurred to me that I may have made a mistake back in May when investigating other universities' patents. During the initial search for Rice's first patents, my search strategy inadvertently excluded anything prior to 1970. Unfortunately, the blog post about 12 other schools' first patents relied on the same strategy--I have potentially wronged these institutions.

Therefore, let's take a second look at when these Rice-caliber schools first earned U.S. patents.

This time around, University of Chicago is the clear leader, assigned its first patent in 1917... if design patents count. US D50337 is for the appearance of a plate (like the kind used for dinner; below). 

Narrowed to utility patents, the first school assigned a patent is Cornell University in 1931, with US 1,810,682 (another dairy-related invention).

In 1933, Dartmouth and Stanford were both assigned their first patents, US 1,908,296 and US 1,933,773, respectively. 

Next up is MIT, who was assigned patent 2,006,558 in 1935. 

University of Chicago makes a reappearance in 1936 with its first utility patent, US 2,032,829.

While Rice Institute was pursuing its first three patents, there was a lull from the remaining seven. Duke University was assigned its first patent, US 2,446,091, in the same year as Rice--1948.

Almost 20 years later in 1965, Georgetown was assigned US 3,223,083. This patent is for a "Method for adhesively securing together skin and other soft tissue and bone", somewhat similar in goal to patents recently issued to Rice (US 11,447,744/11,371,014, "Hypothermic 3D bioprinting of living tissues supported by perfusable vasculature" and US 11,246,962, "Neuronal scaffold-water soluble graphene for treatment of severed spinal cords and neuronal repair").

US 3,223,083: Method for adhesively securing together skin and other soft tissue and bone

Rather shockingly, the last five include those most highly regarded US colleges and universities, four founded before America was an independent country. The previously listed dates for Vanderbilt (1975), Princeton (1976), Harvard (1977), Yale (1977), and Brown (1984) were correct. Given the corrected information on when other institutes were pursuing patent ownership, it is even more shocking that Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Brown didn't pursue IP ownership till the 70s and 80s, centuries after they were founded.

That is not to say American universities and colleges weren't supporting researchers, and thus employees weren't inventing. For example, Stanford appears to have hosted a large number of patentees throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s, before 1933. 

It is possible that earlier patents were missed again, or these inventions were assigned to a college or university but were not researched at and/or supported by them; the actual patents do not provide that information.

How to Search for Rice Patents

Have you ever wanted to find the patents assigned to Rice University? Or perhaps do a patent search of recent Rice research? It's something we do fairly often here in the PTRC. If you open Patent Public Search, click start search, all you need to do is make sure you have the right terms entered in the search query box:

"Rice University".an.

Rice patents using Patent Public Search

By enclosing Rice University in double quotation marks, you are telling the search engine that those words need to be used as a phrase in all results. This works across most search tools. In Patent Public Search, you can specify which field of a patent you want to search using a field code suffix. In this case, we used .an. to indicate assignee name. The periods preceding and following the code are extremely important; omitting either one will invalidate the strategy. Combining the two elements--quotation marks and a field code suffix--commands the search engine to look only for that exact phrase within assignee names.

Not a huge fan of Patent Public Search? It's similar on many commercial patent search sites.

If you use Free Patents Online, the search query entered would be:

AN/"Rice University"

Rice patents using Free Patents Online

Quotation marks are used the exact same way as above. The only difference is in the code used to specify assignee name. FPO places a field code first, followed by a slash, and then the term(s) to find in the specified section of a patent. 

For those who are feeling particularly advanced, you might like Lens.org. A convenient list of field codes isn't provided, but using trial and error, we learned that you can define your own, and have to use owner instead of assignee:

owner:"Rice University"

Rice patents from Lens.org

Once more, the double quotation marks ensure that whole phrase must be found together.

However, Lens.org warned that just using 'owner' wasn't sufficient for a field. It suggested expanding to encompass the whole name:

owner_all.name:"Rice University"

Suggesting better searches

Last thing to remember: for patents from early Rice days, you need to use Rice Institute instead of University.

If you want to use Google Patents, you'll have to figure that one out alone.

Pocky Day IP

Happy Pocky Day! 

Yes, evidently Nov. 11th is not only Armistice Day or Veteran's Day, it is also Pocky Day®. (If you want to learn about patents related to Armistice or Veteran's Day, just visit the current Kelley Center display, featuring rotating holiday patents.) The day dedicated to celebrating the snack was created in 1999 by Ezaki Glico, the company that owns and produces Pocky.

First released in 1966, Pocky is a Japanese snack food comprised of a small biscuit stick coated in flavored icing. Flavors include chocolate, vanilla, and matcha, among many more, some of which are unusual or regionally specific. The basic chocolate variety is readily found in America; Houstonians can usually obtain a box from the international aisle in an HEB, Kroger, or other sizable corporate grocery.

Ezaki Glico owns quite a bit of Pocky-related intellectual property. Here's a list of some highlights:

1. Pocky packaging patent: Box, US Design 520,869. It's a very short patent, just the two pages below.
   
   
   

    
   
    
   
2. Patent for the Pocky snack itself:  Stick-shaped Snack And Method For Producing The Same, US Utility 8,778,428. This slightly longer patent is for the process to create a Pocky biscuit stick. Visit this link to a PDF of the document.
   
   

   

   The perfect thin biscuits

   
   
3. Patented device to control stick length: Device For Trimming Too Long Sticks And For Eliminating Those Too Short, US Utility 5,307,940. Before Pocky was perfected, Ezaki Glico had to invent something that controlled the length of the biscuits. It's mostly technical; see the patent here.
   
4. Inventing iconic cartons: Carton With Two Covers, US Utility 3,835,989. In 1974, Ezaki Glico obtained the patent for their cartons that haven't changed much since. The most identifiable figure from the patent is below; find the documents in full here.

   

   Clever carton creation
   

   
   Unfortunately, searching pre-1970 patents for assignees is difficult in the USPTO's official database and search tool, and my efforts produced nothing that resembled Pocky prior to 1974.
   
   
   
5. Pocky®: US trademark registration no. 1249460. The name Pocky, as applied to the specific type of snack or confectionery good described, was registered with the USPTO in August 1983.

   

   Specimen photo provided for registration
   

6. Pocky Day®: US trademark registration no. 5230070; international registration no. 1331914. In 2017, Ezaki Glico received the below trademark from the USPTO; the international mark was registered slightly earlier, in July 2016.

   

   Registration symbol required
   

   
   
7. Pocky Ultra Slim® and image below: US trademark registration no. 4773595. This mark registion includes both the words "Pocky Ultra Slim" and the distinct appearance of the graphic, which includes colors, wording, font, placement of elements, Pocky snacks, etc. Of course, no exclusive claim is made to the phrase "ultra slim" or that same expressed in characters that transliterate to "Go-Ku-Bo-So". 

   

   Registered image and words

There are many more patents, trademarks, and probably trade secrets associated with Pocky. if you want to learn more about how to find the marks or patents, just let us know at the PTRC!

Creepy IP: Patents & Trademarks to Haunt You

For those of you who can't wait for the Fondren Halloween event on Oct. 31st, from 2-4pm in the Kyle Morrow Room (Fondy 3rd floor), let's take a look at some #CreepyIP. Even if we're hopping on the bandwagon a little late, we've tried our best to find patents and trademarks that haven't yet been featured by the USPTO, WIPO, or other IP agencies. Here are a few samples of what's in store⁰:

• Haunting help
  
• Ghost Sourcing, service mark, registration no. 6,663,900
• "Class 45: Ghost hunting services in the nature of ghost sourcing, ghost coaxing, and ghost relocation services"
   

  

  Reg. No. 6,663,900: Who you gonna NOT call?
  

  
  
• Communication with the beyond
• "Novelty device for communication between a human being and universal consciousness", utility patent no. 8,955,845, invented by Alexander Shvedov
  
• The invention is a device that allows the user to hold "the frame in his or her hands" and "observe the movements of the dot indicator over the diagram" showing letters, numbers, and symbols to "interpret the dialog" with the Universal Mind.
   

  

  US Patent 8,955,845: Chat with the Universal Mind!
  

  
  
• Body horror: tools that belong in movies
• "Model of the human knee suitable for teaching operative arthroscopy", utility patent no. 4,331,428, invented by Eugene J. Chandler
  
• Have you seen the movie "Crimes of the Future"? This looks like it belongs on that set.

  

  US Patent 4,331,428: Cronenberg and Carpenter can't compete...
  

  
  
• Terrifying and tasty 
• Alien tequila, trademark, registration no. 4,964,648
• In this case, the mark isn't the brand name or an image; it "consists of the three dimensional configuration of a bottle with an alien face on the front and the word "ALIEN" on the left side of the bottle"

  

  Reg. No. 4,964,648: Smooth, with tasting hints of something... disturbing
  

  
  
• Carnivorous plants
• Sarracenia pitcher plants are not as famous as Venus fly traps or triffids, but they're also carnivorous. Unlike most plants, these species cannot obtain necessary nutrients from soil and photosynthesis alone; instead they lure, kill, and absorb insects. 
• Patented plant 27,737, named 'White Wizard'; cultivar developed in 2015 by James L. Booman of Vista, CA.
  

  

  Patented Plant 27,737⁺: An all-natural pest-controlling murder machine
  

  
  

For the rest, you'll have to come see us on Monday! Grab a few (trademarked) treats while you're there, and get a closer look at all the documents and pictures. 

⁺Credit to University of Maryland Libraries Plant Patent Image Database; contributor Jim Miller is a fellow PTRC representative and a star among us.

⁰This is not an endorsement of any products by the PTRC, the Kelley Center, Fondren Library, Rice University, its employees, or any affiliates.

Developing Rice's Intellectual Property Policy

The first official intellectual property policy for Rice was instituted in 1990 (mentioned in this blog post), over half a decade after Rice first obtained patents. When it was updated 9 years later, it accompanied the opening of the Office of Technology Transfer (OTT), which was founded to facilitate patenting Rice-developed technologies, and market and manage their licensing (source). In no small part, Dr. Smalley's nanotechnology research and subsequent innovations were the impetus for creating the OTT. It's grown since then, today handling multiple aspects of Rice research and forming an integral part of the university's research strategy. 

However, initial investigations into a patent-specific policy accompanied the negotiations and preparations for Drs. Hurley and Wier's inventions' patents being assigned to Rice Institute. Questions about distributing income from any future licenses were included in Frank Hurley's 1943 opening letter [emphasis added]: 

Assuming the Board of Trustees to look with favor on this proposal, there would remain the question of reaching a satisfactory agreement between the parties concerned relative to their interests. [...] I am not seeking financial aggrandizement by riding on the coat-tails of The Rice Institute. I sincerely wish the Institute to be the beneficiary of this process, should it prove of value, for, as a native Houstonian and an alumnus, I am most loyal to Rice and hopeful for its future. On the other hand, I should not like to find myself in later life in a position of financial insecurity or want, having made a "bequest" of this sort so early.

Portion of the letter from which above excerpts were taken.

So while Dr. Hurley anticipated eventual revenue derived from his invention, he had no practical experience negotiating a contract or agreement to benefit both inventors and Rice Institute. He mentioned University of Wisconsin was the most notable example of a university generating income from patents, and Wesleyan doing the same but in a less positive manner ("I doubt that I would favor the general adoption of the Wesleyan plan by colleges for fear of its possible academic consequences").

One of the initial steps taken by the Board and President was researching Wisconsin and Wesleyan patent policies. Correspondence in September 1943 provided descriptions of how each handled faculty research-based patented inventions to Dr. Wieser, Rice chemistry professor and board consultant. A basic outline was circulated (including facts on the Hurley/Wier inventions):

Memorandum outlining University of Wisconsin & Wesleyan patent strategies

Basically, both had inventors assign their patents to the universities, but then diverge. Wisconsin's Alumni Research Foundation bore responsibility for all costs of obtaining and administering a patent. Subsequently, 15% of the net royalties earned was given to the inventors, the rest to university. Wesleyan's approach was very different and it's immediately clear why Dr. Hurley was less enthused; the university might shoulder all expenses related to obtaining and administering a patent, but the inventor does not receive any compensation.

Evidently, not everyone at Wesleyan liked their plan, either.

In October, Dr. Hurley explained his opinion, stating he believed "that the plan may prove to have a backfire," as the extremely strict attitude may "discourage all work except that of an immediately utilitarian character", causing the university to suffer in the long run "by failing to make important contributions to the advancement of science". He acknowledged his preference may be old-fashioned, especially in the post-war framework that encouraged university research production. 

By December, it was decided Rice would take the Wisconsin approach, but uncertainty about details of how to accept ownership remained: via some created business entity, or as the Institute itself. Given the final patents issued years later, Rice chose to give the Institute a corporation. 

Excerpt from one of the three patents, showing inventors and ownership by Rice Institute, "a corporation of Texas"

Perhaps two of the most baffling aspects surrounding this process were 

1. the failure to fully implement or codify any policy on intellectual property or pursuit of patents for Rice-supported research, during this interval or immediately after, and
2. the abundant research grant letters from the Research Corporation that essentially encouraged recipients to pursue patent ownership. 

Indeed, the Research Corporation standard grant awards each stated, in similar verbiage, that the "patent rights which may grow out of research under this grant shall be the responsibility of the grantee institution". The quote is taken from a December 1946 letter, right in the middle of the lengthy Hurley-Wier patent process. 

It seems Dr. Houston, who took over from Lovett as President in '46, strongly considered developing some standard or policy in the mid-1950s. Either that, or a representative of the Research Corporation noticed the lack of one, and chose to push the issue with Dr. Houston during a visit. The below letter followed (any inserts or accompanying material has since been lost).

Correspondence indicating some interest in developing a Rice Institute IP policy.

Obviously, this was never acted upon; Rice wouldn't have an IP policy until decades later. And it would be nearly 30 years until any patents were assigned to Rice, either.

Interest in patents, entrepreneurship, and research pursuits is at an all-time high, prioritized by the new President Reginald DesRoches and his administration. In this atmosphere, the early dismissive attitude is almost incomprehensible.

Kelley Center Picture Guessing Games

One of the fun parts of working in a department like the Kelley Center stems from our relative independence from the rest of Fondren: digging into old depository stuff and making the occasional fun discovery. Previously, NASA puzzles, state and national park maps, and old Fondy swag were uncovered.

Recently, I was partaking in this most entertaining of workplace games and found stacks of photos. Most of them were likely taken about 22-20 years ago. Unfortunately, that estimate is based on the dates the photos were printed. For those younger readers who might not understand the significance, people used to fill rolls of film with photos, and have them developed at whatever future point most suited them, be it the next day or maybe next year. Some cameras had a digital date imprint, but not the one used in these.

 Only one photo has a label on the back, and it just says "Houston":

1. The lone labeled photo

Any idea who is in that photo, or its date or event? 

I can guess who is in a few of the others, but I'd like to have my suspicions verified. Comment if you know the people, event, or reason for the picture, and provide the photo number.

2. Friendly Gov Docs information desk?

3. This very fun staff member

4. So much fun!

5. I think I know this one

6. Party Librarians!

Patents Take How Long?!

It's not an unusual question: How long does it typically take to get a patent?

Unfortunately, even with recently implemented systems to expedite the process, it can still be years before an application is granted a patent. Just look at the case of Drs. Frank Hurley and Thomas Wier. 

Yes, this is the promised story of their patent saga. 

Rice Institute accepted the terms of the offer laid out in Dr. Hurley's letter (see previous post), with little change. Hurley and Wier would provide all necessary documentation and future testing as necessary, and Rice provided all legal and administrative support to become the assignee. 

This initial set of correspondence took place in August, 1943. During the remainder of that year, a few key players emerged.

1. Dr. Harry B. Weiser (Chemistry Department, Rice Institute): reviewed the research of the two former Owls and consulted on technical matters
2. Mr. C. A. Dwyer (Secretary to the President): provided administrative support and facilitated communications
3. Dr. Edgar Odell Lovett (President, Rice Institute): generally the top guy in charge--what more can I add about one of the most influential figures in Rice's history and culture?
4. Mr. Harry C. Hanszen (Board of Trustees, Rice Institute): Board member known personally by Dr. Hurley, recipient of the August 1943 letter, and namesake of Hanszen College

Edgar Odell Lovett's signature

 

Eventually, they would be joined by Robert Eckhoff, the attorney in charge of pursuing the patents, and George R. Brown, who agreed to help cover the costs of the attorney and the patent application. 

It's a particularly important list because--aside from the members' roles in shaping Rice and Houston--across the years and correspondence, it can be difficult to keep track of all those involved. Despite industrial interest in the inventions and positive chemistry faculty feedback, the three electrodeposition of aluminum patents were not granted until 5 years later.

Those keeping track of the story likely already noticed the time lag. And those familiar with patents are likely also familiar with a two or three year wait between application and granting. However, over four years between filing applications (February 1944) and granting patents (August 1948) is slightly longer than usual. 

Across those four and a half years, the USPTO patent examiner continued to find problems and reject the applications. Evidently, these rejections were not typical. Rice's legal team felt the assigned examiner had "been extremely stubborn in this instance, rejecting the applications repeatedly, though not finally, on grounds not in accordance with the Office practice".

1947 letter from the attorney office containing the above quote.

The university Board agreed, and mentioned removing Eckhoff, as Dr. Wier expressed extreme dissatisfaction with how he handled their representation.

In the end, Wier and Hurley were required to run additional tests and submit signed affidavits to prove their processes were unique improvements to prior art. One of the three original applications was completely rejected; a third was then born of one of the other two. These became application serial numbers 524,486 and 542,487, joining 522,387.

An attorney from Eckhoff's firm approached an associate in Washington D.C., who had an inside line to the USPTO Examiner, to attempt to remediate and expedite their applications. This strategy worked; on June 16, 1948, a letter informed Mr. Dwyer the three applications were accepted about a week prior. Unfortunately, I found no record of what transpired during those meetings and/or exchanges.

June 17, 1948 letter of acceptance.

In the end, what is most frustrating today, is that somehow Rice no longer has the originally issued patent grant certificates. The patent attorney's letters that accompanied these documents was retained in the archives, giving important context to this story; one must wonder what happened with the patents. Perhaps they were presented to the inventors.

Correspondence enclosed in this archival file concludes with licensing the developed technology to several interested companies, proving the original expectations.

The next entry in this series will be the conclusion. It looks at the infancy of a Rice Institute intellectual property policy pursued in relation to the Hurley/Wier patents.

The True Story of Rice's First Patents

It's finally time to answer the big question about the three 1948 patents, invented by Drs. Frank Hurley and Thomas P. Wier, Jr., and assigned to Rice Institute:

Did the inventors simply assign ownership of the patents to Rice, giving it to an uninvolved Institute independently, or was Rice the home and supporter of the research leading to the patented inventions, and thus an owner (assignee) in the same way Rice is today?

Yes. The answer is yes.

Over several months and across consultations with various Rice and USPTO entities, I found little to provide a definite answer. Additional archival research on the history of the Kelley Center and Fondren as a patent depository seemingly exhausted the potential sources of related records. In desperation, I requested more archival materials like offprints of Dr. Hurley's publications (in hopes of finding some research preceding the patents), and the correspondence of Dr. Wier. A few items from Thomas Wier, Sr., popped up, and were equally as unhelpful. 

Finally, among the correspondence of Rice Institute president Dr. Houston I found a file labeled "Patents". Fully expecting this to be futile--perhaps about patent investments or something unrelated--I left it for last.

A very young Frank Hurley, from the 1932 Campanile

It was surprising yet frustrating to discover that the physical folder was given a much longer title than "Patents", displayed in the finding aid. It specifically named Drs. Hurley and Wier! (I don't blame anyone for that; no one could expect the details on a very long label to be a key piece of information in a future search.) Thus, hundreds of documents have been hidden away for years, decades even, unknown to any PTRC representative or patent librarian, given the lack of recognition and exclusion from the institutional repository, Rice Digital Scholarship Archive.  

Here, at long last, was the evidence that could solve the patent mystery, and answer the big question of assignee/ownership and Rice's involvement.

The answer lay in the earliest correspondence document. Yes, the patented inventions were based on research performed at Rice, for Rice scholarship. And yes, the patents were gifted to Rice by Wier and Hurley.

It's a case of both being true. Dr. Hurley started his research into electrodeposition of aluminum while employed by Rice; evidently he was unable to actively pursue it until Wier became his graduate student lab assistant. When Hurley left for Reed, Wier took over the project entirely. As noted in a previous post, this formed his thesis dissertation. 

An equally young Thomas Wier, from the 1940 Campanile

In August 1943, Dr. Hurley wrote to Harry Hanszen. He suggested that their research on the electrodeposition of aluminum may have some commercial value, and proposed that patents for the process should be sought and ownership assigned to Rice. Unlike today, Rice did not seek out formal ownership of intellectual property.

Highlights of the very long missive include: 

"My own attitude (and Wier's also, I believe) is that as an alumnus of Rice--a recipient of its educational training and the advantage of its scientific facilities--the Institute can rightly be said to possess some interest in this process."

"As you probably know, several universities have in recent years administered patents assigned to them with great success."

"For my own part, I can say that my principal interest lies in obtaining the recognition which may derive from the publication of this work, for I have cast my lot with the universities and colleges and am anxious too attain to success as a teacher, researcher, or administrator. Should the process prove to be of value,  it is my desire that the Institute should receive the greater part of any income deriving therefrom."

 

Dr. Hurley's letter to Hanszen.

To read the whole letter (which I recommend, as Hurley crafts a better narrative than I), click here.

In celebration of solving this mystery, I've officially added the three patents to Rice's Digital Scholarship Archive, rectifying their previous omission. Check out Electrodeposition of Aluminum: US 2446350A, US 2446349A, and US 2446331A.

But the tale of Rice's first foray into patent ownership hardly ends there!

The documents revealed many other stories, some to be told another day; look forward to future posts on the saga behind obtaining the patents, the earliest attempts to develop a concrete intellectual property policy, and hopefully the Reed College perspective, once access to their full archives is restored.

Robert Floyd Curl, Jr., Assistant Professor (Chemistry)

Bonus post!

The promised finale on Rice's first patent is coming, but in the meantime, allow me to share a document I found, related to the post in honor of Dr. Robert Curl's memory: an application for a grant from when he was 25. Dr. Curl was only an assistant professor at the time, just hired by Rice that same year (1958), but already starting on research that would define the majority of his career (and his patents!)

The Research Corporation gave numerous grants to Rice Institute researchers, many of which I was reviewing while trying to learn about Rice's patent history. I couldn't help but smile when I came across the proposal for "Investigations of the Microwave Spectra of Radicals and Molecules", a reminder of how many years Dr. Curl was with Rice.

Proposal for "Investigations of the Microwave Spectra of Radicals and Molecules", 1958

 

Rice's Patent Mysteries

For those who have been waiting in breathless suspense, you’re in luck: this entry is a continuation of the search for the history of Rice’s first patent.

Since the last entry, I have spoken with a few people who had information to share, and some insights into patents at Rice. There was indeed a direct relationship between the patents granted roughly simultaneously with the issuance of new IP policies. Landmark innovations (like processes to isolate fullerenes) during the 1990s probably made clear the need for a strong IP policy and patent strategy.

Most important among recent findings are the three patents issued in 1948 for electrodeposition of aluminum. The inventors listed are Frank H. Hurley on U.S. 2,446,331; Thomas P. Wier, Jr., on U.S. 2,446,350; and both on U.S. 2,446,349.

U.S. Patent 2,449,349

I was originally confused by these patents' wording; on contemporary patents, Rice University is identified as the “assignee”. On the 1948 patents, Drs. Hurley and Wier are shown as “assignors to” Rice Institute. The uncertainty stemmed from whether or not this would mean the patents were issued for something created on Rice’s behalf, while employed by or studying at Rice, or if ownership was later transferred.

Furthering this confusion is the history of the two inventors.

Frank H. Hurley earned his bachelor of arts (chemistry) in 1932 and his chemistry PhD in 1936 from Rice Institute. Going by papers found in the Digital Scholarship Archive, Dr. Hurley was a chemistry instructor at Rice for several years; but moved to Reed College by 1942. The move explains why his location on the patents was in Portland, Oregon; it doesn’t explain why he was named along with Rice.

Why? Because that doesn’t line up with information on the other inventor.

Thomas P. Wier earned his materials science engineering PhD from Rice Institute in 1943, and his dissertation title might look familiar: The Electrodeposition of Aluminum.

Well, that would have settled it, if Dr. Thomas Wier was the only inventor, or he earned his degree a few years earlier when Dr. Hurley might have been a faculty advisor. But the patent applications were filed in 1944 and granted in 1948.

I decided to chase down some archival material from both the Woodson and Reed College's collections. Hopefully, some letters between colleagues, patent applications, departmental memos, or anything might hold a few clues.

Reed's archives provided a great deal of background on Dr. Hurley's early career investigations into molecular weights. Unfortunately, none of this appears to be directly related to the electrodeposition of aluminum.

One letter from colleague William Sandstrom in 1942 asks how Hurley's aluminum deposition work is progressing, "if it is not a secret". Reed has only the letter Hurley received, not his response, which dampens the excitement of seeing that line. But the letter was addressed to Hurley at Rice Institute--so it seems he had started the research before leaving for Reed.

Asking Hurley about potentially secret aluminum deposition work.

Basically, there wasn't much in the Reed College archives.

The story of the findings from the Woodson, however, will be discussed in the next exciting post! Stay tuned for the end of this saga, and to learn about three patents from the 1940s.