Patent research / USDA lineageRead the claims.
Define the comparison.
Two verified U.S. aerial-electrostatic patent grants, listed separately from scientific papers. The summaries describe claim scope; they do not establish efficacy or design clearance.
Read the evidence note →A bounded patent register. The official granted documents and their claims were checked on 11 October 2026. This register does not determine current ownership, maintenance, licensing availability, enforceability or freedom to operate.
US11116150B2 / GRANTED 2021-09-14Aerial electrostatic system for weather modification
Independent claim 1 describes aircraft cloud seeding with an atomizing nozzle surrounded by an electrode. It includes finding a cloud with an updraft of at least about 100 feet per minute and charging pressurized spray that is drawn into the cloud. Claims 2–17 depend on claim 1. This is not a general claim to every electrostatic fog collector.
- Inventors
- Daniel E. Martin; Arquimedes Ruiz-Columbie
- Assignees named at grant
- The United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture; Active Influence and Scientific Management, SP
- Application
- 16/377,276
- Claimed relationship
- Parent grant in this register; provisional priority is recorded in the source document.
- Granted claims
- 17 total; claim 1 is independent.
Patent claims and the inventors’ described field observations are distinct from independent experimental validation. The grant does not establish Weatherhill performance or permission to operate a proposed device.
Official USPTO grant front page and all 17 granted claims retrieved and checked on 11 October 2026. Independent claim 1 appears in columns 5–6, PDF page 18.
US12588606B2 / GRANTED 2026-03-31Aerial electrostatic system for weather modification
Independent claim 1 describes an aircraft spraying negatively charged pressurized fluid through an atomizing nozzle surrounded by an electrode into a targeted cloud. The listed outcomes include fog dissipation, smog remediation, rain or snow enhancement and hail suppression. Dependent claims 11–14 address fog or smog; claims 17–19 address UAVs. Every granted claim retains the aircraft-based method through claim 1.
- Inventors
- Daniel E. Martin; Arquimedes Ruiz-Columbie
- Assignees named at grant
- The United States of America, as represented by the Secretary of Agriculture; Active Influence and Scientific Management, SP
- Application
- 17/387,348
- Claimed relationship
- Continuation-in-part of application 16/377,276, which issued as US11116150B2
- Granted claims
- 19 total; claim 1 is independent.
Fog dissipation appears in the granted claim language; this does not demonstrate measured outdoor fog-clearing efficacy. The claimed priority date is not a conclusion that every continuation-in-part claim is entitled to that earliest date.
Official USPTO grant front page and all 19 granted claims retrieved and checked on 11 October 2026. Independent claim 1 begins in column 8 and continues in column 9, PDF pages 19–20. The USPTO Official Gazette independently confirms the lineage and claim 1.
How this affects FogLab
The newer grant expressly includes fog dissipation, but its claims retain the aircraft spraying method. A proposed ground collector must be evaluated against its actual components and operations, the relevant patent families and jurisdiction. The addition does not replace review of electrostatic fog and plume-collection patents associated with MIT and Infinite Cooling.
A no-corona design is an engineering option to investigate. It is not automatically ozone-free under every operating condition, and avoiding a corona stage does not establish patent clearance. Design, emissions and claim scope each need their own evidence.
The underlying West Texas field work is included as a separate journal record and scoped reading note. It is a non-randomized atmospheric study, not a FogLab result.