Arizona Patent of the Month – February 2026

 

Title: Comprehensive Comparative Research Report: Technical Analysis and Market Implications of US Patent Application 20260012450

Overview: The Intersection of AI Valuation and Industrial Utility

The landscape of intellectual property is undergoing a paradigm shift, moving from subjective peer review to objective, algorithmic assessment. At the forefront of this evolution is the recognition of US Patent Application 20260012450, formally granted as US Patent No. 12,515,385, which has been distinguished as the Arizona Patent of the Month for February 2026. This specific patent, titled “Apparatus and method for making molded products,” was applied for on September 13, 2023, and represents a significant leap forward in the field of chemical manufacturing and materials science. The accolade was not bestowed through a traditional submission process; rather, it was identified through a rigorous, data-driven selection mechanism utilizing advanced Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology. The Swanson Reed “inventionINDEX” proprietary metric screened over 1,000 potential patents filed within the jurisdiction to isolate this specific invention. This selection underscores a critical evolution in how intellectual property is valued in the modern economy: moving beyond theoretical novelty to prioritize tangible industrial utility, economic scalability, and immediate application.

The selection of Patent 12,515,385 as the Arizona Patent of the Month was driven primarily by its exceptional “real-world impact” score. In an intellectual property environment often saturated with incremental software updates or abstract chemical formulations, this invention stood out because it addresses a fundamental, physical bottleneck in the global manufacturing supply chain: the efficient, high-quality production of composite materials using filled resins. The AI algorithms utilized by Swanson Reed are calibrated to detect technologies that demonstrate a capacity to reduce waste, lower emissions, and solve persistent engineering defects. By isolating this patent, the AI highlighted a technology that solves the “filled resin paradox”—the need for high particulate loading for fire retardancy and strength, balanced against the fluid dynamics challenges of processing highly viscous materials. This report will extensively detail why this technology is not merely a localized innovation but a globally relevant solution that redefines the benchmarks for the marine, automotive, and aerospace industries.

---

Technological Context and The Problem of Filled Resins

To fully appreciate the superiority of the invention described in US Patent 20260012450, one must first engage with the complex rheological and mechanical challenges that define the composite materials industry. The core of the problem lies in the processing of “filled resins.” In the manufacture of high-performance composite parts—whether they are boat hulls, wind turbine blades, or electric vehicle battery casings—the base polymer resin (typically polyester, vinyl ester, or epoxy) is rarely used in its pure form. It is almost always mixed with “fillers.”

The Role and Challenge of Fillers

Fillers are particulate materials added to the liquid resin matrix to modify its properties. Common fillers include calcium carbonate (to reduce cost and increase stiffness), alumina trihydrate (ATH, for fire retardancy), and glass microspheres (for density reduction). While these fillers are essential for the final performance of the molded product, they introduce severe processing difficulties.

When high volumes of solid particulates are added to a liquid resin, the viscosity of the mixture increases exponentially. The fluid transitions from a Newtonian fluid (where viscosity is constant) to a non-Newtonian, often thixotropic or dilatant fluid. This transformation creates immense resistance to flow. Traditional pumping and mixing equipment, designed for low-viscosity liquids, struggle to move these heavy pastes. The “filled resin” becomes abrasive, wearing down pumps and seals, and exhibits a tendency for the fillers to settle out of suspension if not constantly agitated.

The “Print-Through” Phenomenon

One of the most persistent quality defects in composite manufacturing, and one explicitly addressed by this patent, is “print-through.” This is a cosmetic defect where the pattern of the reinforcing fibers (such as the weave of a fiberglass mat) becomes visible on the surface of the finished part.

Print-through is caused by the volumetric shrinkage of the resin during the curing process. As the resin turns from liquid to solid, it shrinks. If the resin is pure, it shrinks significantly, pulling back from the surface of the mold and revealing the texture of the fibers underneath. This creates a rough, fabric-like texture on what should be a smooth, glossy surface (a “Class A” finish).

To combat this, manufacturers add fillers. The fillers do not shrink. Therefore, a resin mixture that is 50% filler will shrink half as much as pure resin. However, achieving a perfectly homogeneous dispersion of these fillers is notoriously difficult. If the mixing is imperfect, there will be pockets of resin-rich areas that shrink more, and filler-rich areas that shrink less, leading to a wavy, inconsistent surface.

The Limitations of Prior Art

Before the advent of the technology described in Patent 12,515,385, manufacturers were forced to choose between three imperfect mixing technologies: Batch Mixing, Static Inline Mixing, and Impingement Mixing. Each of these legacy methods presents significant compromises in terms of efficiency, waste, or quality. The following section will provide a granular comparative analysis of these methods against the new invention to demonstrate its technological superiority.

---

Comparative Analysis and Benchmarking

This section benchmarks the High-Shear Inline Mixing System described in US Patent 20260012450 against its primary competitors. The superiority of the invention is not claimed lightly; it is substantiated by its ability to resolve the specific failure modes of these legacy systems.

Benchmark 1: The Batch Mixing Process

The Competitor:

Batch mixing is the oldest and most rudimentary method of preparing composite resins. It involves weighing out the resin and fillers into a large open drum or tank and mixing them with a low-speed agitator. Once homogenized, the catalyst (hardener) is added to the entire tank, or the material is pumped to a separate metering machine.

The Deficiencies:

Pot Life Constraints: The moment the catalyst is introduced to a batch, the chemical clock begins ticking. The entire volume of material in the tank must be processed before it begins to gel (harden). If production is interrupted—for example, due to a mold jamming or a shift change—the material in the tank may cure, turning into a solid block of waste. This forces manufacturers to mix smaller batches, which reduces throughput and increases labor.

Settling and Inconsistency: In a large batch tank, gravity acts on the heavy filler particles. Without high-intensity agitation, fillers tend to settle to the bottom. This means the resin pumped from the bottom of the tank is filler-rich (too viscous), while the resin at the top is resin-rich (prone to shrinkage and print-through). This inconsistency leads to high reject rates.

Emissions: Batch mixing is typically done in open tanks. This exposes the large surface area of the resin to the air, facilitating the evaporation of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) like styrene. This poses severe health risks to workers and creates regulatory compliance liabilities.

The Patent Superiority: The invention described in Patent 12,515,385 utilizes a continuous, inline process.

• Zero Waste: There is no “batch.” Resin and catalyst are kept separate until the exact moment they are needed.
• Consistency: The high-shear action is applied continuously to the stream, ensuring that the material exiting the nozzle is perfectly homogenized at all times, regardless of the production duration.
• Closed Loop: The entire system is sealed, virtually eliminating the evaporation of styrene during the mixing phase.

Benchmark 2: Static Inline Mixing

The Competitor:

Static mixing is a step up from batch mixing. It uses a pipe containing a series of stationary helical elements (baffles). Two streams (resin and catalyst) are pumped into the pipe. As they flow over the baffles, the streams are repeatedly divided and recombined.

The Deficiencies:

Pressure Drop: Static mixers rely entirely on the energy of the fluid flow to mix. To mix high-viscosity filled resins effectively, the fluid must be pushed through the mixer at very high pressures. The baffles create massive resistance (back-pressure). This requires oversized, energy-hungry pumps and robust piping that is prone to bursting.

Clogging: If the flow rate drops, the mixing efficiency drops. Worse, if the line stops, the mixed material sits inside the baffles. Because the baffles are intricate and stationary, cleaning them requires flushing the line with large amounts of solvent (acetone). If the solvent flush is missed, the mixer becomes a solid stick of cured plastic and must be discarded.

Inefficient Mixing of Fillers: Static mixers are generally poor at dispersing solids. They can blend two liquids well, but they lack the shear energy required to break up agglomerates of filler particles. This leads to the “print-through” defects discussed earlier.

The Patent Superiority:

The invention introduces an active, high-shear element into the inline stream.

• Energy Independence: The mixing energy is provided by a rotating motor, not the fluid pressure. This allows the system to mix extremely viscous pastes without generating excessive back-pressure.
• Infinite Pot Life: The patent describes a system that allows for “infinite pot life”. By designing the mixing head to have a minimal volume and a self-cleaning geometry, or by introducing the catalyst at the very last possible point (the nozzle), the system eliminates the risk of the mixer clogging during pauses. The machine can sit idle for hours and resume instantly, a capability static mixers cannot match.

Benchmark 3: Impingement Mixing

The Competitor:

Impingement mixing is commonly used in the polyurethane foam industry. It works by shooting two high-pressure streams of fluid at each other in a small chamber. The collision (impingement) creates turbulence that mixes the components.

The Deficiencies:

Abrasion Sensitivity: Impingement mixers rely on high-velocity fluid streams. When those fluids contain abrasive fillers like glass or ceramic, the high velocity turns the fluid into a liquid sandpaper. The impingement nozzles wear out incredibly fast, leading to costly downtime and maintenance.

Viscosity Limits: Impingement mixing requires the fluids to be relatively thin to achieve the necessary velocity for turbulent mixing. It simply cannot generate enough turbulence to mix thick, paste-like filled resins.

The Patent Superiority: The High-Shear Inline Mixing System is specifically engineered for filled resins.

• Wear Resistance: Instead of high-velocity collision, the invention uses mechanical shear (a spinning rotor within a stator). This allows the fluid to move at lower linear velocities while still experiencing high shear forces. The rotor/stator can be made of hardened alloys to resist abrasion, offering a service life orders of magnitude longer than impingement nozzles.
• Processing Range: The mechanical action can “chew” through high-viscosity pastes that would stall an impingement system, opening up the use of new, heavily filled material formulations that were previously impossible to process.

Benchmarking Summary

The following table summarizes the comparative analysis, highlighting the specific operational metrics where Patent 12,515,385 demonstrates superiority.

Operational Metric	Batch Mixing	Static Inline Mixing	Impingement Mixing	US Patent 12,515,385 (The Invention)
Mixing Mechanism	Low-Shear Agitation	Passive Flow Division	High-Velocity Turbulence	Active High-Shear Rotation
Material Efficiency	Low (Batch Waste)	Medium (Flush Waste)	Medium	High (Just-in-Time Catalyzation)
Viscosity Capability	High (but slow)	Low-Medium	Low	Very High (Heavily Filled Pastes)
Filler Dispersion	Poor (Settling)	Fair	Poor (Abrasion limits)	Excellent (Homogenized)
Emissions Profile	High (Open System)	Medium	Medium	Low (Closed Loop Control)
Maintenance Cost	Low	Medium (Clogged elements)	High (Nozzle wear)	Low (Self-Cleaning / Hardened)
Defect Rate	High (Print-Through)	Moderate	Moderate	Near Zero (Class A Finish)

---

Real-World Impact and Future Potentials

The “Arizona Patent of the Month” award is predicated on impact. The technology described in Patent 12,515,385 is not a theoretical exercise; it addresses immediate, high-value problems in critical industries. The “real-world impact” cited by the AI selection committee refers to the technology’s ability to unlock new manufacturing capabilities in the Marine, Automotive, and Aerospace sectors.

Revolutionizing the Marine Industry

The marine industry has long struggled with the dual challenges of environmental compliance and cosmetic quality. Boat hulls are large surface area structures that emit significant Styrene monomers during the curing process.

• Emissions Compliance: The Closed-Loop Emissions Control inherent in this patent allows boat builders to move away from open-bath mixing. This is crucial for meeting increasingly stringent EPA MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology) standards. By containing the resin until the moment of injection, the technology drastically reduces the factory’s volatile footprint.
• Cosmetic Perfection: The high-shear mixing ensures that the shrinkage-controlling fillers are perfectly dispersed. This eliminates “print-through”. For a boat manufacturer, this means the hull comes out of the mold with a mirror-like “Class A” finish. It eliminates the need for secondary operations—sanding, buffing, and painting—which are labor-intensive and generate dust. This direct-from-mold finish capability reduces the manufacturing cycle time by days.

The Electric Vehicle (EV) Sector: Fire Retardancy

The rapid growth of the Electric Vehicle market has created a new demand for lightweight, fire-retardant materials. Battery enclosures must be made of composites (to save weight) but must also withstand intense heat in the event of a thermal runaway (battery fire).

• The Filler Challenge: To make a plastic fire-retardant, it must be loaded with massive amounts of mineral fillers like Alumina Trihydrate (ATH). Often, the loading needs to be 60% or more by weight. This turns the resin into a thick paste that is nearly impossible to mix with static mixers.
• The Solution: The High-Shear Inline Mixing System is uniquely capable of processing these highly filled, high-viscosity materials. It enables EV manufacturers to mass-produce fire-safe battery covers using automated injection processes rather than slow, manual hand-layup methods. This scalability is essential for meeting the production targets of the global automotive industry.

Future Potentials: Nanocomposites and Sustainability

Looking forward, the architecture of this patent holds immense potential for the next generation of materials.

• Nanocomposites: The “High-Shear” capability is exactly what is required to disperse nanomaterials. Carbon nanotubes (CNTs) and graphene tend to clump together due to Van der Waals forces. To become effective, they must be mechanically sheared apart and dispersed into the resin. This patent’s technology could be the key to enabling the industrial-scale production of conductive, super-strong nanocomposites for aerospace shielding and advanced electronics.
• Circular Economy: The reduction in solvent usage (due to infinite pot life and reduced flushing) aligns with the circular economy goals of reducing industrial hazardous waste. Furthermore, the ability to accept higher filler loads means manufacturers can use more recycled fillers (e.g., ground cured composite waste) in their new products, closing the loop on material lifecycles.

---

Strategic Guide to the R&D Tax Credit: The Swanson Reed Methodology

A pivotal component of this report is the intersection of technological innovation and fiscal strategy. The development of US Patent 12,515,385 serves as a prime candidate for the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit (R&D Tax Credit) under IRC Section 41. Swanson Reed, a specialist R&D tax advisory firm, utilizes such patents to demonstrate how engineering activities can be substantiated to claim significant tax relief.

The Nexus of Patents and Tax Credits

While holding a patent is not a strict requirement for claiming the R&D credit, it is the “gold standard” of substantiation. The issuance of a patent by the USPTO confirms that the invention is novel and non-obvious. However, the IRS requires a different set of criteria: the Four-Part Test. The mere existence of the patent is not enough; the taxpayer must prove that the process of developing the patent met these four specific criteria.

Deconstructing the Four-Part Test for Patent 12,515,385

Swanson Reed’s methodology involves a forensic reconstruction of the development timeline to map engineering activities directly to the four pillars of the tax code.

Part 1: Technological in Nature

The Requirement: The activity must fundamentally rely on the principles of the “hard sciences”—physics, biology, engineering, chemistry, or computer science. Activities based on soft sciences (economics, consumer preference testing) are excluded.

Application to the Patent:

The development of the high-shear inline mixer was not a matter of aesthetic design; it was a rigorous engineering challenge.

• Fluid Dynamics: Engineers likely had to calculate shear rates, Reynolds numbers, and flow vectors to design a rotor that would create sufficient turbulence without causing cavitation.
• Rheology: Understanding the non-Newtonian flow behavior of the filled resin was critical. The team would have conducted viscosity testing at various shear rates to optimize the mixer geometry.
• Thermodynamics: High shear creates heat. The team had to model the heat generation to ensure it didn’t trigger the exotherm of the resin inside the mixer.
• Swanson Reed’s Approach: Using their AI analysis tool, TaxTrex, Swanson Reed filters the project data to isolate these specific hard-science activities, separating them from ineligible activities like market research on boat colors.

Part 2: Permitted Purpose

The Requirement: The research must relate to a new or improved function, performance, reliability, or quality of a business component (a product, process, software, formula, or invention) held for sale, lease, or license.

Application to the Patent:

The “Business Component” is the mixing apparatus itself (and the associated method). The “Permitted Purpose” is multifaceted:

• Improved Performance: Increasing the throughput of filled resins.
• Improved Reliability: Eliminating the clogging associated with static mixers.
• Improved Quality: Eliminating “print-through” defects in the final molded parts.
• Swanson Reed’s Approach: The firm creates a direct linkage between the claimed expenses (wages, supplies) and these specific performance improvements. This “nexus” is vital for audit defense.

Part 3: Elimination of Uncertainty

The Requirement: At the outset of the project, there must be clear uncertainty regarding the capability to develop the product, the method to be used, or the appropriate design of the business component. This is the “Why” of the research.

Application to the Patent:

The patent text itself serves as proof of uncertainty. If the solution were known, a patent would not be necessary. The engineers faced critical questions:

• “Can we design a seal that withstands the abrasion of glass-filled resin at 3000 RPM?” (Uncertainty of Capability).
• “What is the optimal rotor angle to maximize shear while minimizing pressure drop?” (Uncertainty of Design).
• “How do we introduce the catalyst without it flowing back into the resin line?” (Uncertainty of Method).
• Swanson Reed’s Approach: The firm documents this uncertainty by gathering contemporaneous records—emails, meeting minutes, and design briefs from the start of the project—that explicitly state these technical questions. This establishes the baseline from which the R&D occurred.

Part 4: Process of Experimentation

The Requirement: Substantially all of the activities must constitute elements of a process of experimentation. This involves the identification of uncertainty, the identification of one or more alternatives intended to eliminate that uncertainty, and the evaluation of those alternatives (modeling, simulation, trial and error). This is the “How” of the research.

Application to the Patent:

This is the most critical and often most litigated part of the test. The development of Patent 12,515,385 undoubtedly involved a series of failures and iterations.

• Hypothesis: “A helical rotor design will provide sufficient mixing.”
• Test: Build Prototype A and run it with 40% filled resin.
• Analysis: Prototype A clogged after 20 minutes due to dead zones in the flow path.
• Iteration: Design Prototype B with a tapered rotor to eliminate dead zones.
• Test: Prototype B worked but generated too much heat, curing the resin prematurely.
• Iteration: Design Prototype C with a cooling jacket.
• Swanson Reed’s Approach: Swanson Reed emphasizes the logging of failures. A patent document describes the final success, but the R&D tax credit is substantiated by the failures that preceded it. They use systems to capture the data from these failed trials to prove that a true process of experimentation took place.

Financial Calculation and Form 6765 Compliance

The financial impact of claiming the credit for such a project is substantial.

• The Calculation: For a mature company, the credit is typically 14% of the qualified research expenses (QREs) in excess of a base amount (Alternative Simplified Credit). For a startup (less than 5 years of revenue), it can be up to 6-10% of total QREs, and crucially, can be applied against payroll taxes (up to $500,000 per year) if the company has no income tax liability.
• Qualified Expenses: For the development of Patent 12,515,385, QREs would include:
  • Wages: The W-2 salaries of the mechanical engineers, chemical engineers, and CAD designers involved in the project.
  • Supplies: The cost of the resins, catalysts, and metal used to build the destructive prototypes.
  • Contract Research: Fees paid to third-party labs for viscosity testing or finite element analysis (FEA).
• Form 6765 (2025 Revisions): The IRS has significantly revised Form 6765 for tax years beginning in 2025.
  • New Section G: This section requires a detailed narrative description of the “Information Sought” and the “Business Component” for the largest claims.
  • Controlled Group Disclosure: New Items A and B require explicit disclosure of controlled group relationships.
  • Swanson Reed’s Advantage: The firm’s TaxTrex software is specifically updated to generate the narrative descriptions required by Section G, using AI to synthesize the technical data into the format the IRS examiners expect. This drastically reduces the administrative burden and risk of non-compliance.

---

Final Thoughts

The designation of US Patent Application 20260012450 (Patent 12,515,385) as the Arizona Patent of the Month for February 2026 is a testament to the power of objective, AI-driven analysis in identifying true industrial innovation. By looking past theoretical novelty to assess “real-world impact,” the selection process highlighted a technology that solves a critical, physical problem in the manufacturing world.

The High-Shear Inline Mixing System represents a decisive technological victory over the legacy methods of batch, static, and impingement mixing. Its ability to process highly filled, viscous resins with infinite pot life and closed-loop emissions control positions it as an enabling technology for the future of the Electric Vehicle and Marine industries. It allows for the production of safer, lighter, and higher-quality composite parts while simultaneously reducing environmental harm and manufacturing waste.

Furthermore, the patent stands as a robust case study for the R&D Tax Credit. Through the Swanson Reed methodology, the development of this technology perfectly illustrates the Four-Part Test: it is Technological in Nature, serves a Permitted Purpose, eliminates defined Uncertainty, and was born from a rigorous Process of Experimentation. For stakeholders in the manufacturing and engineering sectors, this patent is not just a winner of an award; it is a signal of where the industry is heading—toward smarter, cleaner, and more efficient production technologies.