Iowa Patent of the Month – February 2026

Executive Declaration and Award Designation

The Iowa Patent of the Month: February 2026

In the dynamic and rapidly evolving landscape of industrial innovation, the identification of truly transformative intellectual property is a task that requires both technical acumen and predictive foresight. It is with significant professional authority that Swanson Reed announces US Patent Publication No. US20260022690, formally titled “In-vehicle Control Device,” as the distinguished recipient of the Iowa Patent of the Month for February 2026. Filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on February 3, 2026, this patent application represents a pivotal advancement in the architecture of autonomous mobility and industrial machinery logic. The patent lists Takayuki Funatsu as the first named inventor, a detail that underscores the high-level engineering pedigree behind this innovation.

The selection of Patent US20260022690 was not an exercise in random sampling or simple administrative rotation. Rather, it was the outcome of a sophisticated, exhaustively data-driven selection methodology utilized by Swanson Reed. This process deployed proprietary Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology to rigorously screen, analyze, and benchmark a dataset of approximately 1,000 potential patents and patent applications recently associated with the region’s industrial ecosystem. The AI algorithms were tasked with parsing vast quantities of technical claims, citation networks, and semantic patterns to identify the single invention with the highest potential for disruptive economic and technological impact. Out of this crowded field of 1,000 candidates, the “In-vehicle Control Device” emerged as the clear leader, scoring exceptionally high on metrics of novelty, commercial viability, and alignment with Iowa’s strategic industrial sectors—specifically, advanced agricultural automation and heavy manufacturing logistics.

The Selection Rationale: A Mandate for Real-World Impact

The designation of this patent as the Iowa Patent of the Month is predicated fundamentally on its immediate and tangible real-world impact. We stand at a critical juncture in the history of transportation and heavy industry, a period often described as the transition from “connected” vehicles to “software-defined” vehicles (SDVs). The industry has long struggled with the limitations of legacy electronic architectures, which are becoming increasingly incapable of handling the data torrents generated by modern LiDAR, radar, and visual sensors. The “In-vehicle Control Device” detailed in US20260022690 was chosen because it offers a concrete, architectural solution to these systemic bottlenecks.

Unlike theoretical patents that may not see practical application for decades, this invention addresses a “hair-on-fire” problem currently plaguing manufacturers of autonomous tractors, combines, and logistics trucks: computational latency and resource contention. In the context of Iowa’s economy—a global epicenter for AgTech and precision farming—the ability of a vehicle to process sensor data and make safety-critical decisions in microseconds is not merely a luxury; it is a prerequisite for the next generation of autonomous farming. This patent was selected because it provides the “digital nervous system” required to make Level 4 and Level 5 autonomy a safe reality in unpredictable, real-world environments. Its selection underscores a commitment to recognizing innovation that does not just advance science in the abstract, but drives efficiency, safety, and productivity on the ground.

Technical Superiority and Competitive Benchmarking

The Legacy Bottleneck: Distributed ECU Architectures

To fully appreciate the superiority of the invention disclosed in US20260022690, one must first dissect the prevailing technical paradigm it seeks to displace. For the past three decades, the automotive and heavy machinery industries have relied on a Distributed Electronic Control Unit (ECU) architecture. In this traditional model, a vehicle functions as a loose federation of independent microcontrollers. A modern high-end tractor or luxury sedan might contain anywhere from 100 to 150 distinct ECUs, each dedicated to a single, specific function—one ECU controls the fuel injection, another manages the transmission, a third handles the door locks, and yet another monitors the tire pressure.

While this modularity initially offered simplicity in supply chain management, it has become a crushing liability in the age of sensor fusion. As vehicles have evolved into mobile data centers, the need for these 150 separate “brains” to talk to each other has resulted in a massive explosion of wiring harness complexity and data congestion. The “CAN bus” (Controller Area Network), the standard communication protocol, is easily saturated by the gigabytes of data generated by modern cameras. Furthermore, coordinating a braking maneuver that requires input from the vision system (ADAS ECU), the engine (Powertrain ECU), and the brakes (Chassis ECU) involves passing messages through multiple gateways, introducing dangerous latency. This “Distributed” model is rigid, heavy, and increasingly obsolete.

The Innovation: Dynamic Zonal Control Architecture

The “In-vehicle Control Device” described in US20260022690 represents a paradigm shift toward a Centralized Zonal Architecture. This technology is superior because it abandons the “one box, one function” philosophy in favor of a “software-defined” approach. The device acts as a high-performance compute node that manages a specific physical zone of the vehicle (e.g., the front-left quadrant) regardless of the function.

Instead of having a separate wire running from the front bumper to a central brake controller, the sensors plug directly into the local “In-vehicle Control Device,” which processes the raw data locally and sends only high-level instructions to the central brain. Crucially, the patent describes a dynamic logic control scheme that allows the device to reallocate computational resources in real-time. If the vehicle enters a high-risk scenario (e.g., a child runs in front of a tractor), the control device can instantly suspend low-priority background tasks (like climate control logic or diagnostic logging) to dedicate 100% of its processing cycles to object tracking and emergency braking execution. This “interrupt-driven” capability is a massive leap forward compared to the static, round-robin scheduling used by legacy competitors.

Competitive Benchmarking Analysis

The following comparative analysis benchmarks the US20260022690 technology against the leading competitive solutions currently dominating the market, specifically focusing on the distinctions between the Legacy Distributed model, the Domain Controller model (the current “state of the art”), and the Next-Gen Zonal model introduced by this patent.

Detailed Superiority Analysis

Superiority in Latency and Safety

The primary metric of superiority for US20260022690 is latency reduction. In competitor systems utilizing Domain Controllers, a signal from a blind-spot radar often has to travel from the sensor to a gateway, be translated from one protocol to another, processed by the ADAS domain controller, and then sent to the chassis domain to actuate the steering. This “hop-heavy” path can introduce 50-100 milliseconds of latency. At highway speeds (or even at tractor operating speeds in tight quarters), this delay translates to meters of travel distance—the difference between a near-miss and a catastrophic accident.

The In-vehicle Control Device minimizes this by processing data at the “edge” (the zone). By handling the immediate sensor fusion locally and utilizing a simplified, flat network topology, the invention reduces reaction times to the theoretical minimums of the silicon. This superiority is critical for Level 5 Autonomy, where the human driver is out of the loop and the machine’s reaction time is the only safety net.

Superiority in Manufacturing and Cost Efficiency

From a manufacturing perspective, the US20260022690 patent offers a superior value proposition through hardware agnosticism. Competitor solutions often require highly specialized SKUs for different vehicle trims. A “premium” tractor needs a different set of controllers than a “base” model. The technology described in this patent appears to support a unified hardware platform where features are unlocked via software.

This allows manufacturers—such as Iowa’s heavy machinery giants—to stock a single “In-vehicle Control Device” part number that can be programmed to serve as a transmission controller in one machine or a hydraulic lift controller in another. This drastic reduction in inventory complexity and supply chain variance gives the technology a massive commercial edge over the fragmented product lines of legacy suppliers.

Superiority in Energy Management

As the industry electrifies, power consumption becomes a critical constraint. Traditional high-performance computers (HPCs) in vehicles are power-hungry, often requiring liquid cooling and draining the battery even when the vehicle is idle. The US20260022690 patent introduces novel power-gating logic. The control device utilizes predictive algorithms—potentially linked to navigation data—to anticipate high-load scenarios. It keeps the processor in a low-power “sleep” state while cruising on a straight highway and only ramps up to full voltage/frequency when approaching complex intersections or uneven terrain. This “Just-in-Time” computing approach offers superior energy efficiency compared to the “Always-On” philosophy of competitors like NVIDIA or Qualcomm, directly translating to increased range for electric tractors and trucks.

Real-World Impact and Future Potential

Impact on the Agricultural Sector (The Iowa Context)

The most immediate real-world impact of the “In-vehicle Control Device” will be felt in the agricultural heartland. Modern agriculture is a high-tech discipline dependent on precision. Autonomous planters and sprayers must operate with centimeter-level accuracy to minimize chemical usage and maximize yield.

Current autonomous farm equipment often struggles with “edge cases”—mud, dust, unexpected livestock, or shifting terrain. When the sensors get confused, legacy processors often freeze or disengage, requiring a human operator to intervene. The robust processing power and low-latency architecture of US20260022690 allow for advanced terrain adaptability. The device can process high-fidelity LiDAR data in real-time to distinguish between a crop row and a weed patch, or between a rock and a shadow, allowing the machine to operate fully autonomously for longer periods without interruption. For an Iowa farmer, this technology translates to being able to plant 24 hours a day during the critical short planting windows, significantly boosting productivity and profitability.

Impact on Logistics and Supply Chain

Beyond the farm, this patent has profound implications for the logistics sector, another pillar of the Midwest economy. The “In-vehicle Control Device” is the enabling technology for autonomous platooning. This is the practice where a convoy of semi-trucks travels closely together, connected electronically, to reduce wind resistance and fuel consumption.

For platooning to be safe, the trailing truck must brake the instant the lead truck brakes—zero latency is acceptable. The direct-communication capabilities of the US20260022690 device allow for this machine-to-machine (M2M) synchronization to happen faster than human reaction time. This unlocks fuel savings of 10-15% for long-haul fleets, a massive economic benefit that reduces the cost of goods sold across the entire economy.

Future Potential: The Smart City Interface

Looking toward the future, the “In-vehicle Control Device” is positioned to become the standard interface for Vehicle-to-Infrastructure (V2I) communication. As cities install smart traffic lights and sensors, vehicles will need to ingest external data streams to optimize traffic flow. The architecture described in the patent is designed to handle these exogenous data inputs securely.

We can envision a future where this technology allows emergency vehicles to broadcast a “clear path” signal that is received by the control devices of all surrounding cars, which then automatically and safely pull over without driver intervention. This potential for “cooperative autonomy” represents the next frontier of traffic safety, aiming for a vision of zero roadway fatalities. The patent is not just a better car part; it is a foundational brick for the smart cities of the 2030s.

Comprehensive R&D Tax Credit Analysis (The Four-Part Test)

The Strategic Importance of the R&D Tax Credit

The development of a cutting-edge technology like the “In-vehicle Control Device” is an undertaking of immense complexity and financial risk. It involves thousands of engineering hours, iterative prototyping, and the consumption of expensive materials. To support and encourage this type of high-risk, high-reward innovation, the United States Congress established the Research and Experimentation Tax Credit (commonly known as the R&D Tax Credit) under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41.

Swanson Reed, as a specialized advisory firm focused exclusively on the R&D tax credit, recognizes that possessing a granted patent (or a published application like US20260022690) is a powerful evidentiary tool. However, the patent alone is not the claim; the activities leading to the patent must be substantiated. To qualify for the credit, the development project must satisfy the rigorous Four-Part Test mandated by the IRS. The following analysis details how a project utilizing the technology in US20260022690 meets these statutory requirements.

Application of the Four-Part Test to US20260022690

Test 1: Permitted Purpose

The Regulatory Requirement: The activity must relate to a new or improved business component of the taxpayer. This can be a product, process, computer software, technique, formula, or invention. The research must be intended to improve the component’s functionality, performance, reliability, or quality.

Application to the Patent:

The development of the In-vehicle Control Device satisfies the Permitted Purpose test unequivocally. The “Business Component” in this scenario is the physical control unit itself, or the larger autonomous vehicle platform into which it is integrated. The purpose of the research efforts leading to this patent was clearly driven by specific improvement goals:

• Functionality: Creating a new capability for dynamic zone-based logic control that did not previously exist in the company’s product line.
• Performance: Significantly increasing data throughput speeds and reducing signal latency to enable safer autonomous operations.
• Reliability: Enhancing the system’s fault tolerance (fail-operational capability) so that the vehicle remains safe even if a sensor fails.
• Quality: Improving the durability of the hardware against thermal stress and vibration in harsh agricultural environments.

Swanson Reed’s Advisory Role: In substantiating this test, Swanson Reed assists the taxpayer in clearly defining the “Business Component.” A common pitfall in automotive R&D is the aggregation of costs under broad project headings. We work to segregate the specific “In-vehicle Control Device” project, tying the claimed expenses directly to the technical improvements described in the patent application. This precision prevents IRS challenges that might categorize the work as general maintenance or aesthetic customization.

Test 2: Technological in Nature

The Regulatory Requirement: The research must fundamentally rely on principles of the hard sciences—specifically physical sciences, biological sciences, engineering, or computer science. The information sought must be technical in nature, eliminating activities based on soft sciences like economics, psychology, or market research.

Application to the Patent:

The innovation disclosed in US20260022690 is deeply rooted in advanced engineering disciplines:

• Computer Science & Software Engineering: The core of the patent involves developing complex algorithms for resource prioritization, designing the Real-Time Operating System (RTOS) kernel, and creating the cybersecurity protocols to protect the device from intrusion.
• Electrical & Electronics Engineering: The project required the design of complex Printed Circuit Boards (PCBs) capable of handling high-speed Ethernet signaling without signal degradation (integrity), as well as the selection of System-on-Chip (SoC) architectures.
• Physics & Thermodynamics: Addressing the heat dissipation challenges of a high-performance compute node situated in a sealed, high-temperature automotive environment relies on principles of thermodynamics and materials science.

Swanson Reed’s Advisory Role: Our team of technical analysts and engineers reviews the patent specifications and the client’s internal technical data—such as CAD files, code repositories (GitHub/GitLab), and engineering test logs—to map every dollar of claimed labor to a specific technical challenge. We ensure that costs related to non-technical activities, such as “focus group testing” for the dashboard GUI or “market analysis” of competitor pricing, are strictly excluded from the claim.

Test 3: Elimination of Uncertainty

The Regulatory Requirement: At the outset of the project, there must be uncertainty regarding the capability to develop the business component, the method of development, or the appropriate design of the component. It is not sufficient that the outcome is merely unknown; the technical path to the solution must be uncertain to the taxpayer.

Application to the Patent:

This criterion is the primary driver of the “First-in-Class” innovation identified by Swanson Reed’s analysis. For the team developing US20260022690, the uncertainties would have been substantial:

• Uncertainty of Capability: “Is it physically possible to run a centralized AI model of this complexity on the limited power budget of a standard vehicle electrical system?”
• Uncertainty of Design: “Should the control device utilize a monolithic processor architecture or a distributed cluster of smaller cores? How do we design the thermal management system to prevent processor throttling at 105°C ambient temperatures?”
• Uncertainty of Method: “How do we migrate legacy codebases from the old distributed architecture to this new zonal system without introducing critical safety bugs?”

The very fact that the patent application was filed (claiming novelty) serves as strong evidence that the solution was not obvious and that significant technical uncertainty existed at the project’s inception.

Swanson Reed’s Advisory Role: We focus on documenting the “Why” and the “How.” It is insufficient to simply state that uncertainty existed. We interview the lead engineers, including innovators like Mr. Funatsu, to document the technical failures and dead ends encountered during development. We create a narrative log: “In Month 4, the initial prototype failed due to electromagnetic interference. The team did not know if shielding would solve the problem or if a board redesign was required.” This contemporaneous documentation acts as a robust shield against audit scrutiny.

Test 4: Process of Experimentation

The Regulatory Requirement: Substantially all (at least 80%) of the activities must constitute elements of a process of experimentation. This involves the identification of uncertainty, the identification of one or more alternatives, and the evaluation of those alternatives through modeling, simulation, or systematic trial and error.

Application to the Patent:

The development of the In-vehicle Control Device would have required a rigorous, iterative scientific method:

• Hypothesis Generation: “We hypothesize that a dynamic allocation algorithm will reduce braking latency by 40% compared to the static baseline.”
• Alternative 1 (Simulation): The team likely tested the algorithm in a “Hardware-in-the-Loop” (HIL) simulator. Result: The latency target was met, but the processor overheated, leading to thermal shutdown.
• Alternative 2 (Prototype Iteration): The engineers modified the code to reduce the polling frequency of non-essential sensors. They tested this on a physical test bench. Result: Thermal stability was achieved, but the system became unstable during high-data-rate surges.
• Alternative 3 (Final Design): The team implemented the predictive logic described in the patent claims. This was tested in real-world conditions (cold-weather and hot-weather tracks). Result: The design was validated.

This cycle of Design-Test-Analyze-Iterate is the quintessential definition of the Process of Experimentation required by the IRS.

Swanson Reed’s Advisory Role: We help the client capture and preserve the records of “failed experiments.” Often, companies only retain documentation related to the final, successful product. Swanson Reed reconstructs the entire development timeline to demonstrate that the path to the patent was paved with trial and error. We substantiate that the engineering team systematically evaluated alternatives (e.g., “We considered using an FPGA but switched to an ASIC due to power constraints”), proving that the process was experimental rather than routine validation.

Swanson Reed: Strategic Facilitation of the Claim

Leveraging the “Patent Safe Harbor”

While the Internal Revenue Code does not automatically grant the R&D credit simply because a patent is held, the Treasury Regulations provide a distinct advantage for patent holders. The issuance of a patent is often viewed as conclusive evidence that the “Technological in Nature” and “Permitted Purpose” tests are met for the underlying research. Swanson Reed leverages this regulatory nuance to build a stronger claim. By binding the tax claim directly to the patent application and the “Iowa Patent of the Month” award, we create a defense file that is difficult for the IRS to challenge. If an examiner questions whether the work was “routine,” we point to the USPTO’s recognition of the invention’s novelty.

Proprietary Tools: TaxTrex and InventionINDEX

Swanson Reed utilizes its proprietary AI platform, TaxTrex, to streamline the claim process for high-tech innovations like US20260022690. TaxTrex allows the engineering team to answer technical questions about their development process in real-time, converting their raw engineering data into IRS-compliant legal narratives. Additionally, our InventionINDEX—the very tool that identified this patent as the monthly winner—provides crucial benchmarking data. We can demonstrate to the IRS that “This company is in the top 1% of innovation density in the region,” providing contextual support for the magnitude and validity of the R&D claim.

Audit Risk Management (CreditArmor)

For a patent of this technical complexity, the resulting R&D tax credit claim can be substantial, potentially reaching into the millions of dollars. Large claims naturally attract IRS scrutiny. Swanson Reed offers CreditArmor, a comprehensive audit insurance product. This ensures that if the claim related to US20260022690 is audited, Swanson Reed will cover the professional fees required to defend it. We stand firmly behind our technical assessment that this patent represents valid, high-risk, high-reward R&D that is fully eligible for the federal and state incentives designed to foster American innovation.

Final Thoughts

The selection of US Patent Publication No. US20260022690 as the Iowa Patent of the Month for February 2026 serves as a formal recognition of its transformative potential within the realms of automotive safety and industrial autonomy. By challenging the obsolete paradigms of distributed ECU architectures and introducing a centralized, AI-governed zonal framework, this invention effectively addresses the critical industry challenges of latency, energy efficiency, and manufacturing scalability.

When benchmarked against competitor solutions from major Tier 1 suppliers, the technology described in this patent offers superior dynamic resource allocation and hardware flexibility, positioning it as a “keystone” technology for Iowa’s vital agricultural machinery sector and the broader global logistics market. Furthermore, the rigorous development process behind this patent serves as a textbook example of Qualified Research under IRC Section 41. Through the meticulous application of the Four-Part Test—demonstrating Permitted Purpose, Technological Nature, Elimination of Uncertainty, and a Process of Experimentation—and with the expert advisory of Swanson Reed, the innovators responsible for this breakthrough are well-positioned to secure the fiscal capital necessary to continue driving the future of mobility. The synergy between high-level engineering innovation and strategic fiscal management is the engine that keeps the United States at the vanguard of the global technological economy.