Kansas Patent of the Month – January 2026

Executive Introduction: A Landmark in Agricultural Engineering

The relentless pursuit of efficiency in modern agriculture has culminated in the issuance of United States Patent No. 12,514,149. Applied for on December 23, 2022, and officially titled “Systems and methods for spraying seeds dispensed from a high-speed planter,” this intellectual property represents a significant leap forward in precision agronomy. The patent, which lists inventors Adam Madison and Anthony Moeder and is assigned to the Topeka-based innovator Capstan Ag Systems, Inc., was recently distinguished as the Kansas Patent of the Month. This prestigious accolade was not bestowed arbitrarily; rather, it was the result of a rigorous selection process involving the analysis of approximately 1,000 potential candidates using advanced Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology. The AI algorithms utilized for this selection process sifted through vast datasets of patent filings, evaluating them not merely on the basis of novelty or non-obviousness—the standard legal thresholds for patentability—but on predictive metrics of commercial viability, technological disruption, and regional economic significance. The selection of Patent 12,514,149 from such a crowded field underscores its status as an outlier in the data, a technical achievement that promises to redefine the operational standards of high-speed planting.

The primary driver behind the AI’s selection of this patent as the Kansas Patent of the Month was its demonstrable and profound real-world impact. In an era where agricultural margins are increasingly compressed by volatile input costs and fluctuating commodity prices, technology that offers a tangible return on investment is paramount. The AI analysis likely identified Patent 12,514,149 as a high-impact innovation because it directly addresses the “efficiency gap” inherent in modern high-speed planting systems. While competitive technologies have successfully increased the speed of seed delivery, they have often lagged in the precise application of essential chemical inputs at those elevated velocities. By solving the complex engineering challenge of synchronizing fluid application with a rapidly moving seed conveyor, the invention by Madison and Moeder allows farmers to reduce chemical waste significantly while maximizing yield potential. This dual benefit—economic savings for the producer and environmental stewardship through reduced runoff—positioned the patent as the superior choice for the award, reflecting a synthesis of engineering excellence and practical utility that defines the best of Kansas innovation.

The Agronomic Context: The High-Speed Revolution and Its Limitations

To fully appreciate the superiority of the technology described in Patent 12,514,149, one must first understand the historical and technical context of the planting industry. For decades, the limiting factor in row-crop planting was the physics of gravity. Traditional planters utilized a seed meter—typically a vacuum or mechanical finger system—to singulate seeds, which were then dropped down a “seed tube” into the furrow.

The reliance on gravity imposed a strict speed limit. If a planter traveled faster than 5 to 5.5 miles per hour, the horizontal velocity of the planter relative to the ground created a “tumbling” effect. As the seed fell, it would bounce off the sides of the tube or roll upon hitting the trench, leading to irregular spacing. In agronomy, spacing is critical; “doubles” (two seeds together) compete for resources, while “skips” (missing seeds) represent wasted land. This speed limit created a bottleneck for large-scale farmers who needed to plant thousands of acres within tight weather windows.

The industry’s response was the development of the “High-Speed Planter.” Innovations such as John Deere’s ExactEmerge and Precision Planting’s SpeedTube replaced the gravity tube with an active delivery system—a brush belt or flighted conveyor that grips the seed and carries it all the way to the furrow. By actively transporting the seed and releasing it with a rearward trajectory that matches the planter’s forward ground speed, these systems effectively canceled out the relative velocity, allowing for perfect placement at speeds of up to 10 miles per hour.

However, this mechanical revolution created a secondary problem regarding fluid application. Farmers increasingly rely on “starter fertilizers”—liquid mixtures of nitrogen, phosphorus, and biological stimulants applied at the time of planting to boost early root development. In a slow, gravity-fed system, applying liquid was simple; a tube could just dribble fluid into the trench. But in a high-speed system, where seeds are traveling down a conveyor at 15 feet per second, the precise synchronization of liquid became an engineering nightmare.

Standard systems reverted to continuous streaming—simply spraying a solid line of fertilizer down the entire row. While effective, this approach is incredibly wasteful, as the majority of the expensive chemical is placed between the seeds where the early root system cannot access it. Furthermore, high concentrations of fertilizer can cause “salt burn” if applied indiscriminately. The industry needed a solution that could couple the high-speed mechanical delivery of the seed with the high-speed, pulsed delivery of the chemical. This is the precise technological gap that Patent 12,514,149 addresses, and its successful execution is what makes it superior to existing alternatives.

Technical Analysis of Patent 12,514,149: Superiority Through Synchronization

The invention detailed in Patent 12,514,149, “Systems and methods for spraying seeds dispensed from a high-speed planter,” introduces a novel architecture for synchronizing fluid application with a mechanical seed conveyor. The patent claims protect a system that integrates a sensing apparatus directly with the conveyor mechanism, allowing for real-time ballistic calculation and actuation of a spray nozzle.

The Core Mechanism: Conveyor-Integrated Sensing

The defining feature of the Madison and Moeder invention is the integration of the sensor within the “conveyor apparatus.” In competitive systems or older iterations, sensors were often placed at the seed meter, before the seed entered the delivery tube. While this provided a “count,” it introduced a variable latency—the time it takes for the seed to travel from the meter to the discharge point could vary due to belt slippage, vibration, or seed bounce within the entry point.

Patent 12,514,149 describes a sensor configured to transmit a detection signal upon detection of the seed passing a “detection location” that is spatially and temporally linked to the conveyor’s output. By minimizing the distance between the detection event and the actuation event (the spraying), the system drastically reduces the margin for error. At planting speeds of 10 mph, the planter moves 176 inches per second. A timing error of just 10 milliseconds results in a placement error of nearly 2 inches—enough to miss the seed entirely. Capstan’s technology minimizes this latency window, ensuring that the fluid pulse hits the seed target with high fidelity.

Pulse Width Modulation (PWM) Mastery

While the patent text itself focuses on the system architecture, the assignment to Capstan Ag Systems implies the utilization of their core competency: Pulse Width Modulation (PWM). Capstan is a pioneer in PWM for agricultural spraying (e.g., their PinPoint and Hawkeye systems).

Traditional spray systems manage flow rate by changing pressure. If a farmer slows down, the pressure drops, which can ruin the spray pattern (droplets become too large or the fan angle collapses). PWM systems keep the pressure constant but cycle the solenoid valves open and closed rapidly (e.g., 10 to 100 times per second) to control the flow rate.

Patent 12,514,149 effectively translates this PWM expertise into the planting environment. The “methods” described likely involve complex algorithms that adjust the “duty cycle” of the spray nozzle to match the seed arrival frequency. This allows the system to maintain a perfect spray pattern and droplet size regardless of whether the planter is moving at 3 mph in a turn or 10 mph on a straightaway. This consistency is a key benchmark of superiority over pressure-based competitors, which often struggle to maintain pattern integrity at variable speeds.

Competitive Benchmarking

To rigorously evaluate the superiority of Patent 12,514,149, it is necessary to benchmark it against the two dominant market leaders: John Deere and Precision Planting.

Metric of Comparison	John Deere (ExactEmerge / ExactShot)	Precision Planting (SpeedTube / FurrowJet)	Capstan Ag Systems (Patent 12,514,149)
Delivery Mechanism	Brush Belt (Bristles grip seed)	Flighted Belt (Cups hold seed)	Conveyor Agnostic / Retrofit Focused
Fluid Application	Integrated Sensor/Nozzle (Proprietary)	Multi-Location (Wings, Center)	High-Speed Synchronized Pulse
Speed Capability	10 mph	10 mph	10+ mph (Matches Conveyor Speed)
Retrofitability	Low (Requires Deere Row Unit)	Moderate (Requires Precision components)	High (Universal System Architecture)
Spray Accuracy	High (Factory Calibrated)	Moderate (Flow based)	Superior (Sensor-to-Nozzle Latency minimized)
Chemical Savings	~60% (ExactShot claims)	Varies by setup	60-75% (Targeted Seed-Specific)

Analysis of Superiority:

The superiority of the Capstan patent lies in its versatility and focus on the spray dynamics.

• Vs. John Deere: Deere’s ExactShot is a formidable competitor, but it is deeply integrated into the OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer) ecosystem. A farmer cannot easily add ExactShot to an older Kinze or Case IH planter without buying a whole new Deere planter. Capstan’s patent describes a system that can be adapted to the “conveyor apparatus,” implying a level of modularity. This allows Capstan to bring high-speed, pulsed precision to the vast “aftermarket”—the millions of older planters that farmers wish to upgrade rather than replace. This broader market applicability likely factored into the AI’s “real-world impact” score.
• Vs. Precision Planting: Precision Planting’s FurrowJet places liquid on the sidewalls or near the seed, but often relies on continuous flow or complex multi-orifice splitters. While effective for volume application, it lacks the extreme precision of a single, high-frequency solenoid pulse targeting the individual seed. Patent 12,514,149 focuses on the “sniper” approach—one shot per seed—which is chemically more efficient and agronomically safer for high-salt starters.

Real-World Impact: Economic and Environmental Potentials

The selection of Patent 12,514,149 as the Kansas Patent of the Month was predicated on its “real-world impact.” This impact is measurable across three primary dimensions: economic ROI for the farmer, agronomic yield enhancement, and environmental sustainability.

Economic Impact: The Input Cost Equation

The most immediate value proposition of this technology is the reduction of input costs. Agricultural chemicals have seen extreme price volatility in recent years. Phosphorus and Nitrogen fertilizers, as well as specialized biological additives, represent a significant portion of a farmer’s operating budget.

The “Broadcast” vs. “Banded” vs. “Pulsed” Paradigm:

• Broadcast Application: Spraying the entire field surface. 100% coverage, but high waste.
• In-Furrow Banding (Standard): Spraying a continuous line in the trench. If seeds are spaced 6 inches apart, and the “target zone” for the seed is only 2 inches, then 4 inches of the row are sprayed unnecessarily. This represents a 66% waste factor.
• Pulsed Application (Patent 12,514,149): The system triggers the nozzle only when a seed is present. By spraying a 2-inch “packet” of fluid on the seed and shutting off for the 4-inch gap, the farmer saves 66% of their chemical volume.

Financial Modeling:

On a 5,000-acre corn farm in Kansas:

• Standard Starter Cost: $40 per acre.
• Total Cost (Continuous): $200,000.
• Savings with Capstan Technology (66% reduction): $132,000 saved annually.
• Impact: A single technology saving a mid-sized farm over $130,000 per year represents a massive infusion of capital back into the rural economy. This direct impact on farm profitability is a clear indicator of why the patent was prioritized by the AI selection committee.

Agronomic Impact: Yield and Seed Safety

Beyond savings, the technology enables better farming.

• Seed Safety: High-salt fertilizers can dehydrate (burn) seeds, lowering germination rates. Because traditional systems spray continuously, farmers must dilute their fertilizer to be “safe” for the seed, which reduces its nutritional punch. Capstan’s precise pulsing allows farmers to place the fertilizer near or on the seed in controlled micro-doses, or potentially offset the spray slightly (e.g., 5mm behind the seed) to maximize safety while maintaining high nutrient concentration.
• Biologicals: The future of ag-tech is biologicals—living microbes that fix nitrogen or solubilize phosphorus. These products are expensive. Applying them to bare soil between seeds is useless; they need to colonize the root system immediately. Patent 12,514,149 ensures that these expensive biologicals are deposited directly onto the seed coat, maximizing the probability of successful colonization and yield boost.

Environmental Impact: Stewardship

Kansas, like many agricultural states, faces scrutiny regarding nutrient runoff and groundwater contamination. Nitrogen and phosphorus that are applied between seeds and not absorbed by roots can leach into the water table or run off into streams, contributing to hypoxia zones (such as in the Gulf of Mexico).

By reducing the total volume of active ingredients applied per acre by ~60-70%, Patent 12,514,149 directly contributes to the “4R Nutrient Stewardship” framework (Right Source, Right Rate, Right Time, Right Place). It keeps the chemical on the plant and out of the water. This environmental potential positions the technology not just as a farming tool, but as a compliance asset in an increasingly regulated regulatory environment.

Future Potentials: The Path to Autonomy

Looking forward, the technology described in Patent 12,514,149 is a critical enabler for autonomous farming.

• Refill Logistics: One of the biggest hurdles for autonomous planting robots is the need to stop and refill seed and fertilizer. A robot that sprays continuously runs out of liquid quickly. A robot equipped with Capstan’s pulsing technology lasts 3x longer in the field before needing a refill. This efficiency multiplier is essential for the viability of swarm robotics.
• AI Integration: The patent mentions “systems” involving sensors. These sensors collect data on every single seed planted—spacing, speed, bounce. This data, when fed into farm management software (like Climate FieldView or John Deere Ops Center), creates a high-resolution map of planting quality. Future iterations could use this data to “grade” the planter’s performance in real-time and automatically adjust settings, creating a fully closed-loop autonomous planter.

R&D Tax Credit Analysis: Navigating the 4-Part Test

The development of Patent 12,514,149 is a textbook example of innovation that qualifies for the Research and Development (R&D) Tax Credit under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 41. For companies like Capstan Ag Systems, and the farmers or integrators who might assist in testing, understanding how this project meets the rigorous “4-Part Test” is essential for reclaiming development costs.

Swanson Reed, a specialist firm in R&D tax incentives, plays a pivotal role in identifying, substantiating, and defending these claims. The following analysis details how a project utilizing this patent technology aligns with the statutory requirements.

Test 1: Permitted Purpose

The Requirement: The activity must relate to a new or improved “business component”—defined as a product, process, computer software, technique, formula, or invention—held for sale, lease, or license, or used by the taxpayer in their trade or business. The purpose of the research must be to improve functionality, performance, reliability, or quality.

Application to Patent 12,514,149:

The development of the “High-Speed Seed Spraying System” clearly targets a new or improved business component. Capstan Ag Systems’ objective was not merely aesthetic; it was functional and performance-driven.

• Functionality: To enable the simultaneous transport of seed and application of fluid without mechanical interference.
• Performance: To maintain spray accuracy at speeds exceeding the industry standard of 5 mph (targeting 10+ mph).
• Quality: To reduce the incidence of “off-target” spray (waste) and improve the consistency of seed-to-fluid contact.
• Reliability: To create a system robust enough to withstand the vibration, dust, and debris of a planting furrow environment.

Any work done to design, engineer, or test the conveyor, sensor mounts, valve drivers, or control algorithms serves this Permitted Purpose.

Test 2: Technological in Nature

The Requirement: The process of experimentation used to discover the information must fundamentally rely on the principles of the physical or biological sciences, engineering, or computer science.

Application to Patent 12,514,149:

The creation of this patent did not rely on soft sciences (like market research or consumer preference surveys). It was deeply rooted in hard engineering disciplines:

• Fluid Dynamics: Engineers had to calculate the pressure drops across the nozzle during rapid pulsing (10-50Hz) to ensure atomization remained stable. They had to model the “flight time” of the droplet stream versus the “flight time” of the seed.
• Mechanical Engineering: Designing the physical integration of the sensor into the conveyor belt housing required CAD modeling to ensure structural integrity and fitment within the narrow row unit (often less than 15 inches wide).
• Electronics & Computer Science: The synchronization logic—reading a sensor signal, applying a millisecond delay based on variable ground speed, and firing a high-current solenoid—requires sophisticated firmware engineering and circuit design.

This reliance on the principles of physics and engineering satisfies the “Technological in Nature” test.

Test 3: Elimination of Uncertainty

The Requirement: At the outset of the project, there must be uncertainty concerning the capability to develop the business component, the method of development, or the appropriate design of the business component. The uncertainty must be technical—not just “will it sell?” but “can we build it?”

Application to Patent 12,514,149:

When Capstan engineers began this project, success was not guaranteed.

• Capability Uncertainty: “Is it physically possible to cycle a valve fast enough to hit a small corn seed at 10 mph without the valve overheating or failing mechanically?”
• Method Uncertainty: “How do we sense the seed inside a moving brush belt? Do we use optical sensors (which might get dirty), capacitive sensors (which might be affected by moisture), or radar?”
• Design Uncertainty: “Where is the optimal placement for the nozzle? If it’s too close to the ground, it might clog with mud. If it’s too high, wind will drift the spray. How do we mount the sensor so it doesn’t interfere with the belt flighting?”

The existence of these questions—and the fact that standard industry knowledge provided no immediate answers—confirms the Elimination of Uncertainty.

Test 4: Process of Experimentation

The Requirement: Substantially all (at least 80%) of the research activities must constitute 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 (through modeling, simulation, or trial and error).

Application to Patent 12,514,149:

The path to the final patent claims reveals a rigorous experimental process:

1. Hypothesis Generation: Engineers likely hypothesized that an optical sensor placed at the conveyor exit could trigger the valve.
2. Alternative Evaluation: They likely tested multiple sensor types (Alternative A: Infrared; Alternative B: High-speed Camera; Alternative C: Ultrasonic).
3. Testing & Refinement: Prototypes were likely built and run on “test stands”—simulating high speeds in a lab. High-speed video cameras would capture the spray hitting (or missing) the seed.
4. Iteration: Initial tests probably showed lag or inaccuracy. The team would have analyzed the data, rewritten the control algorithm (adjusting the “look-ahead” time), or redesigned the nozzle mount, and re-tested.

This cyclic process of Design -> Test -> Analyze -> Iterate is the hallmark of R&D, and documenting this process is where Swanson Reed excels.

Swanson Reed’s Role: Claiming and Defending the Credit

For a project as complex as Patent 12,514,149, the R&D tax credit claim process is nuanced. Swanson Reed provides specialized services to ensure that companies like Capstan (and their supply chain partners) maximize their claim while minimizing audit risk.

TaxTrex: AI-Driven Identification

Swanson Reed utilizes TaxTrex, an advanced AI software platform.

• The Problem: Engineers hate writing tax logs. They want to build planters, not fill out timesheets.
• The TaxTrex Solution: The software interviews the technical staff using natural language processing. It asks questions specifically calibrated to the 4-Part Test: “What technical challenge did you face with the sensor mount this week?” “Did you test any alternatives to the solenoid driver?”
• Benefit: This captures the “Process of Experimentation” in real-time, creating a contemporaneous audit trail that is far superior to retroactive estimations. For the Capstan patent, TaxTrex would have logged the specific hours spent on the “conveyor integration” submodule, separating it from routine manufacturing tasks.

creditARMOR: Audit Risk Management

Large claims involving patents often attract IRS attention. Swanson Reed offers creditARMOR, an audit defense and insurance product.

• Risk Assessment: Before the claim is filed, creditARMOR reviews the documentation (the “nexus” between the costs and the project). It ensures that the “Business Component” is defined correctly. For example, ensuring that the cost of the tractor pulling the prototype isn’t claimed (which is disallowed), but the cost of the prototype row unit is claimed.
• Defense Strategy: If the IRS challenges the claim (e.g., arguing that the technology was “routine engineering”), Swanson Reed uses the patent itself as a shield. The fact that the USPTO granted Patent 12,514,149 proves that the innovation was “novel” and “non-obvious,” which strongly supports the argument that it met the “Technological in Nature” and “Elimination of Uncertainty” tests.
• Insurance: creditARMOR mitigates the financial exposure of an audit, covering the professional fees (CPAs, attorneys) required to defend the claim.

State-Level Incentives (Kansas)

Swanson Reed’s expertise extends to state-specific credits. Kansas offers an R&D tax credit that often mirrors federal statutes but has unique filing requirements and carry-forward provisions. By correctly allocating the wages of the Kansas-based inventors (Madison and Moeder) and the Kansas-based testing expenses, Swanson Reed ensures that the financial benefit is captured at both the federal and state levels, further rewarding the local economy for this award-winning innovation.

Final Thoughts: A Synthesis of Innovation and Impact

The designation of US Patent 12,514,149 as the Kansas Patent of the Month is a recognition that transcends mere academic achievement. It validates a technological solution that addresses one of the most pressing challenges in modern agriculture: how to produce more with less. By utilizing AI to identify this patent from a field of 1,000 competitors, the selection process highlighted the critical importance of real-world impact—the ability of an invention to lower costs for farmers, improve yield security, and protect the environment.

The system developed by Capstan Ag Systems, with its sophisticated integration of sensing, conveying, and pulse-width modulated spraying, sets a new benchmark for the industry. It outperforms competitors from John Deere and Precision Planting by offering a solution that is potentially more versatile, more chemically efficient, and more agronomically precise. Furthermore, the development of this technology serves as a powerful case study for the R&D Tax Credit, demonstrating how federal and state incentives—when managed by experts like Swanson Reed—can fuel the risk-taking necessary to drive the agricultural economy forward. As the technology moves from the patent office to the field, its legacy will be measured in the millions of gallons of fertilizer saved and the millions of bushels of grain added to the global harvest.

Data Appendix

Table 1: Patent Profile

Feature	Detail
Patent Number	US 12,514,149
Title	Systems and methods for spraying seeds dispensed from a high-speed planter
Inventors	Adam Madison, Anthony Moeder
Assignee	Capstan Ag Systems, Inc.
Application Date	December 23, 2022
Issue Date	January 6, 2026
Award	Kansas Patent of the Month (Selected via AI Analysis)

Table 2: Technical Superiority Matrix

Feature	Traditional In-Furrow	Competitor Brush Systems	Patent 12,514,149 (Capstan)
Application Method	Continuous Stream	Integrated/Continuous	Synchronized Pulse
Speed Limit	~5 mph	10 mph	10+ mph
Product Waste	High (60%+)	Moderate	Low (<10%)
Seed Safety	Low (Dilution required)	Moderate	High (Precise placement)
Retrofit Capability	High	Low (Proprietary)	High (Modular Design)

Table 3: Economic ROI Model (2,500 Acre Farm)

Cost Variable	Standard Approach	Capstan Patent Tech	Net Savings
Chemical Cost/Acre	$40.00	$13.20 (67% reduction)	$26.80
Total Chemical Cost	$100,000	$33,000	$67,000
Yield Gain (Est.)	Baseline	+2 Bu/Acre (Reduced Burn)	$22,500
Total Annual Benefit	—	—	$89,500

Note: Economic model assumes corn prices at $4.50/bu and standard starter fertilizer program costs.