1 the t agency model. set confidential document … · drafting the provisional patent application...
TRANSCRIPT
SAMIZDAT STARTUPS
585-317-7887 (cell)
TRANSFORMATION AGENCY
Anna MargolisDiana FleischmannMax NachamkinPaul Cooper
July 19, 2018
Re: Summary Of The TRANSFORMATION AGENCY Model
This letter will serve as a summary of my understanding of the TRANSFORMATION
AGENCY model for facilitating/curating interactions in startups and other entitiesin order to better enable particularly flatter/flat entity structures. I’ve attached acopy of the TRANSFORMATION AGENCY’s U.S. provisional patent application di-rected to this model, which provides considerable additional detail on topics I onlytouch on briefly in this letter.
Please note I’m basing this letter not only on our numerous interactions and mydrafting the provisional patent application on your model, but also on my ownextensive experiences with startups and larger entities, involvement in numerousentrepreneurship curricula and roughly the last 15 years working as a patent attor-ney and IP/business strategist. I’ve attached a recent resume to more completelyhighlight these qualifications.
1 The TRANSFORMATION AGENCY Model.
The “TRANSFORMATION AGENCY model” is quite extensive, and, in order to cap-ture some sense of that breadth, I’ll lay out a set of problems we’ve discussed thatthe model addresses — the best analogy would be that these are multiple “Mini-mum Viable Products” (“MVPs”), each solving a particular problem that fall withinthe larger ambit of the TRANSFORMATION AGENCY model.
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT�� ��1
SUMMARY OF THE TRANSFORMATION AGENCY MODEL
In that regard, and as set out in more detail in the attached U.S. provisional patentfiling, the TRANSFORMATION AGENCY model consists of a four-point vision of:
1. INTERNALIZED ENTREPRENEURSHIPTM as a self-motivation driver for
2. STRONG VISION SHARINGTM explicitly as both:
(a) STRONG LOGICAL VISION SHARINGTM and
(b) STRONG EMOTIONAL VISION SHARINGTM
to co-locate each individual in terms of capability and extent of reach withinthe larger
3. SHARED VISIONTM — again, both logical and emotional — with the wholestructure built on top of the relatively (if not completely) leveled idea of
4. DISTRIBUTED GOVERNANCETM.
So, in brief, the overarching principle of this model is that people perform best andare happiest when they maximally contribute to a larger structure (INTERNALIZED
ENTREPRENEURSHIPTM), which can be obtained in an environment of continuouscommunication (STRONG VISION SHARINGTM) to obtain a common view (SHARED
VISIONTM), all within a flattened entity structure (DISTRIBUTED GOVERNANCETM).
The elegance of this structure lies particularly in how it directly addresses enhanc-ing communication between entity members, an enormous problem that reverber-ates through all of the MVPs I discuss below.
2 MVP1 — Solving The Problems Of A Lack Of Startup“Emergency Preparedness Procedures” (“EPPs”).
One immediate problem that the TRANSFORMATION AGENCY model directly ad-dresses is that of the need for what we’ve been calling “Emergency PreparednessProcedures” (“EPPs”) for startups or other entities that routinely and inexorablyexperience enormous internal interpersonal stresses without any framework forhandling those stresses.
The most straightforward way to summarize the problem that MVP1 addresses isby way of analogy to emergency landing procedures for commercial airline pas-sengers. Specifically, on a daily basis the FAA handles over 42,000 flights carryingover 2.5 million passengers,1 and each of those flights has a mandatory c. 5 minutesafety training portion, i.e., at least 3,500 hours of flight safety training per day,
1https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers/.
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT�� ��2
SUMMARY OF THE TRANSFORMATION AGENCY MODEL
or roughly 1.2 million hours per year of such training. In 2015 there were 1,282overall plane accidents, 238 of which resulted in a total of 406 fatalities,2 and, whileeven one fatality is a tragedy, in terms of money spent it’s clear there’s an enor-mous expenditure on accident training for a very low accident rate with relativelyfew fatalities.
Now consider what we’ll call the rate of “accidents” in startups, where the termrefers to disrupted human interactions that cost at the very least money — there’sprobably an associated fatality statistic but, if there is, I haven’t yet found it. Thesekinds of accidents occur in startups on a daily (if not hourly) basis, yet there areessentially no EPPs for startups despite this incredibly high incidence rate.
This unmet need is one that the TRANSFORMATION AGENCY model squarely ad-dresses via its elaborated system for intermediating and “cueing” individual inter-actions to reach consenses, i.e., the TRANSFORMATION AGENCY model’s explicitaddressing of human emotional interactions in a work context, something that’shardly commonly practiced in most entities, particularly startups.3
Before moving on to MVP2, I’ll note that this EPP application is so easily under-stood as solving a real problem that I continue to be amazed at how quickly thepeople I work with grasp the concept and the TRANSFORMATION AGENCY solu-tion. I don’t in any way consider the TRANSFORMATION AGENCY model confinedto this particular problem — but this problem is so acute that, even if the modelwere this narrow in its application, there would still be a huge need for this MVPalone.
3 MVP2 — Solving The Problems Of Communication Fail-ures Via Modern “Cue-Depleted” Communications.
The TRANSFORMATION AGENCY model’s systematic approach to human commu-nications also impacts the real problem of modern “cue-depleted” communica-tions, as occur in email or texts or other non-natural modes of human interac-tion.
I address these issues at length in the attached U.S. provisional filing, suffice itto say that biologically-evolved communications involve a rich set of signals —facial, body posture, chemical etc. — all of which are depleted if not entirely absent
2https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/data/Pages/AviationDataStats2015.aspx.
3There’s a lot of room for further discussion of why companies run from emotional issues, I’mtempted to say this is intimately related to the drive to standardization of workers in the industrialrevolution. Put it this way, if you want people to be interchangeable cogs, the last thing you wantthose cogs to exhibit is emotions.
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT�� ��3
SUMMARY OF THE TRANSFORMATION AGENCY MODEL
from modern communications. As a result, those already poorly transmitted andreceived communications are even more garbled, and this is a problem that theTRANSFORMATION AGENCY methodology specifically addresses.
4 MVP3 — Solving The Problems Of “Flat” Management.
The TRANSFORMATION AGENCY solutions in MVP1 and MVP2 above are signifi-cant but relatively modest, at least by comparison to what MVP3 addresses — ob-taining “flat” management, i.e., entity structure based on the removal of as manylayers of management as possible in order to accomplish a lean, maximally pro-ductive and ethically-preferred work structure.
The elegance of what the TRANSFORMATION AGENCY team has done in this regardwas most evident to me when I spent 5 days with them in Boulder. However, I’vespent many years working with and in startups and other small entities, and I’vefound myself using the TRANSFORMATION AGENCY four-point vision on practi-cally a daily basis in my current consulting as well as my role as CEO of a smalluniversity spinout company, Nidus BioSciences.4 All of which constitutes a heartydirect endorsement of the methodology on my part.
While I refer to the attached U.S. provisional filing for the particulars of MVP3,very briefly the TRANSFORMATION AGENCY construct is targeted directly to thecreation of “flat” structures and to the removal of dis-inhibitors of such structures,e.g.:
1. How participants in a flat structure are motivated without a hierarchy thatincentivizes from above;
2. How participants in a flat structure take on tasks without a hierarchy to as-sign them;
3. How communication between participants in a flat structure is strengthenedto ensure no communication failures across the structure; and,
4. How the emotions of participants in a flat structure are brokered manuallyor automatically5 in order to de-escalate conflicts and ensure maximum har-mony and operational efficiency.
Again the attached U.S. provisional filing goes into greater detail on these points.
4http://www.nidusbiosciences.com.5By, e.g., Blockchain- or Etherum- or Holochain-based distributed ledger structures.
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT�� ��4
SUMMARY OF THE TRANSFORMATION AGENCY MODEL
5 Conclusions.
In the above discussions I’ve laid out the bare-bones of the TRANSFORMATION
AGENCY model and three of the problems it addresses. As I have noted through-out this discussion, the attached U.S. provisional filing provides a good deal ofadditional clarity on these points, and I refer the reader to this document for thosedetails.
My overall reaction to the TRANSFORMATION AGENCY system is driven by my di-rect observations of this model at work in the TRANSFORMATION AGENCY’s Boul-der location, as well as by my own experiences with small and larger entities, and,of course, the extensive thought and discussions that underpinned the U.S. provi-sional filing.
I’ll close by saying that I’m excited about what the TRANSFORMATION AGENCY
has done, I’ve been using various aspects of the model on an almost daily basis formy own consulting and company, and, while I think that each additional step inrollout will further refine this model, there’s already a lot there!
Best Regards,
Andrew ScheinmanFederally Registered Patent AttorneyState Licensure, North Carolina
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT�� ��5
SYSTEM FOR CURATING INTERACTIONS INCOWORKING SPACES, STARTUPS AND LARGER ENTITIES
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
[00001] The present invention is directed to systems for facilitating and
reinforcing (“curating”) interactions within preferably more than one group of
interacting individuals, and particularly for curating interactions in cases where
social and other communication cues are lost or inhibited by way of geographic
distance, little previous interactions or the negative consequences of alternative
communication technologies, or some combination thereof.
BACKGROUND
[00002] Humans are social animals and, as such, have evolved a large and
complex set of cues that enable these social interactions. These cues evolved to
operate at short distances, i.e., face-to-face or, at most, within human visual or
audible range. Now, however, technology has made possible remote
interactions that by way of geographical distance and/or mode of communication
lack many if not most of these biological cues. Email or text messages, for
example, lack any cues as to facial expression, voice tone, posture, chemical
cues etc., all of which evolved as critical cues for social interaction. As a result,
such communications are easily misinterpreted because of this lack of these
1
APPENDIX I — TRANSFORMATION AGENCY U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
valuable and biologically-derived information sources, as any user of email or
text messaging can attest.
[00003] In light of the above there is a need for systems to restore one or
more of these biologically-important social cues to modern human
communications, particularly in situations where social interactions are critical to
the operation of the group or collection of groups (“entity”). A startup, for
example, typically involves a group or groups of people geographically dispersed
and with little familiarity with one another who are suddenly assembled (or
assembled and disassembled on an ad hoc basis) to accomplish sophisticated
goals requiring a high level of communication and coordination. In such a
situation there is a particular need for a system or systems for facilitating
interactions within and among the members of this group or groups by restoring
biological cues and/or providing substitute cues.
[00004] The present invention specifically addresses the needs outlined
above.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
[00005] The present invention is directed to directed to systems for
facilitating and reinforcing (“curating”) interactions within preferably more than
one group of interacting individuals, and particularly for curating interactions in
cases where social and other communication cues are lost or inhibited by way of
2
APPENDIX I — TRANSFORMATION AGENCY U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
geographic distance, little previous interactions or the negative consequences of
alternative communication technologies, or some combination thereof.
[00006] Thus in embodiment 1 the present invention is directed to a
computer-implemented method for curating interactions, comprising
implementation of any of the algorithms of Figure 7-9 on a computer system.
[00007] The above list of embodiments is non-limiting, and other
embodiments of the present invention are presented below.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[00008] Applicants note that the figures are provided as non-limiting
illustrative examples of various aspects of the present invention and that the
present invention is explicitly not limited to only these illustrative examples.
[00009] Figure 1 provides a schematic illustration of the distinction made in
this document between “face-to-face” interactions as a paradigm for human
interactions that occur with the distance and communication parameters of
evolved social interactions and “long distance (cue-depleted)” interactions, which
are outside these evolved interactions in that they lack one or more biological
cues.
[000010] Figure 2 provides a schematic illustration of three groups of
(respectively) 5 (group 1), 1 (group 2; note that groups may contain a single
individual, but that more than one individual is a generally preferred
configuration) and 3 (group 3) individuals. In this figure these groups are shown
3
APPENDIX I — TRANSFORMATION AGENCY U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
as interacting bidirectionally (lines with arrowheads at both ends) without
specifying exact individual intergroup interactions; within groups, all individuals
are shown as able to interact bidirectionally with all other individuals in that
group. This configuration is for illustrative purposes only and does not limit the
invention in terms of other subsets of interactions, e.g., only one-way interactions
between only a few members of a particular group, etc..
[000011] Figure 3 provides a schematic illustration of a more complex set of
interactions between 5 groups; in this figure intra-group interactions are not
detailed. Purely for illustrative purposes, in this figure group 5 is twice as large
as the other groups, does not interact in any way with groups 1 or 3 and interacts
only unidirectionally (line with single arrowhead) with group 2.
[000012] Figure 4 provides a schematic illustration of localized intra-group
interactions along a “localizing axis,” by way of analogy to the biological
development example provided in the present invention. In this illustration each
group is oriented along a hypothetical informational axis (rightward-pointing grey
arrow) that informs each group of its role in the larger entity. Each of the three
groups shown then intermediates within itself to determine what specialization
each group member undertakes. Note that group 2 consists of only a single
member; this is explicitly an allowed configuration of a group, but groups with
more than one individual are generally preferred.
[000013] Figure 5 provides a schematic illustration of a simple polling/rating
scheme, in which individuals 1-5 are polled in order to individually rate individual
6 by some methodology, e.g., a numeric score between 1 and 10. In this
4
APPENDIX I — TRANSFORMATION AGENCY U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
illustration, each of the ratings are collected and the 5 results are presented to
individual 6 for review.
[000014] Figure 6 provides a schematic illustration of a more complex
polling/rating scheme, in which the individual ratings of individual 6 provided by
each of individuals 1-5 are aggregated and presented as a single summary
number to individual 6 with the goal of obfuscating the exact rating provided by
any particular individual 1-5 of individual 6. “Aggregation” includes (but is not
limited to) average + variance.
[000015] Figure 7 provides a simplified flow chart of a polling/rating scheme
such as that presented in Figure 5.
[000016] Figure 8 provides a variation of the flow chart of Figure 6 in which
reporting of the aggregated score is contingent upon there being a sufficient
number (greater than “minimum”) of individuals providing a score before the
aggregated score is reported. This prevents reporting when only a few
individuals have provided ratings, i.e., prevents de-obfuscation of the aggregated
score. As discussed in the specification, this decision-making can be deployed
via a smart-contracts platform such as Ethereum, providing a greater level of
data protection.
[000017] Figure 9 provides an exemplary payload deconvolution scheme for
separating out (deconvoluting) the emotional and logical payload contents of a
communication prior to transmission of the communication.
5
APPENDIX I — TRANSFORMATION AGENCY U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION
[000018] The present invention is directed to systems for facilitating and
reinforcing (“curating”) interactions within preferably more than one group of
interacting individuals, and particularly for curating interactions in cases where
social and other communication cues are lost or inhibited by way of geographic
distance, little previous interactions or the negative consequences of alternative
communication technologies, or some combination thereof.
1. Evolved (“Face-to-Face”) Versus Long-Distance “Cue-Depleted” Social
Interactions
[000019] As discussed, human beings are social animals and, as such, have
evolved a highly elaborated system of cues for social interactions over short
distances, e.g., visual- or audible-range interactions ( “face-to-face” interactions).
These cues include: visual (facial expression, body posture, etc.), audible cues
(for, e.g., language, pitch, volume etc. indicative of emotional state), chemical
cues (e.g., pheromones or stress hormones), etc.
[000020] Humans of course have evolved not merely by genetic change but
also by way of culture, which can be conveniently envisioned as an information
repository like the genome but external to human biology, and on a much larger
and more rapidly changing scale. One obvious result is the accrual of technology
and, with it, modes of human communication that lack one or more evolved
biological communication cues, e.g., communication at a distance or by writing,
texting, email, etc.
6
APPENDIX I — TRANSFORMATION AGENCY U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
[000021] Figure 1 shows these two situations, where “long-distance”
communications are indicated as “cue-depleted” to emphasize their difference
from evolved interactions. Note that “cue-depleted” interactions is intended as a
broadly-defined term, and does explicitly include older forms of cue-depleted
interactions such as writing and telephonic communications. That said, the term
is particularly intended to encompass the kind of social interactions that occur in
the modern business or social worlds with access to high technology, e.g.,
interactions by email, texting, internet-based collaborative platform, etc., and the
combination of these modes of interaction.
[000022] Also note that “social interactions” as used in this document refers
to “social” in the sense of human-to-human interactions generically, as opposed
to, for example, “social” in the specific sense of a party or celebration. Thus
whether the interaction is personal, at work or elsewhere it is still a “social
interaction” as used in this document.
2. “Cue-Depleted” Communications Inhibit Social Interactions, And This
Effect Is Cumulative
[000023] As already noted, human evolution is primarily non-biological,
which is to say it occurs most rapidly via culture, not by genetic change. In this
regard, consider the enormous changes in culture over the last 10,000 years
(agriculture, domesticated animals, housing, technology, etc.) versus the
comparatively trivial changes in the human genome over the same period.
7
APPENDIX I — TRANSFORMATION AGENCY U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
[000024] With the advent of high technology humanity now has developed
tools for long-distance interactions, which, as discussed, typically lack one or
more of the social cues of evolved (“Face-to-Face”) interactions. In this regard,
consider face-to-face communication versus a phone call versus a text message.
Clearly a text message possesses none of the rich vocal and postural and
chemical cues of a face-to-face interaction; even a phone call is, by comparison,
a relatively cue-laden form of communication, although still not as rich with
information as is a face-to-face social interaction.
[000025] Given the above it is hardly surprising that, as much as these long-
distance cue-depleted modes of communication are intended to aide in social
interactions, in fact they regularly have the opposite effect, particularly when they
are relied on as the sole means of interaction either because of exigent
circumstances (geographical distance) or by actual planning (e.g., intra-entity
messaging applications designed to supplant/replace face-to-face interactions,
voice calls, etc. in, for example, the name of efficiency).
[000026] Furthermore, the cumulative effects of humans communicating by
these cue-depleted means can be still more severe, particularly for
communications within a group or groups of humans forming a business entity
such as a startup, where effective communications are particularly critical to the
function and survival of the entity. A software startup, for example, may be
formed as a dispersed group of coders, salespeople, account managers, etc.,
whose prior experience with one another is small; while such a virtual company is
theoretically efficient because it requires little infrastructure, communications via
8
APPENDIX I — TRANSFORMATION AGENCY U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
cue-depleted means (again, shared-work platforms, texting, etc.) can obliterate
any such efficiency by garbling interactions to the point that coordination and
esprit-de-corps are destroyed.
3. “Cue-Depleted” Interactions In The Context Of Modern (“Flat”)
Management Structures
[000027] Various economists and business thought leaders now strongly
espouse the idea of a “leveled” or “flat” management structure as a model for
modern businesses. In such “flat” structures there are few if any layers of
managers interposed between workers and senior management, in contrast to a
“hierarchical” management structure with multiple layers of middle managers.
One impetus for this movement is certainly data regarding inefficiencies
introduced by middle-management-heavy organizational structures; another is
the argument that such structures are neither natural nor inevitable in human
organizations, and rather arose specifically during the industrial revolution when
the assembly line model of production favored top-down control of workers and,
consequently, an explosion of multiple layers of middle-management.
[000028] In this regard, consider the management expert Gary Hamel’s view
that there are more productive management models than that of strict hierarchy.
Thus, Hamel writes, regarding the auto manufacturer Toyota, “Unlike its Western
rivals, Toyota has long believed that first-line employees can be more than cogs
in a soulless manufacturing machine; they can be problem solvers, innovators,
and change agents. While American companies relied on staff experts to come
9
APPENDIX I — TRANSFORMATION AGENCY U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
up with process improvements, Toyota gave every employee the skills, the tools,
and the permission to solve problems as they arose and to head off new
problems before they occurred.” (Harvard Business Review, 2006, available at
hbr.org/2006/02/the-why-what-and-how-of-management-innovation).
[000029] As a result of the work of Hamel and others there are now a variety
of innovative models for implementing “flat” management models, some based
on interpersonal training and incremental changes to the common hierarchical
organizational structures corporations use, while other models go much further to
radically alter the older hierarchical models. Thus for example there are a
number of platforms that implement organizational structure and decision-making
based on software that “automatically” executes decisions based on polled
human input, e.g., “Decentralized Autonomous Organization” (“DAO”) structures,
which are (for example) based on distributed ledger technologies such as the
“blockchain” distributed ledger system. See, e.g.,
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decentralized_autonomous_organization.
[000030] While the “flat” management models briefly discussed above are
extremely varied in their structures and approaches, they all attempt to deal with
at least two critical functions that any organization must reliably accomplish: 1) to
create a robust system for making and propagating decisions among and
between the members of the entity; and, 2) to robustly and verifiably distribute
resources – including monetary resources – among and between the entity’s
members.
10
APPENDIX I — TRANSFORMATION AGENCY U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
[000031] While these systems aim to provide a highly valuable endpoint,
they immediately run afoul of the problems of “cue-depleted” interactions
discussed earlier. That is, all these systems rely to a fairly large extent on
modern technology to broker human communications and decision-making and,
as a result, bring with them all the problems that modern “cue-depleted”
communications carry. A blockchain or other form of distributed ledger system
may provide the exceptional security and authentication needed for less
hierarchical business models, e.g., for an entity distributed geographically and
engaging in ad hoc structure formation and dissolution. But the underlying cue-
deficiencies in the human interactions secured and authenticated by the
distributed ledger system still offers every opportunity for accentuating problems
in communication that result from these modern “cue-depleted” communication
means.
4. General (Non-Limiting) Overview Of The Inventive “Curated
Communications” Solutions To “Cue-Depleted” Communications Problems
[000032] In the present invention Applicants address the “cue-depletion”
problem described above by a framework that combines 1) a training curriculum
that provides a conceptual framework for the problem itself and 2) a structure for
implementing an ongoing system for actively combating this problem, including
not just training but also preferably 3) reinforcement software that “curates”
interactions to restore at least some of the cues that are otherwise lost from
these interactions. The non-limiting rationale for this approach is that:
11
APPENDIX I — TRANSFORMATION AGENCY U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
A) Individuals must be trained to understand the pervasiveness and
severity of the problem so that they will modify their behaviors to
compensate appropriately; and,
B) Part of the structure for addressing the problem is to provide a
system that aides in restoring communication cues, where such
restoration is by way of conscious “curation” of interactions by the
individuals involved, and also preferably includes semi- or fully-
automated curation as may be obtained by Artificial Intelligence
(“AI”) methods, deep learning, neural nets or the like.
[000033] Thus in this general exemplary (non-limiting) two-part framework,
Applicants A) provide a structure (conceptual framework) that highlights the
problem and provides training in the variety of “Curated Communication(TM)”
solutions Applicants provide, where those solutions B) preferably include semi- or
fully-automated “Curated Communication(TM)” systems/software that address
and help compensate for the lack of communication cues.
5. An Exemplary Conceptual Framework Of The Inventive “Curated
Communications(TM)” Solutions – The Concept Of "Shared Vision(TM)"
[000034] As discussed above, in a non-limiting but preferred embodiment the
present invention is directed to a two-part framework for addressing the problems
of “cue-depleted” communications, first, a conceptual training framework for
understanding the problem and the preferred solutions; and, second, those
solutions themselves.
12
APPENDIX I — TRANSFORMATION AGENCY U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
[000035] With regard to the first of these two parts – the conceptual
framework – the preferred (but explicitly non-limiting) framework for this part of
the present invention is directed towards a structure based on the concept of
"Shared Vision(TM)" in which the problem of cue-depletion is directly addressed
in a framework of explicit collaboration on the part of entity members in creating a
statement of the members of a vision that they all explicitly subscribe to.
Because all the members of the group subscribe to the same shared vision they
obtain better communications and therefore are better equipped to overcome the
problems of cue-depleted communications.
[000036] In this non-limiting framework "Shared Vision(TM)" is an agreed-
upon vision that the entire group may share, or it may instead be a vision shared
by a subset of the entire group, e.g., a subgroup of the whole entity, which
Applicants will refer to synonymously as a “sphere” of the entire entity. Thus if
there are for example 100 people in the entity, 2 may share a particular shared
vision, another 97 may share a second shared vision, and a third group (sphere)
of only a single person may have a third shared vision (note that although a
group/sphere of one is contemplated, more than one in a group is preferred). In
this example there are therefore three groups/spheres, each with its own shared
vision.
[000037] Note that "Shared Vision(TM)" as used herein also explicitly
contemplates a situation where a single group may share a single vision within
itself (intra-group vision) and a different vision in a relationship with another
group or groups (inter-group vision). Thus for example Figure 2 shows three
13
APPENDIX I — TRANSFORMATION AGENCY U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
groups of respectively 5 individuals (group 1), 1 individual (group 2) and 3
individuals (group 3), where all the individuals within each group interact with all
the other individuals in that group (intra-group interactions, shown as double-
arrow lines within each group bounding box), and where each group interacts
with every other group (inter-group interactions, shown as double-arrow lines
between group bounding boxes). In this example groups 1, 2 and 3 may have
shared visions 1, 2 and 3 (i.e., SV1, SV2 and SV3) respectively, while groups 1
and 2 may have a shared vision 4 (SV4), groups 1 and 3 a shared vision 5 (SV5),
groups 2 and 3 a shared vision 6 (SV6), and all of the groups together a shared
vision 7 (SV7).
[000038] Figure 3 provides an example where only inter-group interactions
are shown, and where some groups interact bidirectionally (lines with
arrowheads at both ends) with all other groups (e.g., group 4), some groups
interact bidirectionally with a subset of all the groups (e.g., group 3, which
interacts with groups 1, 2 and 4 but not with group 5), and one group interacts
bidirectionally with one group (group 5 interacting with group 4) and only
unidirectionally with another group (group 5 interacting with group 2). This
example illustrates two features of the present invention: A) vision sharing can be
a complex process depending upon the inter-group connections between groups;
and, B) groups can sometimes interact “unidirectionally” (group 5 with group 2,
and group 2 with group 5), where such unidirectional interaction indicates that, by
definition, there can be no shared vision, because the interaction is only
unidirectional and not bidirectional.
14
APPENDIX I — TRANSFORMATION AGENCY U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
[000039] "Shared Vision(TM)" as used herein also is intended to explicitly
contemplate a vision that, while shared by a group/sphere, changes over time as
the vision of the group changes. In other words, a shared vision is mutable, and
indeed almost inevitably evolves as the needs and outlooks of the members of
the group evolve.
6. A Developmental Biology Analogy For The "Shared Vision(TM)" Concept
Of The Present Invention
[000040] It is useful at this point to provide a non-limiting biological analogy
for the "Shared Vision(TM)" concept of the present invention. Like any analogy,
this particular analogy is not intended to be transferrable to the present invention
in each and every detail; on the other hand, it does serve to provide a non-
limiting conceptual framework in which to ground the present invention.
[000041] Thus a significant problem in biology is to understand how a single
cell can via the process of development divide to ultimately give rise to millions or
billions of progeny of different specializations (i.e., “differentiated” cells) all
correctly located within the spatial geography of the developed organism. A
fertilized human egg, for example, is a single cell that during a development
period of a mere 9 months gives rise with a high rate of success to a complete
human being.
[000042] One possible way of controlling this process is to have each cell
contain within it what would effectively be an “address” of what that cell should
become, with that address provided by the cell from which it derives, and so on
15
APPENDIX I — TRANSFORMATION AGENCY U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
back to the first (single) cell. In this strict hierarchical model each cell effectively
tells its children cells what to become, and each dutifully goes on to specialize to
(differentiate to) the role its parent dictated.
[000043] This process can almost immediately be seen to be unworkable
because the amount of information that must be passed along to provide the
requisite addressing would occupy a vast amount of the coding capacity of the
organism’s genetic material (DNA or RNA). Even more critically, a strict
hierarchical model is brittle with regard to errors in specification of cell type from
one level of the hierarchy to the next, that is, communication errors in addressing
will be lethal at a high rate because the system is so rigidly structured.
[000044] Note that this problem is not confined simply to errors of cell
specification, but also to errors resulting from the death, inactivation,
incapacitation etc. of specified (committed) cells, that is, in situations where
certain cells have progressed down a pathway of specificity only to suddenly lose
that capacity in one way or another including, ultimately, cell death. Thus for
example a rigid system in which each cell became more specified relative to its
parent cell would immediately fail when one or more of those children cells died,
since in this rigid system their function could not be replaced.
[000045] Finally, a rigid hierarchy is highly immutable with regard to the
system’s needing to cope with a changing environment. That is, if a rigidly
hierarchical system of development is brittle with regard to addressing
transmission errors or cell incapacitation/death, it is equally brittle with regard to
16
APPENDIX I — TRANSFORMATION AGENCY U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
the system having to cope with changes in environment that might alter
development.
[000046] Rather than strict hierarchy in development, biological systems
regularly employ a system of distributed addressing, or distributed control, or
what may conveniently be called "Distributed Governance(TM)," which
Applicants will use as the preferred term in the present invention. Such a system
functions in essentially two parts: 1) a small set of cells set up a chemical
gradient of “morphogen(s)” that will act as a kind of GPS localization system for
cells in the developing organism to use to determine where they are in the
geography of the organism; and, 2) within each geographic region as defined by
the level of the morphogen(s) in that region, the cells in that area will mediate
(communicate) between themselves as to how to specialize for whatever cell
types are required in that region. See, e.g.,
courses.biology.utah.edu/bastiani/3230/DB%20Lecture/Lectures/b14Limb.html
7. A Command-And-Control Analogy For The "Shared Vision(TM)" Concept
Of The Present Invention
[000047] An additional non-limiting model is a strictly hierarchical military
command-and-control situation on one hand versus a commando-type structure.
In the hierarchical model soldiers act as instructed by higher officers in the chain
of command, a structure that works well in relatively static situations where
communications up and down the chain are reliable and of low error. On the
other hand, in situations where the fog of war prevails and communications are
17
APPENDIX I — TRANSFORMATION AGENCY U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
intermittent and of poor quality, a commando structure where highly trained
soldiers (e.g., special forces such as SEALs) are given overall mission
requirements and kept in communication as the situation permits, but within the
context of their mission they work out between themselves what they each need
to do to accomplish that mission. And, if one member of the team is
incapacitated or killed, ongoing communication between the remaining active
members of the team will lead to assumption of that member’s duties by one or
more of the remaining team members, a dynamic process that leads to great
robustness with regard to team mission.
[000048] Thus in the present invention the "Shared Vision(TM)" concept can
straightforwardly be analogized to the "Distributed Governance(TM)" structure
described above for biological development or for commando-type military
situations. Again this analogy is not intended to be limiting of the present
invention but rather to add additional perspective and meaning to the
methodology the present invention utilizes.
8. "Shared Vision(TM)" As Enabled By "Strong Vision Sharing(TM)" Within
A "Distributed Governance(TM)" Framework
[000049] Figure 4 provides a non-limiting illustration of a preferred
embodiment of the present invention as informed by the biological and military
discussions above. Specifically, this figure provides a schematic illustration of
localized intra-group interactions along a “localizing axis” by way of analogy to
the biological development example provided in the present invention along a
18
APPENDIX I — TRANSFORMATION AGENCY U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
morphogen-gradient localizing axis. In this illustration each group is oriented
along a hypothetical informational localization axis (rightward-pointing grey
arrow) that informs each group of its role in the larger entity. Each of the three
groups shown then intermediates within itself to determine what specialization
each group member undertakes within the group’s role in the larger entity.
[000050] Note that with regard to the nature of the “localizing axis,” this axis
informs each group of its role in the larger entity, where this may occur by a
number of explicitly contemplated (and non-limiting) means. As a simple
example, an organizational chart can provide this function, although the guidance
of an entity’s CEO, visionary, board of directors, investors, etc. is preferred. Aslo
preferred is such function as emerges from mediation between groups of
interacting individuals within the larger entity, and other scenarios are also
explicitly contemplated.
[000051] To summarize this figure, 1) each of the groups shown takes its
role by way of the localizing axis; 2) each group intermediates within the group to
negotiate specialization; and, for this non-limiting example, 3) none of the groups
in this figure interact with any of the other groups. Applicants explicitly
contemplate inter-group interactions in some situations, that is, even when a
group determines its overall role by way of the localization axis, groups will
sometimes intermediate between each other for further role specialization.
[000052] Figure 4 serves as the launching point for a discussion of a number
of other critical concepts in the present invention, including 1) "Strong Vision
Sharing(TM)," and 2) "Distributed Governance(TM)". Again referring to the
19
APPENDIX I — TRANSFORMATION AGENCY U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
earlier discussion of analogies to models for biological development, many
complex organisms develop from a single cell by way of a morphogen gradient
and localized intermediation of cells geographically positioned along that
gradient. In such systems localized intermediation between the cells is generally
more than a single interaction; rather, it is an ongoing set of interactions, since
regular information exchange between these cells is required in order to
overcome, say, deaths of some cells or communication errors between cells.
[000053] This situation is one that is paralleled for the structures of the
entities contemplated in the present invention, and Applicants refer to this
continual refreshing of shared vision with a group/sphere/cluster as "Strong
Vision Sharing(TM)". Applicants have chosen this phrasing to emphasize that
information is 1) regularly shared between the members of the group in order to
2) continually update and 3) continually align the shared vision that the group
possesses, and the word “strong” is used to emphasize how important this
continual refreshing of the group’s vision is.
[000054] The present invention therefore preferably contemplates "Shared
Vision(TM)" as reinforced in an ongoing way by "Strong Vision Sharing(TM)",
where both of these concepts occur within the overall structure of the entity –
which is to say, "Distributed Governance(TM)". Applicants have chosen this term
to explicitly label the fundamental concept captured of a system that is not rigidly
hierarchical, but instead is coordinated by localized intermediated interactions of
localized groups within the larger structure as laid by, for example, a “localizing
axis” or axes.
20
APPENDIX I — TRANSFORMATION AGENCY U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
9. "Internalized Entrepreneurship(TM)"
[000055] Applicants will introduce one more concept that informs the present
invention, that of "Internalized Entrepreneurship(TM)", which is readily
analogized to the local intermediating of cells in the biological model that results
in these cells selecting their own specializations within the communicated signals
and needs of their neighbors. As already discussed, what may be called this
“individual cell empowerment” in terms of specialization is in contrast to a
hierarchical model, where specialization is dictated top-down. For an entity of
interacting groups of individuals the principle is even more clear: each individual
is explicitly empowered to chart her/his own path within the context of the needs
of the localized group. That is, each individual will display at least some
reasonable degree of "Internalized Entrepreneurship(TM)".
10. Overview Of Preferred Implementations Of The Present Invention
[000056] Earlier in this document Applicants described the preferred
embodiment of the present invention as directed to a two-part framework for
addressing the problems of “cue-depleted” communications, first, a conceptual
training framework for understanding the problem and the preferred solutions;
and, second, those solutions themselves. In the prior discussion Applicants set
forth the preferred conceptual framework of the present invention of:
1. "Internalized Entrepreneurship(TM)";
2. "Shared Vision(TM)";
3. "Strong Vision Sharing(TM)" to reinforce and cement shared vision; and,
21
APPENDIX I — TRANSFORMATION AGENCY U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
4. "Distributed Governance(TM)" as the overall framework that enables this
system.
[000057] In the examples that follow, Applicants will set forth a number of
preferred but non-limiting methodologies for the implementation of the preferred
conceptual framework described above.
Example 1 --- “Curated Communications(TM)” Via Simple Polling/Rating
[000058] As already discussed, in the present invention information “Curated
Communication(TM)” is preferably obtained by 1) regular communication
between the members of a group (but not limited to a single group, instead
including multiple groups or the whole entity) in order to 2) continually update and
3) continually align the shared vision that the group (or groups or entity)
possesses, and the word “strong” is used to emphasize how important this
continual communication is.
[000059] In this example, “Curated Communication(TM)” is facilitated by a
simple polling/rating schema, an example of which is provided in Figure 5. In this
figure, intra-group communication is via a polling/rating schema, I.e., individuals
1-5 are polled manually or by automated computer software in order to
individually rate individual 6 by some methodology, e.g., a numeric score
between 1 and 10. This process is then repeated for individual 1 (rated by
individuals 2-6), individual 2 (rated by individuals 1 and 3-6) etc., each of whom
receive their own group rating. Polling may be on a periodic time interval (e.g., 1
or 2 week interval), or event-driven (e.g., post major document preparation
22
APPENDIX I — TRANSFORMATION AGENCY U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
across the group, deliverable production etc.), or triggered by the request of
some threshold number of members of the group, etc.
[000060] Thus Figure 5 provides an example system where members of a
group have an enforced feedback system to create “Curated
Communications(TM)”. The schema shown in this figure may be
disadvantageous if the rating of each member of the group is reported to the
rated member, since this unfiltered reporting may provoke ill-will between group
members. Figure 6 provides an example of a rating scheme in which the ratings
by group members of a single member are aggregated in order to obfuscate the
rating given by any particular group member, thus preventing the rated member
from knowing how she/he was evaluated by any individual member. Although a
variety of obfuscated rating methods are contemplated, one preferred scheme is
that the rating reported is the average rating and the variance of the ratings, i.e.,
a scheme in which an individual will know her/his average and also how wide or
tight a range of agreement the other group members exhibit regarding that rating.
[000061] Figure 7 provides a flowchart illustrating the general logical
elements involved in a obfuscated rating system, in brief a rating method is
selected, ratings are gathered and aggregated by the selected method, and are
then reported out. This figure illustrates how easily this system may be
implemented on a computer, and shows the variety of such computer-
implemented methods that can be obtained.
[000062] Figure 8 provides a variant of the schema of Figure 7 in which
reporting is not automatically performed after aggregation; instead, reporting is
23
APPENDIX I — TRANSFORMATION AGENCY U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
only done if the number of individuals providing a score for aggregation exceeds
some minimum number. Thus the schema of Figure 7 contains no explicit
prohibition against reporting when only a single group member or subset of the
entire group provides rating information, a situation where the identity of the
rating member(s) could be obvious to the rated member of the group. If, for
example, rating was invoked after a critical deadline and one member rated was
at significant odds with another member of the group, that rated member might
expect a single rating to come from that other member, which would only further
inflame already hostile relations between the two.
[000063] The computer-implementable flowchart of Figure 8 specifically
deals with such situations by requiring some minimum number of individuals
provide a rating in order for that rating – in aggregated or other form – to be
reported out. Applicants contemplate that this minimum threshold could in some
circumstances be fixed, but may also be varied depending upon the nature of the
rating to be done. For equity or revenue allocations, for example, it may be
appropriate to require a much higher minimum threshold (or even that all group
members participate) as opposed to more minor rating events.
Example 2 --- “Curated Communications(TM)” And Emotional And Logical
Payload Deconvolution
[000064] The ultimate goal of the “Curated Communications(TM)” of the
present invention is to restore one or more of the biological cues that are
24
APPENDIX I — TRANSFORMATION AGENCY U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
intimately tied in to human communications in order to enable/facilitate those
cue-restored communications.
[000065] In this regard, it is convenient to subdivide any communication into
1) an emotional payload and 2) a logical payload. In this approach Applicants
contemplate that a “communication” when appropriately cued will deliver
whatever action/decision-making information is required and also an emotional
“wrapper” around that action/decision-making information that either facilitates or
inhibits the processing of the communication by its recipient.
[000066] Consider, for example, communication between the founders of a
startup over an equity reallocation event, such as would occur with an input of
outside investment money. On the one hand the bare terms of this allocation can
be clearly communicated as a term-sheet or other short legal summary, however,
the emotional impact of such a reallocation event on the founder relationships is
usually profound, and in the present invention Applicants explicitly contemplate
systems for identifying, characterizing and conveying both these logical and
emotional components. Applicants will preferably refer to this system as one of
“deconvolution” of these two payloads of a communication, the logical payload
and the emotional payload.
[000067] In this regard, Figure 9 provides an exemplary payload
deconvolution scheme for deconvoluting the emotional and logical payload
contents of a communication prior to transmission of the communication. In this
scheme 1) an initial attempt is made by the composer of the message to
deconvolute the emotions from the logic/action, with a re-review of this process
25
APPENDIX I — TRANSFORMATION AGENCY U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
either if the emotional content is high and/or the deconvolution is, upon review,
inadequate. Although the algorithm of Figure 9 is non-limiting it captures the
fundamental goal of this aspect of the present invention of implementing a
standard-operating-procedure (“SOP”) for better cueing of communications by
explicitly evaluating the emotional as well as logical components (payloads) of
the communications.
[000068] The invention has been described in detail with particular reference
to a presently preferred embodiment, but it will be understood that variations and
modifications can be effected within the spirit and scope of the invention. The
presently disclosed embodiments are therefore considered in all respects to be
illustrative and not restrictive. The scope of the invention is indicated by the
appended embodiments, and all changes that come within the meaning and
range of equivalents thereof are intended to be embraced therein.
26
APPENDIX I — TRANSFORMATION AGENCY U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
Embodiments of the Present Invention:
1. A computer-implemented method for curating interactions, comprising
implementation of any of the algorithms of Figure 7-9 on a computer system.
27
APPENDIX I — TRANSFORMATION AGENCY U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
ABSTRACT
[000069] The present invention is directed to systems for facilitating and
reinforcing (“curating”) interactions within preferably more than one group of
interacting individuals, and particularly for curating interactions in cases where
social and other communication cues are lost or inhibited by way of geographic
distance, little previous interactions or the negative consequences of alternative
communication technologies, or some combination thereof.
28
APPENDIX I — TRANSFORMATION AGENCY U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
Figure 1 – Social Interactions And Cues
Figure 2 – Inter- and Intra-group Interactions
29
APPENDIX I — TRANSFORMATION AGENCY U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
Figure 3 – Exemplary Inter-group Interactions
30
APPENDIX I — TRANSFORMATION AGENCY U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
Figure 5 – Simple Polling/Rating Schema
31
APPENDIX I — TRANSFORMATION AGENCY U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
Figure 6 – Obfuscated Polling/Rating Schema
Figure 7 – Exemplary Obfuscated Polling/Rating Flowchart
32
APPENDIX I — TRANSFORMATION AGENCY U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
Figure 8 – Obfuscated Polling For Distributed Ledger
33
APPENDIX I — TRANSFORMATION AGENCY U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
Figure 9 – Exemplary Payload Deconvolution Scheme
34
APPENDIX I — TRANSFORMATION AGENCY U.S. PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
Andrew Scheinman H +1 (585) 317 7887B [email protected]
Highlighted Skills & AccomplishmentsIncubatorFormation
Incubator/Accelerator Planning & Formation.All aspects of incubator/accelerator planning, including identification of success metrics, physicalspace selection considerations, tenant composition, entrepreneur recruitment and curriculumfor hothouse growth of companies.
Consulting Entrepreneur/Founder Consulting.Long record of success advising/assisting/engaging with entrepreneur(s)/founder(s) to de-velop/refine business tactics & strategy.
Management Business Management and Operations.Extensive direct experience managing company business development/growth, including partic-ularly in interim/advisory roles, where direction-setting is particularly critical.
Fundraising Company Financing and Fundraising.Successfully fundraised under a large number of circumstances and from different sources.Particularly adept at constructing and refining business strategy to increase likelihood ofbusiness success and therefore increase chances of funding. Great depth in leveraging scientificand legal (patent) skills to solidify product development and IP strategy for diligence reviews.
Spinouts &Startups
Spinouts and Startups.Skill set highly developed for early-stage companies, with over 15 years of experience withspinout and startup high-technology companies.
Science &Legal
Scientific and Legal Qualifications.{ Ph.D., UCLA, Biology & Molecular Biology, Multiple Scholarships, Honors & Awards.{ Patent Attorney with 15+ years experience.
Company Management, Strategy & Development Experience2016 – Now CEO, Nidus BioSciences, Rochester, NY.
Managing all aspects of a University of Rochester startup developing a pioneering “MicrobubbleArray” technology for single cell growth for a variety of high-tech biological endpoints includingdevelopment of biological drugs. Engaging in all aspects of company movement from withinthe University of Rochester to a free-standing commercial enterprise, including technologylicensing, strategy for separate IP and laying down of that IP, location of a commercial spacefor fabrication and R&D, personnel decisions, fundraising, rolodexing both in terms of academicand industrial partners, management of scientific founders time and IP ownership, etc.
1/7
APPENDIX II — SCHEINMAN RESUME
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
2016 Business Consultant, MicroEra Power, Rochester, NY.Paid strategist/mentor to MicroEra Power for the commercialization of their multi-functionhigh-efficiency and low-polluting generator solution. Engaging in critical infrastructure tasksfor this young company, including setting business direction, establishing VOC (“Voice ofCustomer”) conversations to determine likely markets and partners, IP strategy, coaching inbusiness presentations and fundraising, production of technology roadmap, introductions tokey players in Upstate New York in the energy markets, etc.
2016 Board Member, Ahead Energy, Rochester, NY.Board member for a non-profit dedicated to developing advanced energy solutions in the US andabroad. Specific focus on intergrating Ahead Energy’s new building and the multi-million-dollarfuel cell resources in it into Ahead’s larger non-profit mission. Duties inlude non-profit’s strategyfor fulfilling mission, legal issues related to technology development and building use, personnelissues, integration into and leverage of Rochester’s startup community as well as universitiesand other entrepreneurial resources.
2013 Business Consultant, GradFly, Rochester, NY.Engaged in business advising/business development strategy for GradFly, a startup web-basedcompany that connect high school STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering & Math) studentsto college recruiters via a platform of project-based portfolios and data-mining metrics.
2013 Chief Scientist/IP Counsel, StrongArm Technologies, Rochester, NY & Boston, MA.Engaged in developing validation model for StrongArm core device and variations, with validationinvolving all aspects of coordination with outside ergonomists, test labs and customers. IPdevelopment strategy includes full-deployment of international patent protection for all aspectsof StrongArm’s product line.
2012 – 2013 Business Consultant/Acting COO, StrongArm Technologies, Rochester, NY.Engaged in all aspects of developing company from student enterprise to credible manufacturerof lifting-safety devices. Coached founders for business plan competitions, leading to winsin Rochester, Albany, and as one of the four prize-winning finalists in the Mass Challengecompetition, with a $100,000 prize for each finalist. Planned for and successfully executed testingof device at local business partners (Rochester, Syracuse) and at national headquarters of majorBig-Box chain (Minneapolis, MN), resulting in letter of interest and commitment to testing offinalized product. Developed IP strategy and associated IP, coordinated/planned/executed onall aspects of fundraising, resulting in (to date) $200,000 in funds raised from angel sources,with c. $600,000 additional expected to be raised.
2011 – 2012 Product Strategy/Patent Counsel, Graphene Devices Limited, Rochester, NY.Developed and deployed proprietary software to review company portfolio of advanced materialinventions in light of huge number of extant publications and prior patents in the field. On thebasis of this review developed focused set of likely patentable product areas, and IP strategyto develop patent filings in those areas, and used this strategy to set direction for GDL’sR&D program. Guided discussions with development partners and defined partnership goalsand IP strategy to allow for accomplishment of those goals. Engaged in all aspects relatingto fundraising, including grant writing, preparation of pitch deck and presentation materials,interaction with angel and professional investors. Fundraising resulted in significant investmentsfrom various Federal and State entities.
2/7
APPENDIX II — SCHEINMAN RESUME
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
2010 – 2012 Principle/Co-Founder, The Avout Group, LLC., Rochester, NY.Co-founded consulting group with two former senior members of Kodak’s R&D managementwith mission of combining scientific/commercial development knowledge with IP analysis inorder to provide superior guidance to small companies for scientifically feasible product areasthat are also commercially obtainable and well-situated in terms of IP (patentability andfreedom-to-operate). Executed this vision with a number of companies, resulting in significantfundraising and significantly improved focus on more obtainable product.
2010 Chief Scientist, NexusISR, Rochester, NY.Reviewed company product portfolio and initial business partners and devised commercializationstrategy based on sustainable IP position. Reviewed previously drafted IP and establishedmilestones for additional IP filings to further company product development and increasecompany value. Active participation in company’s fundraising efforts, including vetting ofmarketing literature and business plan.
1998 – 2001 Co-Founder & CEO, Petmed, Inc., Seattle, WA.Co-founded company to develop hypoallergenic knockout cats. Engaged in all aspects ofstartup formation, including business planning and execution, review of literature and extantpatents in order to determine patent position and product line(s) commensurate with thatposition. Completed initial feasibility studies and built initial relationships with academic andother entities for R&D program.
1999 – 2000 Legal/Scientific Consultant, Immunex, Inc., Seattle, WA.Engaged in document review and direction-setting for in-house program of commercialization ofcompany’s cytokines and human immunology products in light of obtainable patent position(s).
Legal Experience2008 – Now Principle/Owner, Scheinman Law, Rochester, NY.
Consulting for university and private business clients on business strategy in light of extant IPand potential patentability of company IP. Advice including, but not limited to, analysis ofcurrent company IP, analysis of company’s product(s) in light of extant IP, development ofcombined product/IP strategy to maximize potential commercial success and company value.Developed advanced search methods and proprietary software for large-scale patent searching.
2006 – 2008 Partner & Head of Life Sciences Group, Jaeckle Fleischmann & Mugel, LLP.,Rochester, NY.Developed and headed the Jaeckle Fleischmann & Mugel Life Sciences Group, managed thisgroup in all matters relating to U.S. and foreign patent preparation and prosecution. Extensivelydeveloped client base, resulting in the acquisition of Cornell, Syracuse University and Universityof Rochester as life science clients. Extensive co-counseling with corporate attorney andmanaging partner of the Rochester office to startup clients regarding business development/IPmatters. Extensive counseling of/interaction with academic inventors and university spinoutson IP development as a strategic vehicle for company progress and increased value.
2003 – 2005 Associate, IP/Biotech., Rosenbaum & Associates, LLP., Chicago, IL.Engaged in all aspects of U.S. and foreign patent preparation and prosecution. Extensive clientcounseling for early-stage companies. Counseled Chinese academic, startup and mid-size clientson business development and performed patent preparation and prosecution for these clients,including the Chinese National Human Genome Center for SARS patent research. Extensiveinteraction with various Chinese startups (Shanghai, Hangzhou).
3/7
APPENDIX II — SCHEINMAN RESUME
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
2001 – 2003 Associate, IP/Biotech., Alston & Bird, LLP., Raleigh, NC.Engaged in all aspects of U.S. and foreign patent preparation and prosecution, opinion letterpreparation, and client counseling in matters relating to animal and plant molecular biology,cell biology, gene therapy, genomics, and stem cell transplantation. Extensive participation inmarketing efforts and client development. Counseled Raleigh area startup biotech companyregarding freedom-to-operate issues in Series B financing round, participated in preparationof opinion letter on this FTO with responsible Alston & Bird partner. Presented results inmeeting with finance partners, resulting in successful Series B raise.
1996 – 1998 Law Clerk, Campbell & Flores, LLP., San Diego, CA.Designed and implemented complex literature searches for patentability/prior art studies inongoing patent preparation and prosecution and litigation matters relating to animal molecularbiology, cell biology/cell adhesion, gene therapy, and synthetic blood substitute development.Counseled San Diego biotech startup on IP development around its blood substitute productline, participated in fund-raising for that company.
Scientific Experience1993 – 1994 Postdoctoral Fellow, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, CA.
Developed gene therapy methods for Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s dementia. Performedresearch on the propagation of fetal and adult neuronal stem cells in context of lab director’sexternal biotech company.
1990 – 1993 Postdoctoral Fellow, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.Performed molecular biological studies on protein synthesis in bacteria. Conducted molecularevolutionary studies on genes from extreme-environment organisms.
Incubator/Accelerator Planning & Board Membership2016 Ahead Energy MetroPark Facility, New York, NY.2013 Incubator Planning, Barnard College, New York, NY.2013 Accelerator Hub Implementation, Urbana, Illinois.
Business Consulting2017 - Now Entrepeneur in Residence (EIR) at the AIN Center, U.R., Rochester, NY.2013 - Now EIR at the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA).2013 - 2017 EIR at The Athena Center, Barnard College, New York, NY.2013 - 2015 Grant Reviewer, National Collegiate Inventors and Innovators Alliance (NCIIA).
2013 Mentor, iCorps – NYCRIN Node, New York, NY.2013 Mentor, HTR Launchpad, Rochester, NY.
4/7
APPENDIX II — SCHEINMAN RESUME
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
Selected Presentations & Events2014 High-School Entrepreneurship Judge, Barnard College Athena Center, July 16.2014 Team Coach, iCorps, Washington DC, April and May 2014.2013 Team Coach, UR AAA Stent Graft team, Preseed Workshop, Oct. 24/25, Nov. 1.2013 University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign “It’s More Than An Idea: The StrongArm
Experience.”2013 University at Buffalo Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership, “Patents are Stories –
Treat Them Accordingly.”2012 University at Buffalo Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership, “IP in the Life Sciences.”2012 Rochester Institute of Technology, Professor Delmonize Smith’s “Introduction to
Entrepreneurship” class, “Introduction to IP”2012 Photography Exhibition, Starbucks 12 Corners, Rochester, NY.2010 High Tech Rochester, "Patent Myths; or, Here be (Putative) Monsters."
Selected Publications & Writing2012 – 2016 RocNext Blog, Democrat & Chronicle. Blog postings on commercialization in upstate
NY, including particularly an emphasis on forming a successful interaction betweenentrepreneur and mentor(s) in order to successfully commercialize inventions.
2013 “Patenting: a Graphic Novel” (130 pp).2013 “Winning Business Plan Competitions: A Cynical/Handy Guide” (72 pp).2013 Contributor to New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NY-
SERDA) CleanTechConnect website (see cleantechnyconnect.com).2004 Biotechnology for consumer use: Voluntary, non-medical, DNA identity banks as
commodity products, Am. J. Pharmacogenomics. 4(2):69-72.2002 Bioethics and the commodification of biotechnology, J. Biolaw. Bus. 5(3):56-8.1992 Mapping the three-dimensional locations of ribosomal RNA and proteins, Scheinman
et al., Biochimie. 74(4):307-17.1987 Evolving ribosome structure and function: rRNA and the translation mechanism, Oakes
et al., Cold Spring Harb. Symp. Quant. Biol. 52:675-85.1985 Eubacteria, halobacteria, and the origin of photosynthesis: the photocytes, Lake et al.,
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 82(11):3716-20.1979 Protein-lipid interactions. A nuclear magnetic resonance study of sarcoplasmic reticu-
lum Ca2,Mg2+-ATPase, lipophilin, and proteolipid apoprotein-lecithin systems and acomparison with the effects of cholesterol, Biochem. 18(26):5893-903.
5/7
APPENDIX II — SCHEINMAN RESUME
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
Education1998 J.D., California Western School of Law, San Diego, CA.
California Western Scholar (full academic scholarship). President, Intellectual Property LawSociety. Dean’s List. Academic Achievement Award, Bioethics. First Place, Intra-School OralAdvocacy Competition. American Jurisprudence Award, Criminal Law.
1989 Ph.D., Biology/Mol. Biol., University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA.Dissertation – The Construction and Analysis of Mutant Small E. Coli Ribosomal Subunitswith Inserts in the 16S rRNA.University Fellowship (full academic scholarship). NIH Fellowship. Elected Member, Centerfor the Study of the Evolution of the Origin of Life (CSEOL). Teaching assistant, molecularbiology, genetics.
1982 B.S., Biochemistry, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL.Biology Honors Program. Dean’s List. Year abroad, Sussex University, England. UndergraduateResearch Fellow. Summer Scholarship, Argonne National Laboratory.
ScholarshipsFull Academic Scholarship, California Western School of Law.National Institutes of Health Training Grant, University of California, Los Angeles.Full Academic Scholarship, University of California, Los Angeles.Summer Scholarship, Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois.Undergraduate Research Fellow, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Honors & AwardsDean’s List, California Western School of Law.Academic Achievement Award, Bioethics, California Western School of Law.1st Place, Intra-School Oral Advocacy Competition, California Western School of Law.American Jurisprudence Award, Criminal Law, California Western School of Law.Member, Center for the Study of the Evolution of the Origin of Life, University ofCalifornia, Los Angeles.Biology Honors Program, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.Dean’s List, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
LicensuresRegistered Patent Attorney, U.S. Patent & Trademark Office.State Bar Licensure, North Carolina.
6/7
APPENDIX II — SCHEINMAN RESUME
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT
ActivitiesPhotography.Cartooning.Surfing.Computer Game Design.Strong activist in job creation and entrepreneurshipStrong activism in social change and positive treament of human beings.
7/7
APPENDIX II — SCHEINMAN RESUME
CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT