1 The T AGENCY Model. set CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT … · drafting the provisional patent application on your model, but also on my own extensive experiences with startups and larger

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/.


https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/by_the_numbers/


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.


https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/data/Pages/AviationDataStats2015.aspx

https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/data/Pages/AviationDataStats2015.aspx


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.


http://www.nidusbiosciences.com


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


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



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



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



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



DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION







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



[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



[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



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



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



[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



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



[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



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



[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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



ABSTRACT







28



Figure 1 – Social Interactions And Cues

Figure 2 – Inter- and Intra-group Interactions

29



Figure 3 – Exemplary Inter-group Interactions

30



Figure 5 – Simple Polling/Rating Schema

31



Figure 6 – Obfuscated Polling/Rating Schema

Figure 7 – Exemplary Obfuscated Polling/Rating Flowchart

32



Figure 8 – Obfuscated Polling For Distributed Ledger

33



Figure 9 – Exemplary Payload Deconvolution Scheme

34



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


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



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



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



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



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



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



Documents

1 The T AGENCY Model. set CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENT … · drafting the provisional patent application on your model, but also on my own extensive experiences with startups and larger