Feeds:
Posts

## Archive for the ‘IP Development by LPBI Group Team & Other Organizations’ Category

### Will Web 3.0 Do Away With Science 2.0? Is Science Falling Behind?

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

UPDATED 4/06/2022

A while back (actually many moons ago) I had put on two posts on this site:

Scientific Curation Fostering Expert Networks and Open Innovation: Lessons from Clive Thompson and others

Twitter is Becoming a Powerful Tool in Science and Medicine

Each of these posts were on the importance of scientific curation of findings within the realm of social media and the Web 2.0; a sub-environment known throughout the scientific communities as Science 2.0, in which expert networks collaborated together to produce massive new corpus of knowledge by sharing their views, insights on peer reviewed scientific findings. And through this new media, this process of curation would, in itself generate new ideas and new directions for research and discovery.

The platform sort of looked like the image below:

This system lied above a platform of the original Science 1.0, made up of all the scientific journals, books, and traditional literature:

Previous image source: PeerJ.com

To index the massive and voluminous research and papers beyond the old Dewey Decimal system, a process of curation was mandatory. The dissemination of this was a natural for the new social media however the cost had to be spread out among numerous players. Journals, faced with the high costs of subscriptions and their only way to access this new media as an outlet was to become Open Access, a movement first sparked by journals like PLOS and PeerJ but then begrudingly adopted throughout the landscape. But with any movement or new adoption one gets the Good the Bad and the Ugly (as described in my cited, above, Clive Thompson article). The bad side of Open Access Journals were

1. costs are still assumed by the individual researcher not by the journals
2. the arise of the numerous Predatory Journals

Even PeerJ, in their column celebrating an anniversary of a year’s worth of Open Access success stories, lamented the key issues still facing Open Access in practice

• which included the cost and the rise of predatory journals.

In essence, Open Access and Science 2.0 sprung full force BEFORE anyone thought of a way to defray the costs

### Can Web 3.0 Finally Offer a Way to Right the Issues Facing High Costs of Scientific Publishing?

What is Web 3.0?

From Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web3

Web 1.0 and Web 2.0 refer to eras in the history of the Internet as it evolved through various technologies and formats. Web 1.0 refers roughly to the period from 1991 to 2004, where most websites were static webpages, and the vast majority of users were consumers, not producers, of content.[6][7] Web 2.0 is based around the idea of “the web as platform”,[8] and centers on user-created content uploaded to social-networking services, blogs, and wikis, among other services.[9] Web 2.0 is generally considered to have begun around 2004, and continues to the current day.[8][10][4]

### Terminology

The term “Web3”, specifically “Web 3.0”, was coined by Ethereum co-founder Gavin Wood in 2014.[1] In 2020 and 2021, the idea of Web3 gained popularity[citation needed]. Particular interest spiked towards the end of 2021, largely due to interest from cryptocurrency enthusiasts and investments from high-profile technologists and companies.[4][5] Executives from venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz travelled to Washington, D.C. in October 2021 to lobby for the idea as a potential solution to questions about Internet regulation with which policymakers have been grappling.[11]

Web3 is distinct from Tim Berners-Lee‘s 1999 concept for a semantic web, which has also been called “Web 3.0”.[12] Some writers referring to the decentralized concept usually known as “Web3” have used the terminology “Web 3.0”, leading to some confusion between the two concepts.[2][3] Furthermore, some visions of Web3 also incorporate ideas relating to the semantic web.[13][14]

## Concept

Web3 revolves around the idea of decentralization, which proponents often contrast with Web 2.0, wherein large amounts of the web’s data and content are centralized in the fairly small group of companies often referred to as Big Tech.[4]

Specific visions for Web3 differ, but all are heavily based in blockchain technologies, such as various cryptocurrencies and non-fungible tokens (NFTs).[4] Bloomberg described Web3 as an idea that “would build financial assets, in the form of tokens, into the inner workings of almost anything you do online”.[15] Some visions are based around the concepts of decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs).[16] Decentralized finance (DeFi) is another key concept; in it, users exchange currency without bank or government involvement.[4] Self-sovereign identity allows users to identify themselves without relying on an authentication system such as OAuth, in which a trusted party has to be reached in order to assess identity.[17]

## Reception

Technologists and journalists have described Web3 as a possible solution to concerns about the over-centralization of the web in a few “Big Tech” companies.[4][11] Some have expressed the notion that Web3 could improve data securityscalability, and privacy beyond what is currently possible with Web 2.0 platforms.[14] Bloomberg states that sceptics say the idea “is a long way from proving its use beyond niche applications, many of them tools aimed at crypto traders”.[15] The New York Times reported that several investors are betting $27 billion that Web3 “is the future of the internet”.[18][19] Some companies, including Reddit and Discord, have explored incorporating Web3 technologies into their platforms in late 2021.[4][20] After heavy user backlash, Discord later announced they had no plans to integrate such technologies.[21] The company’s CEO, Jason Citron, tweeted a screenshot suggesting it might be exploring integrating Web3 into their platform. This led some to cancel their paid subscriptions over their distaste for NFTs, and others expressed concerns that such a change might increase the amount of scams and spam they had already experienced on crypto-related Discord servers.[20] Two days later, Citron tweeted that the company had no plans to integrate Web3 technologies into their platform, and said that it was an internal-only concept that had been developed in a company-wide hackathon.[21] Some legal scholars quoted by The Conversation have expressed concerns over the difficulty of regulating a decentralized web, which they reported might make it more difficult to prevent cybercrimeonline harassmenthate speech, and the dissemination of child abuse images.[13] But, the news website also states that, “[decentralized web] represents the cyber-libertarian views and hopes of the past that the internet can empower ordinary people by breaking down existing power structures.” Some other critics of Web3 see the concept as a part of a cryptocurrency bubble, or as an extension of blockchain-based trends that they see as overhyped or harmful, particularly NFTs.[20] Some critics have raised concerns about the environmental impact of cryptocurrencies and NFTs. Others have expressed beliefs that Web3 and the associated technologies are a pyramid scheme.[5] Kevin Werbach, author of The Blockchain and the New Architecture of Trust,[22] said that “many so-called ‘web3’ solutions are not as decentralized as they seem, while others have yet to show they are scalable, secure and accessible enough for the mass market”, adding that this “may change, but it’s not a given that all these limitations will be overcome”.[23] David Gerard, author of Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain,[24] told The Register that “web3 is a marketing buzzword with no technical meaning. It’s a melange of cryptocurrencies, smart contracts with nigh-magical abilities, and NFTs just because they think they can sell some monkeys to morons”.[25] ##### Below is an article from MarketWatch.com Distributed Ledger series about the different forms and cryptocurrencies involved #### by Frances Yue, Editor of Distributed Ledger, Marketwatch.com Clayton Gardner, co-CEO of crypto investment management firm Titan, told Distributed Ledger that as crypto embraces broader adoption, he expects more institutions to bypass bitcoin and invest in other blockchains, such as Ethereum, Avalanche, and Terra in 2022. which all boast smart-contract features. Bitcoin traditionally did not support complex smart contracts, which are computer programs stored on blockchains, though a major upgrade in November might have unlocked more potential. “Bitcoin was originally seen as a macro speculative asset by many funds and for many it still is,” Gardner said. “If anything solidifies its use case, it’s a store of value. It’s not really used as originally intended, perhaps from a medium of exchange perspective.” For institutions that are looking for blockchains that can “produce utility and some intrinsic value over time,” they might consider some other smart contract blockchains that have been driving the growth of decentralized finance and web 3.0, the third generation of the Internet, according to Gardner. Bitcoin is still one of the most secure blockchains, but I think layer-one, layer-two blockchains beyond Bitcoin, will handle the majority of transactions and activities from NFT (nonfungible tokens) to DeFi,“ Gardner said. “So I think institutions see that and insofar as they want to put capital to work in the coming months, I think that could be where they just pump the capital.” ### Decentralized social media？ The price of Decentralized Social, or DeSo, a cryptocurrency powering a blockchain that supports decentralized social media applications, surged roughly 74% to about$164 from $94, after Deso was listed at Coinbase Pro on Monday, before it fell to about$95, according to CoinGecko.

In the eyes of Nader Al-Naji, head of the DeSo foundation, decentralized social media has the potential to be “a lot bigger” than decentralized finance.

“Today there are only a few companies that control most of what we see online,” Al-Naji told Distributed Ledger in an interview. But DeSo is “creating a lot of new ways for creators to make money,” Al-Naji said.

“If you find a creator when they’re small, or an influencer, you can invest in that, and then if they become bigger and more popular, you make money and they make and they get capital early on to produce their creative work,” according to AI-Naji.

BitClout, the first application that was created by AI-Naji and his team on the DeSo blockchain, had initially drawn controversy, as some found that they had profiles on the platform without their consent, while the application’s users were buying and selling tokens representing their identities. Such tokens are called “creator coins.”

AI-Naji responded to the controversy saying that DeSo now supports more than 200 social-media applications including Bitclout. “I think that if you don’t like those features, you now have the freedom to use any app you want. Some apps don’t have that functionality at all.”

But Before I get to the “selling monkeys to morons” quote,

THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY

#### THE GOOD

My foray into Science 2.0 and then pondering what the movement into a Science 3.0 led me to an article by Dr. Vladimir Teif, who studies gene regulation and the nucleosome, as well as creating a worldwide group of scientists who discuss matters on chromatin and gene regulation in a journal club type format.

Fragile Nucleosome is an international community of scientists interested in chromatin and gene regulation. Fragile Nucleosome is active in several spaces: one is the Discord server where several hundred scientists chat informally on scientific matters. You can join the Fragile Nucleosome Discord server. Another activity of the group is the organization of weekly virtual seminars on Zoom. Our webinars are usually conducted on Wednesdays 9am Pacific time (5pm UK, 6pm Central Europe). Most previous seminars have been recorded and can be viewed at our YouTube channel. The schedule of upcoming webinars is shown below. Our third activity is the organization of weekly journal clubs detailed at a separate page (Fragile Nucleosome Journal Club).

His lab site is at https://generegulation.org/ but had published a paper describing what he felt what the #science2_0 to #science3_0 transition would look like (see his blog page on this at https://generegulation.org/open-science/).

### This concept of science 3.0 he had coined back in 2009.  As Dr Teif had mentioned

So essentially I first introduced this word Science 3.0 in 2009, and since then we did a lot to implement this in practice. The Twitter account @generegulation is also one of examples

### This is curious as we still have an ill defined concept of what #science3_0 would look like but it is a good read nonetheless.

His paper,  entitled “Science 3.0: Corrections to the Science 2.0 paradigm” is on the Cornell preprint server at https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.2522

Abstract

### Science 3.0: Corrections to the Science 2.0 paradigm

The concept of Science 2.0 was introduced almost a decade ago to describe the new generation of online-based tools for researchers allowing easier data sharing, collaboration and publishing. Although technically sound, the concept still does not work as expected. Here we provide a systematic line of arguments to modify the concept of Science 2.0, making it more consistent with the spirit and traditions of science and Internet. Our first correction to the Science 2.0 paradigm concerns the open-access publication models charging fees to the authors. As discussed elsewhere, we show that the monopoly of such publishing models increases biases and inequalities in the representation of scientific ideas based on the author’s income. Our second correction concerns post-publication comments online, which are all essentially non-anonymous in the current Science 2.0 paradigm. We conclude that scientific post-publication discussions require special anonymization systems. We further analyze the reasons of the failure of the current post-publication peer-review models and suggest what needs to be changed in Science 3.0 to convert Internet into a large journal club. [bold face added]
In this paper it is important to note the transition of a science 1.0, which involved hard copy journal publications usually only accessible in libraries to a more digital 2.0 format where data, papers, and ideas could be easily shared among networks of scientists.
As Dr. Teif states, the term “Science 2.0” had been coined back in 2009, and several influential journals including Science, Nature and Scientific American endorsed this term and suggested scientists to move online and their discussions online.  However, even at present there are thousands on this science 2.0 platform, Dr Teif notes the number of scientists subscribed to many Science 2.0 networking groups such as on LinkedIn and ResearchGate have seemingly saturated over the years, with little new members in recent times.
The consensus is that science 2.0 networking is:
1. good because it multiplies the efforts of many scientists, including experts and adds to the scientific discourse unavailable on a 1.0 format
2. that online data sharing is good because it assists in the process of discovery (can see this evident with preprint servers, bio-curated databases, Github projects)
3. open-access publishing is beneficial because free access to professional articles and open-access will be the only publishing format in the future (although this is highly debatable as many journals are holding on to a type of “hybrid open access format” which is not truly open access
4. only sharing of unfinished works and critiques or opinions is good because it creates visibility for scientists where they can receive credit for their expert commentary

### A.  Science 3.0 Still Needs Peer Review

Peer review of scientific findings will always be an imperative in the dissemination of well-done, properly controlled scientific discovery.  As Science 2.0 relies on an army of scientific volunteers, the peer review process also involves an army of scientific experts who give their time to safeguard the credibility of science, by ensuring that findings are reliable and data is presented fairly and properly.  It has been very evident, in this time of pandemic and the rapid increase of volumes of preprint server papers on Sars-COV2, that peer review is critical.  Many of these papers on such preprint servers were later either retracted or failed a stringent peer review process.

Now many journals of the 1.0 format do not generally reward their peer reviewers other than the self credit that researchers use on their curriculum vitaes.  Some journals, like the MDPI journal family, do issues peer reviewer credits which can be used to defray the high publication costs of open access (one area that many scientists lament about the open access movement; where the burden of publication cost lies on the individual researcher).

An issue which is highlighted is the potential for INFORMATION NOISE regarding the ability to self publish on Science 2.0 platforms.

### The NEW BREED was born in 4/2012

An ongoing effort on this platform, https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/, is to establish a scientific methodology for curating scientific findings where one the goals is to assist to quell the information noise that can result from the massive amounts of new informatics and data occurring in the biomedical literature.

### DATES:

Effective Date: June 29, 2016.

Duration: The Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program will run for twelve months from its effective date. Therefore, petitions to make special under the Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program must be filed before June 29, 2017. The USPTO may extend the Pilot Program (with or without modifications) or terminate it depending on the workload and resources needed to administer the Pilot Program, feedback from the public, and the effectiveness of the Pilot Program. If the Pilot Program is extended or terminated, the USPTO will provide notification to the public.

### FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Pinchus M. Laufer, Senior Legal Advisor (telephone (571) 272-7726; electronic mail at pinchus.laufer@uspto.gov) or Susy Tsang-Foster, Senior Legal Advisor (telephone (571) 272-7711; electronic mail at susy.tsang-foster@uspto.gov), of the Office of Patent Legal Administration, Office of the Deputy Commissioner for Patent Examination Policy.

For questions relating to a specific petition, please contact Gary B. Nickol, Supervisory Patent Examiner (telephone (571) 272-0835; electronic mail at gary.nickol@uspto.gov) or Brandon J. Fetterolf, Supervisory Patent Examiner (telephone (571) 272-2919; electronic mail at brandon.fetterolf@uspto.gov), of Technology Center 1600.

### SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

On February 1, 2016, the White House Office of the Press Secretary announced a new, national 1 billion initiative to achieve ten years’ worth of cancer research in the next five years, with the intent to aid in the global fight against cancer. See the White House Web site at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/02/01/fact-sheet-investing-national-cancer-moonshot. To support this initiative, the USPTO is implementing the Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program to advance patent applications pertaining to cancer immunotherapy out of turn for examination to provide for earlier review. The objective of the Pilot Program is to complete the examination of an application containing a claim(s) to a method of treating a cancer using immunotherapy within twelve months of special status being granted. See Part XII below (Twelve-Month Goal) for more information. New patent applications are normally taken up for examination in the order of their U.S. filing date. See section 708 of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (9th ed., 7th Rev., November 2015) (MPEP). The USPTO has procedures under which an application will be advanced out of turn (accorded special status) for examination if the applicant files a petition to make special under 37 CFR 1.102(c) and (d) with the appropriate showing or a request for prioritized examination under 37 CFR 1.102(e). See 37 CFR 1.102 and MPEP section 708.02. The USPTO revised its accelerated examination procedures effective August 25, 2006, requiring that all petitions to make special comply with the requirements of the revised accelerated examination (AE) program, except those based on an inventor’s health or age or the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) Pilot Program. See Changes to Practice for Petitions in Patent Applications To Make Special and for Accelerated Examination, 71 FR 36323 (June 26, 2006), 1308 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 106 (July 18, 2006) (notice); see also MPEP section 708.02(a). The USPTO is implementing the Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program to permit an application containing at least one claim to a method of treating a cancer using immunotherapy to be advanced out of turn (accorded special status) for examination without meeting all of the current requirements of the accelerated examination program set forth in item VIII of MPEP section 708.02(a) (e.g., examination support document) if the applicant files a grantable petition to make special under the Pilot Program. Applications that have been accorded special status based on any USPTO established procedures (such as PPH, Prioritized Examination, Accelerated Examination, Age, Health, or any other pilot program that takes up an application out of order for examination) are not eligible to be made special under the Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program. Applications are accorded special status under the Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program after grant of special status until a final disposition (defined in Part XII (Twelve-Month Goal)) is reached in the application. Under special status, an application that has not been acted on or an application with a proper RCE request will be placed on the examiner’s special new docket until a first Office action on the merits. For an application in the Pilot Program where applicant is responding to a first Office action, the application will be placed on the examiner’s regular amended docket. Under the Pilot Program, the USPTO is providing examiners with incentives to handle these applicant responses promptly. The USPTO will accept petitions to make special under the Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program provided that the petitions, and applications in which they are filed, meet all of the requirements set forth in this notice. The USPTO will periodically evaluate the Pilot Program to determine whether and to what extent its coverage should be expanded. In addition, the USPTO may extend the Pilot Program (with or without modifications) or terminate it depending on the workload and resources needed to administer the Pilot Program, feedback from the public, and the effectiveness of the Pilot Program. If the Pilot Program is extended or terminated, the USPTO will provide notification to the public. Applicants may participate in the Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program by filing a petition to make special under 37 CFR 1.102(d) meeting all of the requirements set forth in this notice in either a new application or in a pending application. However, continuing applications will not automatically be accorded special status based on papers filed with a petition in a parent application. Each application must, on its own, meet all requirements for special status. No fee is required. The fee for a petition to make special under 37 CFR 1.102(d) based upon the procedure specified in this notice is hereby waived. Part I. Requirements for Petitions To Make Special Under the Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program: A petition to make special under the Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program may be granted in an application provided the eligibility requirements set forth in Part II and the following conditions are satisfied: (1) Types of Applications. The application must be a non-reissue, non-provisional utility application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), or an international application that has entered the national stage under 35 U.S.C. 371. (2) Claim Limit and No Multiple Dependent Claims. The application must not contain more than three independent claims and more than twenty total claims. The application must not contain any multiple dependent claims. For an application that contains more than three independent claims or twenty total claims, or any multiple dependent claims, applicant must file a preliminary amendment in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121 to cancel the excess claims and/or the multiple dependent claims at the time the petition to make special is filed. The petition must include a statement that applicant agrees that the application will not have more than three independent claims, more than twenty total claims, and any multiple dependent claims while the application is in special status under the Pilot Program. (3) The Application Must Include at Least One Method Claim of Treating a Cancer Using Immunotherapy. The application must include at least one claim to a method of treating a cancer using immunotherapy that meets the eligibility requirements in Part II of this notice. The petition must include a statement that the applicant agrees to include at least one claim to a method of treating a cancer using immunotherapy that meets the Pilot Program eligibility requirements while the application is in special status. For applications that have been previously examined, applicants will not be permitted to switch inventions in order to participate in the Pilot Program. See MPEP section 821.03. (4) Statement Regarding Method of Treating a Cancer Using Immunotherapy. The petition to make special must state that special status under the Pilot Program is sought because the application contains a claim to a method of treating a cancer using immunotherapy that meets the eligibility requirements discussed in Part II of this notice. (5) Statement Regarding Restriction Requirement. The petition must include a statement that, if the USPTO determines that the claims are directed to multiple inventions, applicant will agree to make an election without traverse in a telephonic interview, and elect an invention directed to a method of treating a cancer using immunotherapy that meets the eligibility requirement discussed in Part II of this notice. (6) Statement that Special Status Was Not Previously Granted Under Any Program. The petition must state that the application has not been previously granted special status. A petition to make special under this Pilot Program may not be filed in an application in which special status was previously granted under this Pilot Program or in any other program (e.g., age, health, PPH, AE, prioritized examination). (7) Time for Filing Petition. In general, the petition to make special under the Pilot Program must be filed (i) at least one day prior to the date that notice of a first Office action (which may be an Office action containing only a restriction requirement) appears in the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system (applicant may check the status of an application using PAIR); or (ii) with a proper request for continued examination (RCE) that is in compliance with 37 CFR 1.114. For patent applicants whose claimed cancer immunotherapy both (i) meets the eligibility requirements for this Pilot Program and (ii) is the subject of an active Investigational New Drug (IND) application filed by patent applicant or their agent (e.g., a licensee of the patent applicant or the patent applicant’s assignee) at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that has entered phase II or phase III clinical trials, the petition may be filed any time prior to an appeal or a final rejection if patent applicant certifies both (i) and (ii) in the petition. For an application that has an outstanding Office action, patent applicant must file a complete response together with the petition. Therefore, the petition is only required to contain the above applicant certification if the patent application has received a first Office action or a request for continued examination (RCE) was not filed with the petition. By default, for applications that have been previously examined, if applicant makes the above certification in the petition, the above certification would necessarily apply to at least one of the examined claims since applicants are not permitted to switch inventions in order to participate in the Pilot Program. See MPEP section 821.03. (8) Office Form Available for Filing Petition. Applicant should use form PTO/SB/443 for filing the petition. The form will contain a check-box for the applicant to certify that the claimed cancer immunotherapy both (i) meets the eligibility requirements for this Pilot Program and (ii) is the subject of an active IND application filed by patent applicant or their agent at the FDA that has entered phase II or phase III clinical trials. The form will be available as a Portable Document Format (PDF) fillable form in EFS-Web and on the USPTO Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/web/forms/index.html. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that, under 5 CFR 1320.3(h), Form PTO/SB/443 does not collect “information” within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Information regarding EFS-Web is available on the USPTO Web site at http://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/support-centers/patent-electronic-business-center. Failure to use the form or its equivalent could result in the Office not recognizing the request or delays in processing the request. (9) Electronic Filing of Petition Required. The petition to make special must be filed electronically before June 29, 2017, using the USPTO electronic filing system, EFS-Web, and selecting the document description of “Petition for Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot” on the EFS-Web screen. Any inquiries concerning electronic filing of the petition should be directed to the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197. (10) Publication Requirement for Applications. For unpublished applications, the petition to make special must be accompanied by a request for early publication in compliance with 37 CFR 1.219. If applicant previously filed a nonpublication request in the application, applicant must file a rescission of a nonpublication request no later than the time the petition to make special is filed. Applicant may use form PTO/SB/36 to rescind the nonpublication request. Part II. Eligibility Requirements—Applications Pertaining to Cancer Immunotherapy. To be eligible for the Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program, patent applications should be in the field of Oncology. The applications must contain at least one claim encompassing a method of ameliorating, treating, or preventing a malignancy in a human subject wherein the steps of the method assist or boost the immune system in eradicating cancerous cells. For example, this can include the administration of cells, antibodies, proteins, or nucleic acids that invoke an active (or achieve a passive) immune response to destroy cancerous cells. The Pilot Program also will consider claims drawn to the co-administration of biological adjuvants (e.g., interleukins, cytokines, Bacillus Comette-Guerin, monophosphoryl lipid A, etc.) in combination with conventional therapies for treating cancer such as chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery. Claims to administering any vaccine that works by activating the immune system to prevent or destroy cancer cell growth are included. The Pilot Program also will consider in vivo, ex vivo, and adoptive immunotherapies, including those using autologous and/or heterologous cells or immortalized cell lines. As in other programs, eligibility for this pilot is not restricted by (i) the nationality of the patent applicant or its agents, (ii) the location where the underlying research was undertaken or the technology was developed, or (iii) the location where the invention may be produced or manufactured. Part III. Decision on Petition To Make Special Under the Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program. If applicant files a petition to make special under the Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program, the USPTO will decide the petition once the application has been docketed for examination. Any inquiries concerning a specific petition to make special should be directed to the appropriate Technology Center handling the petition. If the petition is granted, the application will be accorded special status under the Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program until a final disposition (see Part XII (Twelve-Month Goal)). Under special status, an application that has not been acted on or an application with a proper RCE request will be placed on the examiner’s special new docket until a first Office action on the merits. For an application in the Pilot Program where applicant is responding to a first Office action, the application will be placed on the examiner’s regular amended docket. Under the Pilot Program, the USPTO is providing examiners with incentives to handle these applicant responses promptly. Applicant will be notified of the decision on the petition by the deciding official. If the application does not comply with the sequence requirements as set forth in 37 CFR 1.821 through 1.825, such that the application is not in condition for examination, or has an outstanding Office action, or if the application and/or petition does not meet all the formal requirements set forth in this notice, the USPTO will notify the applicant of the deficiency by issuing a notice. The notice will give the applicant only one opportunity to correct the deficiency. If the applicant still wishes to participate in the Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program, the applicant must file a proper petition and make appropriate corrections within one month or thirty days, whichever is longer. The time period for reply is not extendable under 37 CFR 1.136(a). If the applicant fails to correct the deficiency indicated in the notice within the time period set forth therein, the application will not be eligible for the Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program, and the application will be taken up for examination in accordance with standard examination procedures. If the application does not contain a method claim that complies with the eligibility requirements discussed in Part II of this notice, the petition will be dismissed, and the applicant will not be given an opportunity to correct the deficiency. Part IV. Requirement for Restriction. If the claims in the application are directed to multiple inventions, the examiner may make a requirement for restriction in accordance with current restriction practice. The examiner will contact the applicant by telephone and request an oral election of a single invention for prosecution. Applicant must make an election without traverse in a telephonic interview of an invention that is to a method of treating a cancer using immunotherapy that meets the eligibility requirements for this Pilot Program. If the applicant does not respond by telephone to an examiner’s request for an election within two working days or refuses to make an election of an invention that is to a method of treating a cancer using immunotherapy, the examiner will treat the first group of claims directed to a method of treating a cancer using immunotherapy that meets the eligibility requirements of this notice as constructively elected without traverse for examination. Part V. First Action Interview Pilot Program Not Available. Applications accepted into the Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program will not be eligible to participate in the First Action Interview Pilot Program. However, standard interview practice and procedures applicable to regular ex parte prosecution will still be available See MPEP section 713.02. Part VI. Period for Reply by Applicant. The time periods set for reply in Office actions for an application granted special status under the Pilot Program will be the same as those set forth in section 710.02(b) of the MPEP. However, if an applicant files a petition for any extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a), the special status of the application will be terminated, and the application will be taken up for examination in accordance with standard examination procedures. Part VII. Reply By Applicant. A reply to an Office action must be limited to responding to rejections, objections, and requirements made by the examiner. Any amendment to a non-final Office action will be treated as not fully responsive if it attempts to: (A) Add claims which would result in more than three independent claims, or more than twenty total claims, pending in the application; (B) add any multiple dependent claim; or (C) cancel all method claims to treating a cancer using immunotherapy. If a reply to a non-final Office action is not fully responsive because it does not comply with the Pilot Program claim requirements, but is a bona fide attempt to advance the application to final action, the examiner may, at his or her discretion, provide one month or thirty days, whichever is longer, for applicant to supply a fully responsive reply. Extensions of this time period under 37 CFR 1.136(a) to the notice of nonresponsive amendment will not be permitted in order for the application to remain in special status. Any further nonresponsive amendment will be treated as non-bona fide and the time period set in the prior notice will continue to run. Part VIII. After-Final and Appeal Procedures: The mailing of a final Office action or the filing of a Notice of Appeal, whichever is earlier, is a final disposition for purposes of the twelve-month goal for the Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program. During the appeal process, the application will be treated in accordance with the normal appeal procedure (see MPEP Chapter 1200). Any amendment, affidavit, or other evidence after a final Office action and prior to appeal must comply with 37 CFR 1.116. The filing of an RCE is a final disposition for purposes of the twelve-month goal for the Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program. The application will not retain its special status after the filing of a proper RCE. Part IX. Post-Allowance Processing. The mailing of a notice of allowance is a final disposition for the purposes of the twelve-month goal for the Pilot Program. The failure to pay the required issue fee within one (1) month of the mailing date of the Form PTOL-85 or the submission of a non-USPTO required submission under 37 CFR 1.312 will result in the allowance being processed according to the regular allowance process. A submission that includes both USPTO required changes and non-USPTO required changes under the provisions of 37 CFR 1.312 will be considered as a non-USPTO required submission for purposes of the allowance processing. Part X. Proceedings Outside the Normal Examination Process: If an application becomes involved in proceedings outside the normal examination process (e.g., a secrecy order, national security review, interference, derivation proceeding or petitions under 37 CFR 1.181through 1.183), the USPTO will place the application in special status under the Cancer Immunology Pilot Program before and after such proceedings. During those proceedings, however, the application will not be under special status. For example, during an interference proceeding, the application will be treated in accordance with the normal interference procedures and will not be in special status under the Cancer Immunology Pilot Program. Once any one of these proceedings is completed, the application will continue in special status under the Pilot Program until it reaches a final disposition, but that may occur later than twelve months from the grant of special status under the Pilot Program. Part XI. Withdrawal From Pilot Program. There is no provision for “withdrawal” from special status under the Pilot Program. However, filing a petition for any extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a) will result in the application being taken out of the Pilot Program. An applicant may abandon the application that has been granted special status under the Pilot Program in favor of a continuing application, and the continuing application will not be given special status under the Pilot Program unless the continuing application is filed with a petition to make special under the Pilot Program. Part XII. Twelve-Month Goal. The objective of the Cancer Immunology Pilot Program is to complete the examination of an application within twelve months of special status being granted under the Pilot Program (i.e., within twelve months from the mailing date of the decision granting the petition to make special). The twelve-month goal is successfully achieved when one of the following final dispositions occurs within twelve months from the grant of special status under the Pilot Program: (1) The mailing of a notice of allowance; (2) the mailing of a final Office action; (3) the filing of an RCE; (4) the abandonment of the application; (5) or the filing of a Notice of Appeal. The final disposition of an application, however, may occur later than the twelve-month time frame in certain situations (e.g., applicant files an amendment that does not comply with the Pilot Program claim requirements or applicant petitions for extension of time under 37 CFR 1.136(a)). See Part X for more information on other events that may cause examination to extend beyond this twelve-month timeframe. In any event, however, this twelve-month time frame is simply a goal. Any failure to meet the twelve-month goal or other issues relating to this twelve-month goal are neither petitionable nor appealable matters. Dated: June 24, 2016. Michelle K. Lee, Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. [FR Doc. 2016-15533 Filed 6-28-16; 8:45 am] Read Full Post » ## Protected: PathBreaking in Biotech Investment and Venture Growth: The Franchising of Intellectual Property as a Business Model This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below: Read Full Post » ### TSUNAMI in HealthCare under the New Name Verily.com Curator: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN UPDATED on 6/8/2016 The Tricorder project was announced only 3 months after Google entered the life sciences field, according to the report, and came from the same incubator which rolled out the company’s self-driving car and recently cancelled Google Glass. Verily CEO Andrew Conrad said the scientific basis for the device was proven upon unveiling in 2014, but experts have presented conflicting views on the reality of such a device, STAT Newsreports. “What (Verily is) really good at is physical measurements — things like temperature, pulse rate, activity level. They are not particularly good at … the chemical and the biological stuff,” Walt toldSTAT news. Four former Verily employees said the Tricorder “has been seen internally more as a way to generate buzz than as a viable project,” according to the report. SOURCE http://www.massdevice.com/googles-star-trek-tricorder-bid-flops/?spMailingID=9031578&spUserID=MTI2MTQxNTczMjM5S0&spJobID=940786327&spReportId=OTQwNzg2MzI3S0 UPDATED on 4/16/2016 SOURCE http://recode.net/2016/04/13/verily-alphabet-profitable/ ### Verily, Alphabet’s medical business, is profitable, Sergey Brin tells Googlers Verily | YouTube #### SCIENCE Publicly, Alphabet has said very little about its assortment of companies not named Google. But internally, Alphabet is a little more forthcoming. As we reported earlier, Nest CEO Tony Fadell appeared before Google’s all-hands meeting two weeks ago to address recent criticism of his company. During that meeting, Google co-founder and Alphabet exec Sergey Brin also defended another company under the holding conglomerate: Verily, the medical tech unit previously called Google Life Sciences. Lumped together, Alphabet’s moonshots aren’t making money yet — but Verily is, Brin said. Verily was the target of a scathing article — in Stat, a medical publication from the Boston Globe — scrutinizing its CEO, Andy Conrad. Several former employees told Stat that Verily suffered a talent exodus due to “derisive and impulsive” leadership by Conrad. Here’s what Brin said in response at Google’s TGIF meeting: I have seen a smattering of articles. And, you know, it’s actually sad to see sometimes where it appeared that … former employees or soon-to-be former employees talked to the press. But, anyhow, I can tell you what’s going on with these companies, fortunately. So in Verily’s case, despite a handful of examples, their attrition rate is below Google’s and Alphabet’s as a whole. And also, there are articles that have generally said we are blowing a lot of money and so forth. It’s true that, you know, as whole our Other Bets are not yet profitable, but some of them are, including Verily on a cash basis and increasingly so. So we’re pretty excited about these efforts. Verily makes money through • partnerships with pharmaceutical companies — such as Novartis, which is licensing and planning to sell Verily’s smart contact lens — and • medical institutions. It is one of three units contributing to the Other Bets total revenue (448 million) in 2015, along with

• Nest.

As we reported earlier, Nest likely brought in around $340 million of that and Fiber pulled close to$100 million, meaning that Verily’s sales were somewhere around $10 million. During the year, all the moonshot units combined reported operating losses of$3.6 billion.

Note Brin’s stipulation that Verily’s profit comes on a “cash basis.” That probably means that it’s not making profit on the normal basis, meaning when you take into account total sales minus total costs. But “cash positive” suggests they’re booking sales faster than they’re spending money, which is a positive sign. Companies normally report financials accounting for all costs. And that’s how Alphabet will next week, when it shares first-quarter results for Google and the Other Bets — although we almost certainly won’t see figures on Verily’s profitability.

We reached out to Alphabet and Verily reps for more clarity, but didn’t get any.

SOURCE

http://recode.net/2016/04/13/verily-alphabet-profitable/

### Original Curation dated 12/14/2015

1. Part 1: Verily in Action
2. Part II: Innovations at a Different Scale: GDE Enterprises – A Case in Point of Healthcare in Focus – Work-in-Progress

12/31/2015 – All time

1. Following this Journal by e-mail subscription: along with X other amazing people
2. views
4. Top Post and Pages
5. Click Summaries
6. Posts
7. Categories
8. Tags
9. Top Authors Views

## Part 1: Verily in Action

They write @ https://verily.com/

When Google[x] embarked on a project in 2012 to put computing inside a contact lens — an immensely challenging technical problem with an important application to health — we could not have imagined where it would lead us. As a life sciences team within Google[x], we were able to combine the best of our technology heritage with expertise from across many fields. Now, as an independent company, Verily is focused on using technology to better understand health, as well as prevent, detect, and manage disease.

Chief Executive OfficerFormerly the chief scientific officer of LabCorp, Andy is a cell biologist with a doctorate from UCLA. He has always been passionate about early detection and prevention of disease: Andy co-founded the National Genetics Institute, which developed the first cost-effective test to screen for HIV in blood supply.

### Brian Otis, Ph.D.

Chief Technical OfficerBrian’s team focuses on end-to-end innovation ranging from integrated circuits to biocompatible materials to sensors. He joined Google[x] as founder of the smart contact lens project and now leads our efforts across all hardware and device projects, including wearables, implanted devices, and technology like Liftware.

### Jessica Mega, M.D., MPH

Chief Medical OfficerJessica leads the clinical strategy and research team at Verily. She is a board-certified cardiologist who trained and practiced at Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. As a faculty member at Harvard Medical School and a senior investigator with the TIMI Study Group, Jessica directed large, international trials evaluating novel cardiovascular therapies.

### Linus Upson

Head of EngineeringA long-time Google software engineer, Linus has been a team lead in developing products that now help billions of people worldwide find the information they need on the Internet, including Chrome and Chrome OS. He now oversees our engineering teams.

### Tom Stanis

Head of SoftwareTom spent nine years working on core Google products before joining Google[x] in 2014 to work on the Baseline Study. He now leads all our Software projects, including the development of machine learning algorithms for applications ranging from robotic-assisted surgery to diabetes management.

### Vikram (Vik) Bajaj, Ph.D.

Chief Scientific OfficerVik’s broad research interests in industry and as a former academic principal investigator have included structural and systems biology, molecular imaging, nanoscience, and bioinformatics. Vik now leads the Science team in research directions related to our mission.

### What are the Dimensions of the Tsumani in Healthcare?

• prevention,
• detection,
• management of disease

### Hardware

• contact lens with an embedded glucose sensor for measuring the glucose in human tears.

### Software

• multiple sclerosis, for example, combines wearable sensors with traditional clinical tests
• signals that could lead to new knowledge about the disease and why it progresses differently among individuals.

### Clinical

• Constituencies industry, hospitals, government, academic centers, medical societies, and patient advocacy groups
• The Baseline Study is one of these dedicated efforts, a multi-year initiative that aims to identify the traits of a healthy human by closely observing the transition to disease.

### Science

• Understand processes that lead to conditions like cancer, heart disease, and diabetes
• computational systems biology platforms and life sciences tools
• bio-molecular nanotechnology for precision diagnostics and therapeutic delivery
• advanced imaging methods for applications ranging from early diagnosis to surgical robotics.

Google[x] searches for ways to boost cancer immunotherapy | Science/AAAS | News

Google Life Sciences and American Heart Association commit \$50M to study heart disease | VentureBeat

Google Life Sciences Division Is Now Called… Verily?

WIRED: Google’s Verily Is Spinning Off ‘Verb,’ a Secretive Robot-Surgery Startup

Alphabet’s Verily, née Google Life Sciences, has announced its first spinoff, a brand new robot-assisted surgery company.

Google Life Sciences Rebrands as Verily under Alphabet – Fortune

Vik Bajaj, CSO

Verily, I Swear, Google Life Sciences debuts a New Name

Why biomedical superstars are signing on with Google Tech firm’s ambitious goals and abundant resources attract life scientists.

GOOGLE LIFE SCIENCES MAKES DIABETES ITS FIRST BIG TARGET

GOOGLE WON THE INTERNET. NOW IT WANTS TO CURE DISEASES

Caroline Chen and Brian Womack

June 23, 2015 — 9:30 AM EDT

Google Moves to the Operating Room in Robotics Deal With J&J

ALISTAIR BARR and JOSEPH WALKER

Caroline Chen

January 27, 2015 — 9:00 AM EST

Google X Team Hopes to Develop Nanoparticles to Provide Early Detection of Cancer, Other Diseases

ALISTAIR BARR and RON WINSLOW

Updated Oct. 29, 2014 11:17 a.m. ET

A Spoon That Shakes To Counteract Hand Tremors

Updated May 14, 201411:43 AM ET

INA JAFFE

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2014/05/13/310399325/a-spoon-that-shakes-to-counteract-hand-tremors

Google’s New Moonshot Project: the Human Body

Baseline Study to Try to Create Picture From the Project’s Findings

ALISTAIR BARR

Updated July 27, 2014 7:24 p.m. ET

Novartis Joins With Google to Develop Contact Lens That Monitors Blood Sugar

MARK SCOTT JULY 15, 2014

Google[x] searches for ways to boost cancer immunotherapy

Jon Cohen

15 January 2015 6:25 am

SOURCE

https://verily.com/