Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘IP Development by LPBI Group Team’ Category


The Digital Age Gave Rise to New Definitions – New Benchmarks were born on the World Wide Web for the Intangible Asset of Firm’s Reputation: Pay a Premium for buying e-Reputation

Curator: Aviva Lev–Ari, PhD, RN

 

Direct reputation, feedback reputation and signaling effects are present; and shows that better sellers are always more likely to brand stretch. The comparative statics with respect to the initial reputation level, however, are not obvious. … a higher reputation firm can earn a higher direct reputation effect premium. But a higher reputation firm also has more to lose. The trade-off between using one’s reputation and protecting it can go both ways.

Luıs M B Cabral, New York University and CEPR, 2005

 

 

Part 1:   A Digital Business Defined and the Intangible Asset of Firm’s Reputation

  1.  Claiming Distinction
  2.  Recognition Bestowed
  3.  The Technology
  4.  The Sphere of Influence
  5.  The Industrial Benefactors in Potential
  6.  The Actors at Play – Experts, Authors, Writers – Life Sciences & Medicine as it applies to HEALTH CARE
  7.  1st Level Connection on LinkedIn = +7,100 and Endorsements = +1,500
  8.  The DIGITAL REPUTATION of our Venture – Twitter for the Professional and for Institutions
  9.  Growth in Twitter Followers and in Global Reach: Who are the NEW Followers? they are OUR COMPETITION   and   other Media Establishments – that is the definition of Trend Setter, Opinion Leader and Source for Emulation
  10.  Business Aspects of the Brick & Mortar World render OBSOLETE

Part 2:   Business Perspectives on Reputation

Part 3:   Economics Perspectives on Reputation

 

 

Part 1:   A Digital Business Defined and the Intangible Asset of Firm’s Reputation

This curation attempts to teach-by-example the new reality of the Intangible Asset of Firm’s Reputation when the business is 100% in the cloud, 100% electronic in nature (paperless), the customers are the Global Universe and the organization is 100% Global and 100% virtual.

 

A Case in Point: Intellectual Property Production Process of Health Care Digital Content using electronic Media Channels

 

Optimal Testimonial of e-Product Quality and Reputation for an Open Access Online Scientific Journal pharmaceuticalintelligence.com 

 

 1.   Claiming Distinction

Executive Summary

WHAT ARE LPBI Group’s NEEDS in June 2019: Aviva’s BOLD VISION on June 11, 2019

 

2.   Recognition Bestowed 

Our Books are here

  • On 8/17/2018, Dr. Lev-Ari, PhD, RN was contacted by the President elect of the Massachusetts Academy of Sciences (MAS), Prof. Katya Ravid of Boston University, School of Medicine, to join MAS in the role of Liaison to the Biotechnology and eScientific Publishing industries for the term of August 2018-July 2021. In the MAS, Dr. Lev-Ari serve as Board member, Fellow, and Advisor to the Governing Board.

http://www.maacadsci.org

MAS FELLOWS 

GOVERNING BOARD

ACTIVITIES

BUNDLED BY AMAZON.COM INTO A SIX-VOLUME SERIES FOR $515

https://lnkd.in/e6WkMgF

Sixteen Volumes ARE ON AMAZON.COM, average book length – 2,400 pages

https://lnkd.in/ekWGNqA

3.   The Technology

Curation Methodology – Digital Communication Technology to mitigate Published Information Explosion and Obsolescence in Medicine and Life Sciences

Detailed Technology Description

LPBI’s Pipeline Map: A Positioning Perspectives – An Outlook to the Future from the Present

 

4.   The Sphere of Influence 

LPBI Group’s Social Media Presence

JOURNAL Statistics on 2/24/2019

  • LPBI Platform is been used by GLOBAL Communities of Scientists for interactive dialogue of SCIENCE – Four case studies are presented in the link, below

Electronic Scientific AGORA: Comment Exchanges by Global Scientists on Articles published in the Open Access Journal @pharmaceuticalintelligence.com – Four Case Studies

Curator and Editor-in-Chief: Journal and BioMed e-Series, Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/2018/04/10/electronic-scientific-agora-comment-exchanges-by-global-scientists-on-articles-published-in-the-open-access-journal-pharmaceuticalintelligence-com-four-case-studies/

 

5.   The Industrial Benefactors in Potential

Opportunities Map in the Acquisition Arena

Dynamic Contents for LPBI Group’s PowerPoint Presentation

Potential Use of LPBI IP as Value Price Driver by Potential Acquirer: Assumptions per Asset Class 

 

6.   The Actors at Play – Experts, Authors, Writers – Life Sciences & Medicine as it applies to HEALTH CARE

Founder’s Role in the Development of Venture’s Factors of Content Production – Biographical Notes by Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN, LPBI Group

Top Authors by Number of eReaders Views

Top Articles by Number of e-Readers for All Days ending 2019-02-17

FIT Members Contribute to Opportunities Map

FINAL IMPROVEMENT TEAM (FIT): Definition of Active, Lapsing of Active Status, COMPs Formulas

FIT members – Who works on WHAT?

Summer 2019 Plan – Research Associates Tasks

 

7.   1st Level Connection on LinkedIn = +7,100 and Endorsements = +1,500

Connections First Level on LinkedIn: 500 CEOs, 200 Big Pharma Professionals, 7,000 in Total: LPBI Group Founder – Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

8.   The DIGITAL REPUTATION of our Venture – Twitter for the Professional and for Institutions

Mostly HONORED to be followed by [from an Excerpt of 117 Followers of the Twitter Account @AVIVA1950 from the List of 359 Followers] by the Number of their Followers on 2/24/2019

LPBI Group is mostly HONORED to be followed by [from an Excerpt of 136 Followers of the Twitter Account @pharma_BI from the List of 505 Followers] by the Number of their Followers on 3/20/2019

Excerpt of 136 Followers of @pharma_BI (from the List of 505 Followers) by the Number of their Followers on 3/20/2019

Excerpt of 117 Followers of @AVIVA1950 (from the List of 359 Followers) by the Number of their Followers

REACH – Two Handles on Twitter.com @AVIVA1950 @pharma_BI

9.   Growth in Twitter Followers and in Global Reach: Who are the NEW Followers: OUR COMPETITION and other Media Establishments – that is the definition of Trend Setter, Opinion Leader and Source for Emulation

@4openjournalFollows you

Follow

4open is a multi- & inter-disciplinary, online, peer-reviewed, open access journal publishing across a broad range of subjects in the STEM domain.

@roll_clausFollows you

Follow

Publishing Editor at 

@EDPSciences

@PubtextoPFollows you

Following

Pubtexto is an International online publishing organization that publishes Scientific literature through its different open access Journals.

@alexanderlabrieFollows you

Following

CEO 

@sphereinc

@BjoernBruecherFollows you

Following

THEODOR-BILLROTH-ACADEMY® 

(link: http://linkedin.com/in/bruecher)

linkedin.com/in/bruecher // 

(link: http://4open-sciences.org)

4open-sciences.org – Editor-in-Chief // Science Profile – 

(link: http://researchgate.net/profile/Bjoern)

researchgate.net/profile/Bjoern

@MPDexpertFollows you

Follow

translate research into life-changing Global manufactured Medical Products – drugs, devices, biotech, combination; anything requiring FDA approval#MedProdDev

@P_A_MORGONFollows you

Following

Life science expert & investor_travel, wine & golf amateur_Proud father of 2 girls_My Tweets are only mine 

@INmuneBioFollows you

Follow

INmune Bio, Inc. is developing therapies that harness patient’s #immunesystem to treat #cancer. Our focus is on #NKcells and #myeloid derived suppressor cells.

@sallyeavesFollows you

Following

Innovating #tech #education #business CEO CTO Advisor & Prof. #blockchain #AI 

@OxfordSBS

@Forbes

 #FinTech #speaker #SDGs #STEM #techforgood #sustainability

@sciencetracker2Follows you

You will hear more recent and cool scientific news here. Besides, some health and tech news. Follow us in

(link: http://facebook.com/sciencetracker2)

facebook.com/sciencetracker2

13.8K Following

24.6K Followers

Followed by Stanford Tweets, Biotech Week Boston, and 23 others you follow

@sgruenwaldFollows you

Following

MD, PhD, scientist, futurist, entrepreneur, managing director of 

(link: http://www.genautica.com)

genautica.com, co-founder 

(link: http://www.diagnomics.com)

diagnomics.com

(link: http://www.scoop.it/t/amazing-science)

scoop.it/t/amazing-scie…user

 

10.  Business Aspects of the Brick & Mortar World render OBSOLETE

Financial Valuation of Three Health Care Intellectual Property (IP) Content Asset Classes

Global Market Penetration Forecast for each Volume in the 16 Volume BioMed e-Series

2013-2019, On the Medical & Scientific Bookshelf in Kindle Store: eReader Behaviors: Browsing, Page Downloads and Buying e-Books – LPBI Group’s BioMed e-Series, Royalties Payment Analysis 

 

Part 2: BUSINESS PERSPECTIVES on Reputation

 

Warren Buffett on reputation: the economic value of values, integrity and corporate culture

Warren Buffett understands that reputation and integrity have economic value. Research that shows that a good reputation is worth real money — in fact, some research indicates that a good reputation might replace a line of credit at the bank. In his book Berkshire Beyond Buffett: The Enduring Value of Values, Lawrence Cunningham argues that one of Berkshire Hathaway’s greatest assets is reputation.

https://www.finn.agency/fr/warren-buffett-reputation-berkshire-hathaway

 

The Value of Reputation

Thomas Pfeiffer1,2,4,*, Lily Tran5, Coco Krumme5 and David G Rand1,3,* 1 Program for Evolutionary Dynamics, FAS, 2 School of Applied Sciences and Engineering, and 3 Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge MA 02138, USA 4 New Zealand Institute for Advanced Study, Massey University, Auckland 0745, New Zealand 5 MIT Media Laboratory, Cambridge MA 02139, USA

 

Reputation plays a central role in human societies.

Empirical and theoretical work indicates that a good reputation is valuable in that it increases one’s expected payoff in the future. Here, we explore a game that couples a repeated Prisoner’s Dilemma (PD), in which participants can earn and can benefit from a good reputation, with a market in which reputation can be bought and sold. This game allows us to investigate how the trading of reputation affects cooperation in the PD, and how participants assess the value of having a good reputation. We find that depending on how the game is set up, trading can have a positive or a negative effect on the overall frequency of cooperation. Moreover, we show that the more valuable a good reputation is in the PD, the higher the price at which it is traded in the market. Our findings have important implications for the use of reputation systems in practice.

Keywords: evolution of cooperation; reciprocal altruism; indirect reciprocity; reputation

http://decisionlab.harvard.edu/_content/research/papers/Krumme_Pfieffer_Tran_and_Rand_Value_of_Reputation.pdf

 

The Impact of Reputation on Market Value by Simon Cole

One of the most familiar, but least understood, intangible assets is a firm’s reputation.

Simon Cole is the founding partner of the corporate reputation and branding consultancy Reputation Dividend (www. reputationdividend.com).

http://www.reputationdividend.com/files/4713/4822/1479/Reputation_Dividend_WEC_133_Cole.pdf

 

Part 3:   ECONOMICS PERSPECTIVES on Reputation

 

The Economics of Trust and Reputation: A Primer

Luıs M B Cabral New York University and CEPR, June 2005, lecture series at the University of Zurich

lcabral@stern.nyu.edu

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/24e5/2f3bd22d4bfa86902e5ae07d57039480004f.pdf

 

Notes on the literature

Important note: The notes in this section are essentially limited to the ideas discussed in the present version of these lectures notes. They cannot therefore be considered a survey of the literature. There are dozens of articles on the economics of reputation which I do not include here. In a future version of the text, I hope to provide a more complete set of notes on the literature. The notes below follow the order with which topics are presented.

Bootstrap models. The bootstrap mechanism for trust is based on a general result known as the folk theorem (known as such because of its uncertain origins). For a fairly general statement of the theorem (and its proof) see Fudenberg and Makin (1986). One of the main areas of application of the folk theorem has been the problem of (tacit or explicit) collusion in oligopoly. This is a typical problem of trust (or lack thereof): all firms would prefer prices to be high and output to be low; but each firm, individually, has an incentive to drop price and increase output. Friedman (1971) presents one of the earliest formal applications of the folk theorem to oligopoly collusion. He considers the case when firms set prices and history is perfectly observable. Both of the extensions presented in Section 2.2 were first developed with oligopoly collusion applications in mind. The case of trust with noisy signals (2.2.1) was first developed by Green and Porter (1984). A long series of papers have been written on this topic, including the influential work by Abreu, Pearce and Stacchetti (1990). Rotemberg and Saloner (1986) proposed a model of oligopoly collusion with fluctuating market demand. In this case, the intuition presented in Section 2.2.2 implies that firms collude on a lower price during periods of higher demand. This suggests that prices are counter-cyclical in markets where firms collude. Rotemberg and Saloner (1986) present supporting evidence from the cement industry. A number of papers have built on Rotemberg and Saloner’s analysis. Kandori (1992) shows that the i.i.d. assumption simplifies the analysis but is not crucial. Harrington (19??) considers a richer demand model and looks at how prices vary along the business cycle. The basic idea of repetition as a form of ensuring seller trustworthiness is developed in Klein and Leffler (1981). See also Telser (1980) and Shapiro (1983). When considering the problem of free entry, Klein and Leffler (1981) propose advertising as a solution, whereas Shapiro (1983) suggests low intro25 ductory prices. Section ?? is based on my own research notes. The general analysis of selfreinforcing agreements when there is an outside option of the kind considered here may be found in Ray (2002). Watson (1999, 2002) also considers models where the level of trust stars at a low level and gradually increases.

Bayesian models. The seminal contributions to the study of Bayesian models of reputation are Kreps and Wilson (1982) and Milgrom and Roberts (1982). The model in Section 3.2.1 includes elements from these papers as well as from Diamond (1989). H¨olmstrom (1982/1999) makes the point that separation leads to reduced incentives to invest in reputation. The issue of reputation with separation and changing types is treated in detail in the forthcoming book by Mailath and Samuelson (2006). In Section 3.3, I presented a series of models that deal with name as carriers of reputations. The part on changing names (Section 3.3.1) reflects elements from a variety of models, though, to the best of my knowledge, no study exists that models the process of secret, costless name changes in an infinite period adverse selection context. The study of markets for names follows the work by Tadelis (1999) and Mailath and Samuelson (2001). All of these papers are based on the Bayesian updating paradigm. Kreps (1990) presents an argument for trading reputations in a bootstrap type of model. The analysis of brand stretching (Section 3.3.3) is adapted from Cabral (2000). The paper considers a more general framework where the direct reputation, feedback reputation and signalling effects are present; and shows that better sellers are always more likely to brand stretch. The comparative statics with respect to the initial reputation level, however, are not obvious. As we saw above, a higher reputation firm can earn a higher direct reputation effect premium. But a higher reputation firm also has more to lose. The trade-off between using one’s reputation and protecting it can go both ways. For other papers on brand stretching and umbrella branding see Choi (1998), Anderson (2002).

Bibliography

Abreu, Dilip, David Pearce and Ennio Stacchetti (1990), “Toward a Theory of Discounted Repeated Games with Imperfect Monitoring,” Econometrica 58, 1041–1064. Andersson, Fredrik (2002), “Pooling reputations,” International Journal of Industrial Organization 20, 715–730. Bernhein, B. Douglas and Michael D. Whinston (1990), “Multimarket Contact and Collusive Behavior,” Rand Journal of Economics 21, 1–26. Cabral, Lu´ıs M B (2000), “Stretching Firm and Brand Reputation,” Rand Journal of Economics 31, 658-673. Choi, J.P. (1998), “Brand Extension and Informational Leverage,” Review of Economic Studies 65, 655–69. Diamond, Douglas W (1989), “Reputation Acquisition in Debt Markets,” Journal of Political Economy 97, 828–862. Ely, Jeffrey C., and Juuso Valim ¨ aki ¨ (2003), “Bad Reputation,” The Quarterly Journal of Economics 118, 785–814. Fishman, A., and R. Rob (2005), “Is Bigger Better? Customer Base Expansion through Word of Mouth Reputation,” forthcoming in Journal of Political Economy. Friedman, James (1971), “A Noncooperative Equilibrium for Supergames,” Review of Economic Studies 28, 1–12. Fudenberg, Drew and Eric Maskin (1986), “The Folk Theorem in Repeated Games with Discounting or with Imperfect Public Information,” Econometrica 54, 533–556. Green, Ed and Robert Porter (1984), “Noncooperative Collusion Under Imperfect Price Information,” Econometrica 52, 87–100. Holmstrom, Bengt ¨ (1999), “Managerial Incentive Problems: A Dynamic Perspective,” Review of Economic Studies 66, 169–182. (Originally (1982) in Essays in Honor of Professor Lars Wahlback.) Kandori, Michihiro (1992), “Repeated Games Played by Overlapping Generations of Players,” Review of Economic Studies 59, 81–92. Klein, B, and K Leffler (1981), “The Role of Market Forces in Assuring Contractual Performance,” Journal of Political Economy 89, 615–641. 27 Kreps, David (1990), “Corporate Culture and Economic Theory,” in J Alt and K Shepsle (Eds), Perspectives on Positive Political Economy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 90–143. Kreps, David M., Paul Milgrom, John Roberts and Robert Wilson (1982), “Rational Cooperation in the Finitely Repeated Prisoners’ Dilemma,” Journal of Economic Theory 27, 245–252. Kreps, David M., and Robert Wilson (1982), “Reputation and Imperfect Information,” Journal of Economic Theory 27, 253–279. Mailath, George J, and Larry Samuelson (2001), “Who Wants a Good Reputation?,” Review of Economic Studies 68, 415–441. Mailath, George J, and Larry Samuelson (1998), “Your Reputation Is Who You’re Not, Not Who You’d Like To Be,” University of Pennsylvania and University of Wisconsin. Mailath, George J, and Larry Samuelson (2006), Repeated Games and Reputations: Long-Run Relationships, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Milgrom, Paul, and John Roberts (1982), “Predation, Reputation, and Entry Deterrence,” Journal of Economic Theory 27, 280–312. Phelan, Christopher (2001), “Public Trust and Government Betrayal,” forthcoming in Journal of Economic Theory. Ray, Debraj (2002), “The Time Structure of Self-Enforcing Agreements,” Econometrica 70, 547–582. Rotemberg, Julio, and Garth Saloner (1986), “A Supergame-Theoretic Model of Price Wars During Booms,” American Economic Review 76, 390–407. Shapiro, Carl (1983), “Premiums for High Quality Products as Rents to Reputation,” Quarterly Journal of Economics 98, 659–680. Tadelis, S. (1999), “What’s in a Name? Reputation as a Tradeable Asset,” American Economic Review 89, 548–563. Tadelis, Steven (2002), “The Market for Reputations as an Incentive Mechanism,” Journal of Political Economy 92, 854–882. Telser, L G (1980), “A Theory of Self-enforcing Agreements,” Journal of Business 53, 27–44. Tirole, Jean (1996), “A Theory of Collective Reputations (with applications to the persistence of corruption and to firm quality),” Review of Economic Studies 63, 1–22. 28 Watson, Joel (1999), “Starting Small and Renegotiation,” Journal of Economic Theory 85, 52–90. Watson, Joel (2002), “Starting Small and Commitment,” Games and Economic Behavior 38, 176–199. Wernerfelt, Birger (1988), “Umbrella Branding as a Signal of New Product Quality: An Example of Signalling by Posting a Bond,” Rand Journal of Economics 19, 458–466.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/24e5/2f3bd22d4bfa86902e5ae07d57039480004f.pdf

 

Read Full Post »


Royalties in Kindle Unlimited and Kindle Owners’ Lending Library – A guide to publishing on Amazon

 

Royalties in Kindle Unlimited and Kindle Owners’ Lending Library

You’re eligible for royalty payment from Kindle Unlimited (KU, or Abonnement Kindle in France) and the Kindle Owners’ Lending Library (KOLL) for pages an individual customer reads in your book for the first time. A guide to publishing on Amazon

A customer can read your book as many times as they like, but we will only pay you for the number of pages read the first time the customer reads them. It may take months for customers to read pages in your book, but no matter how long it takes, we’ll still pay you once it happens. This is true even if your KDP Select enrollment period has expired, and you choose not to re-enroll.

Kindle Edition Normalized Page Count (KENPC v3.0)

To determine a book’s page count in a way that works across genres, devices, and display settings, we developed the Kindle Edition Normalized Page Count (KENPC). KENPC is calculated using standard formatting settings (font, line height, line spacing, etc.). We use KENPC to measure the number of pages customers read in your book, starting with the Start Reading Location (SRL) to the end of your book. Amazon typically sets SRL at chapter 1 so readers can start reading the core content of your book as soon as they open it. Non-text elements within books including images, charts and graphs will count toward a book’s KENPC.

KENPC v3.0
We released KENPC v3.0 to improve the way we measure how many pages of each book Kindle Unlimited and KOLL customers read. We’re constantly working to improve our programs and increase fairness of how we allocate the KDP Select Global Fund. These changes continue to improve the program and reward authors whose books are being borrowed and read the most by customers.

The KENPC v3.0 update applies uniformly to all KDP Select books and all versions of those books. Regardless of which version a customer may be reading, all future royalties will be paid using KENPC v3.0. If a customer previously borrowed your book and is still reading it, any new pages read will be based on KENPC v3.0.

Authors are able to earn a maximum of 3,000 Kindle Edition Normalized Pages (KENPs) read per title per customer. This means that each time your book is borrowed and read, you will receive credit for up to 3,000 pages. We believe this results in an equitable distribution of the KDP Select Global Fund.

Your book’s KENPC
You can see your book’s KENPC v3.0 listed on the “Promote and Advertise” page in your Bookshelf, and you can also see total pages read on your Sales Dashboard report. Because it’s based on default settings, KENPC v3.0 may vary from page counts listed on your Amazon detail page, which are derived from other sources.

KDP Select Global Fund
Our total payout from the KDP Select Global Fund will be unaffected by the transition to KENPC v3.0, and the amount you earn from the global fund will continue to be determined based on your share of total pages read by Kindle Unlimited (KU) and Kindle Owners’ Lending Library (KOLL) customers. The new KENPC version will be applied uniformly to all KDP Select books and used to measure all pages read.

 

Royalties

You’ll get one combined royalty payment for both KU and KOLL, paid according to the same payment schedule and payment method you selected for your other KDP sales.We review the size of the KDP Select Global Fund each month in order to make it compelling for authors to enroll their books in KDP Select. We announce the fund monthly in our community forum on kdp.amazon.com.The share of fund allocated to each country varies based on a number of factors, such as exchange rates, customer reading behavior, and local subscription pricing. Author earnings are then determined by their share of total pages read, up to a total of 3,000 pages per customer per title.

For example, here’s how we’d calculate royalty payout if $10 million in funds were available in a given month with 100 million total pages read (Note: Actual payouts vary and may be less; check your Prior Month’s Royalty Report to see your earnings):

  • Author with a 100 page bookthat was borrowed and read completely 100 times would earn $1,000 ($10 million multiplied by 10,000 pages for this author divided by 100,000,000 total pages).
  • Author of a 200 page bookthat was borrowed and read completely 100 times would earn $2,000 ($10 million multiplied by 20,000 pages for this author divided by 100,000,000 total pages).
  • Author of a 200 page bookthat was borrowed 100 times but only read halfway through on average would earn $1,000 ($10 million multiplied by 10,000 pages for this author divided by 100,000,000 total pages).

We always support our authors’ efforts to promote their books, but at the same time we work to prevent any manipulation of the Kindle platform.

We do not permit authors to offer, or participate in marketing that incentivizes Kindle Unlimited or Kindle Owners’ Lending Library customers to read their books in exchange for compensation of any kind. This includes payment (whether in the form of money or gift certificates), bonus content, entry to a contest or sweepstakes, discounts on future purchases, extra product, or other gifts.

Because we’re always looking to improve our authors’ experience, we have systems in place to monitor for potential manipulation.

 

Reporting

You can see your Kindle Edition Normalized Pages (KENP) Read in your Sales Dashboard report by marketplace and title. To see historical pages read, click “Generate Report” from your Sales Dashboard and go to the Orders Report tab.

If you’re enrolled in KDP Select, you will also see the following data on your reports:

Month-To-Date Unit Sales Report: The number of pages Kindle Unlimited or KOLL customers read of your books, under the “Kindle Edition Normalized Pages (KENP) Read” column.

Prior Months’ Royalties Report: For every title, there are five possible transaction types:

  • 35%:Amount a title earned under the 35% royalty option

  • 70%:Amount a title earned under the 70% royalty option

  • KDP Select Units:Amount every KDP Select-enrolled title earned monthly through Kindle Unlimited (KU) and the Kindle Owners’ Lending Library (KOLL). If a customer reads pages in your book for the first time through KU or KOLL, you will see a separate line item indicating the accumulated number of pages read under the column “Kindle Edition Normalized Pages (KENP) Read,” and the royalty earned through KU and KOLL under the “Royalty” column.

  • Free – Promotion:Free downloads due to Free promotion campaign(s) through KDP Select.

  • Free – Price Match:Free downloads due to competitor free price match.

 

SOURCE:  https://kdp.amazon.com/en_US/help/topic/G201541130

Read Full Post »


Information Innovation and the Power of LPBI Group

Author: Rick Mandahl, MBA

LPBI Group, Business Development Team

 

“Science evolves”[1]. This simple quote from a position paper by William S. Harten[2], eminent database architect, genealogist and entrepreneur describes why he designed a new laboratory process management technology capable of adapting as processes changed. From the notion that the software system must support the science rather than the science being bound to the limitations of predefined rigid systems opened new vistas for exploration, and progress across many process intensive domains and certainly in the realm precision medicine moving into widespread clinical deployment. Science evolves.

Decades earlier Robert R. Johnson, PhD[3] leader of the GE engineering team responsible for computerizing the check processing system for the Bank of America, and in the process delivered technology that changed banking globally.  The initial exploratory endeavor began around 1950 at Stanford Research Institute [aka, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA] to address the exponential expansion of check processing bound by manual methods, thus the need to change a system that was conceived in Venice in 1431, roughly the same era as the invention of the Gutenberg Press. In Project ERMA among other things, developed the human and machine readable alphanumerics still found on every check issued in the world today. The same information could be shared by humans and machines and this realtime translation, realtime information [4] that helped manage the exponential increase in demand for financial services in the post World War Two era.

Technology supporting science, supporting commerce in our era changes centuries established methods.  Do scientific publications today advance science or simply report it? Can we do better?  How far are we beyond Gutenberg today? In 1995, Nicholas Negroponte of MIT’s Media Lab lamented that the FAX machine was barely a step beyond Gutenberg.[5] In the ensuing generation has scientific publishing advanced with the science it reports? LPBI Group thinks not.

What of new innovation in the expanding realm of life sciences? Where are the friction points that may impede progress in rapidly advancing areas of medical sciences – science whose validation rests on rigorous observation and adherence to scientific method, findings vetted by peer review and shared in scholarly journals of learned societies. Are there ways to improve, approaches to help ameliorate the current concern over “research productivity”?

Personal Reflection of an Innovation Case Study

In the early eighties upon returning from a year’s assignment in  France, I looked up a former skiing and climbing partner now Head Coach of the US Ski Team. I had heard that he was working on a new design of racing bicycle handle bars – which from afar seemed quite curious. A visit to his home near Sun Valley  resulted in an astonishing perspective. In a field where just about every innovation had been made for this simple machine, the bicycle, Boone Lennon theorized that aerodynamic improvement – the way a rider sat on the bicycle could deliver improved performance – this insight gained by observing and coaching some of the best ski racers in the world on improving their aerodynamic form in the greatest of alpine ski sports – the Downhill. Those body position principles, so important to a sport where the difference between victory or defeat is measured in hundredths of a second – those principles ought to apply to bicycle racing where on straight away courses with “two equally matched and equipped competitors, the racer with the new bars and improved aerodynamic position will win.”[6] The theory was proven when in 1989 Greg Lemond the first American to win the Tour de France used the new “aero bars” . This second of three Tour de France victories (also 1986 and 1990), was attributed by Mr. Lemond to the final time trial where he outpaced his opponent by eight seconds, the tightest margin in Tour de France history. LeMond’s superior aerodynamics brought him victory[7] – he triumphed where two comparably qualified and equipped competitors had different tools that resulted in different levels of efficiency, thus performance. 

Winning Strategy in the Information Age

In the competitive world of scientific and medical research, where can efficiencies be gained, productivity be improved?

  • Containing Information Explosion,
  • Combatting Information Obsolescence.

The game changing innovations of LPBI Group offer simple yet profound innovations to help scientists and clinicians advance at the pace they can reasonably pursue because LPBI Group’s products help keep pace with life sciences new research insights and scientific discoveries. LPBI Group  ongoing questions provide answers using curation of current scientific research results. 

  • No longer are scientific papers obsolete by the time they are published, rather
  • They are living and dynamic repositories of searchable curated knowledge to build upon, while leveraging past established benchmarks.
  • Equally qualified and equipped, what investigator, which team might advance faster?
  • Access to the best and current information would certainly be of help.
  • Access absent enormous subscription cost might help as well.
  • Accelerate information access, eliminate exorbitant access cost.

The Founders, The Finders, The Funders. 

To build a team, to create a venture, to have commercial impact, the initial founder(s) must be joined by team members who help build, refine, adapt and change as the initial concept grows to advancing stages of maturity.

The time comes when the greatest intellectual and commercial impact is likely delivered by partners whose established business channels and financial strength enable the full realization of innovation or enabling technology far beyond the operational capacities of the initial team, but exactly according their ultimate vision.

Thus, as LPBI Group grows, we seek to identify and recruit strategic partners to grow, to expand and to merge with a new structure to follow. The global community of scientists indeed all the humankind are the beneficiaries of our endeavors in knowledge creation and dissemination.


[1] UNIFlow® by UNIConnect White Paper, William S. Harten

[2] Mr. Harten in addition to being founder of UNIConnect, LC, acquired by Sunquest Information Systems is inventor of GEDCOM, the global standard for the exchange of genealogical information.

[3] Robert Royce Johnson, PhD Cal Tech, Leader of Project ERMA, VP of Engineering Emeritus- Burroughs; Professor and Chairman Emeritus Dept of Computer Science, University of Utah College of Engineering. Founder and Managing Partner n-Dimensional Visualization, LLC.

[4] Waves of Change, James L McKenney, Harvard Business School, Harvard Business Press, 1995

[5] Being Digital, Nicholas Negroponte, MIT Medial Lab, Random House 1995

[6] Personal conversations with Daniel “Boone” Lennon, Head Coach Emeritus, US Ski Team and inventor of the Aero Bar for cyclists.

[7] Simon Symthe, “How Greg LeMond’s aero bars revolutionized time trialling”, Cycling, July 9, 2015.

Read Full Post »


Scientific Articles Views: All Times 305,160 Views, Articles of >1,000 Views – Contributions of Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN on Open Access Online Scientific Journal https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Top Authors for all days ending 2017-02-13 (Summarized)

 

All Time: 4/30/2012 – 2/13/2017

Author Views
2012pharmaceutical 305,160

 

Article Name VIEWS
Do Novel Anticoagulants Affect the PT/INR? The Cases of XARELTO (rivaroxaban) and PRADAXA (dabigatran) 9,504
Our TEAM 5,619
Clinical Indications for Use of Inhaled Nitric Oxide (iNO) in the Adult Patient Market: Clinical Outcomes after Use, Therapy Demand and Cost of Care 3,804
Volume One: Perspectives on Nitric Oxide in Disease Mechanisms 3,423
Apixaban (Eliquis): Mechanism of Action, Drug Comparison and Additional Indications 3,328
Founder 3,097
BioMed e-Series 2,971
VISION 2,582
Alternative Designs for the Human Artificial Heart: Patients in Heart Failure – Outcomes of Transplant (donor)/Implantation (artificial) and Monitoring Technologies for the Transplant/Implant Patient in the Community 2,551
Funding, Deals & Partnerships 2,471
Pacemakers, Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators (ICD) and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) 2,082
About 2,039
Journal PharmaceuticalIntelligence.com 2,022
Biosimilars: CMC Issues and Regulatory Requirements 1,757
Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR-gamma) Receptors Activation: PPARγ transrepression for Angiogenesis in Cardiovascular Disease and PPARγ transactivation for Treatment of Diabetes 1,740
Outcomes in High Cardiovascular Risk Patients: Prasugrel (Effient) vs. Clopidogrel (Plavix); Aliskiren (Tekturna) added to ACE or added to ARB 1,539
Biosimilars: Intellectual Property Creation and Protection by Pioneer and by Biosimilar Manufacturers 1,464
Clinical Trials Results for Endothelin System: Pathophysiological role in Chronic Heart Failure, Acute Coronary Syndromes and MI – Marker of Disease Severity or Genetic Determination? 1,401
Cardiovascular Complications: Death from Reoperative Sternotomy after prior CABG, MVR, AVR, or Radiation; Complications of PCI; Sepsis from Cardiovascular Interventions 1,399
FDA Adds Cardiac Drugs to Watch List – TOPROL-XL® 1,382
Competition in the Ecosystem of Medical Devices in Cardiac and Vascular Repair: Heart Valves, Stents, Catheterization Tools and Kits for Open Heart and Minimally Invasive Surgery (MIS) 1,368
Justin D. Pearlman, AB, MD, ME, PhD, MA, FACC, Expert, Author, Writer, Editor & Content Consultant for e-SERIES A: Cardiovascular Diseases 1,344
UPDATED: PLATO Trial on ACS: BRILINTA (ticagrelor) better than Plavix® (clopidogrel bisulfate): Lowering chances of having another heart attack 1,342
Cardio-oncology and Onco-Cardiology Programs: Treatments for Cancer Patients with a History of Cardiovascular Disease 1,257
Mitral Valve Repair: Who is a Patient Candidate for a Non-Ablative Fully Non-Invasive Procedure? 1,238
Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN, Director and Founder 1,224
Triple Antihypertensive Combination Therapy Significantly Lowers Blood Pressure in Hard-to-Treat Patients with Hypertension and Diabetes 1,181
Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (TAVI): FDA approves expanded indication for two transcatheter heart valves for patients at intermediate risk for death or complications associated with open-heart surgery 1,138
‘Gamifying’ Drug R&D: Boehringer Ingelheim, Sanofi, Eli Lilly 1,127
Treatment of Refractory Hypertension via Percutaneous Renal Denervation 1,080
Scientific and Medical Affairs Chronological CV 1,069
Interview with the co-discoverer of the structure of DNA: Watson on The Double Helix and his changing view of Rosalind Franklin 1,063
Disruption of Calcium Homeostasis: Cardiomyocytes and Vascular Smooth Muscle Cells: The Cardiac and Cardiovascular Calcium Signaling Mechanism 1,037
Patiromer – New drug for Hyperkalemia 1,032
Stenting for Proximal LAD Lesions 1,024

Read Full Post »


Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program – A Notice by the Patent and Trademark Office on 06/29/2016

ACTION

Notice.

SUMMARY

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) is implementing a pilot program to provide for earlier review of patent applications pertaining to cancer immunotherapy (“Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program” or “Pilot Program”) in support of the White House national $1 billion initiative to achieve ten years’ worth of cancer research in the next five years (“National Cancer Moonshot”). The USPTO will advance applications containing a claim(s) to a method of treating a cancer using immunotherapy out of turn for examination if the applicant files a grantable petition to make special under the Pilot Program. The objective of the Pilot Program is to complete the examination of the application within twelve months of special status being granted. Under the Cancer Immunotherapy Pilot Program, an application will be advanced out of turn for examination without meeting all of the current requirements of the accelerated examination program (e.g., the requirement for an examination support document) or the Prioritized Examination (Track I) program. This notice outlines the conditions, eligibility requirements, and guidelines of the Pilot Program.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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 »


Nominations for 2016 National Academies Communication Awards For Excellence in Reporting and Communicating Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Keck Futures Initiative

Editor-in-Chief: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

 

Submission for Category: Online

From: <form_engine@fs22.formsite.com> on behalf of “commawards@nas.edu” <form_engine@fs22.formsite.com>

Reply-To: <commawards@nas.edu>

Date: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 at 3:25 PM

To: Aviva Lev-Ari <AvivaLev-Ari@alum.berkeley.edu>

Subject: 2016 Communication Awards Nomination Form Result #9076095

 

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine



 

2016 Communication Awards 
For Excellence in Reporting and Communicating

Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

 

Nomination Confirmation 

 

Thank you for submitting a nomination for the 2016 National Academies Communication Awards.

 

Please select the category of your nomination: * Online
Online Entry Title: * Cancer Biology & Genomics for Disease Diagnosis, Genomics Orientations for Personalized Medicine, Metabolic Genomics and Pharmaceutics, Milestones
Online Publisher(s): * Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence, BioMed e-Series https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/biomed-e-books/, Amazon.com
Online Publish Date: * 2015-08-11
Online Entry Summary (Please limit to 100 words): * BioMed e-Series published in 2015 e-Books to popularize the Scientific findings of the frontier in Medicine and Life Sciences focusing on the top two Public HealthCare hazards: Cardiovascular Diseases and Cancer. The e-Series consists of medical interpretations of the most challenging causes of mortality and morbidities in Cancer Biology & Genomics for Disease Diagnosis, Genomics Orientations for Personalized Medicine, Metabolic Genomics and Pharmaceutics, the Milestones in Physiology: Discoveries in Medicine, Genomics and Therapeutics, the Etiologies of Cardiovascular Diseases: Epigenetics, Genetics and Genomics. Precision Medicine as in Regenerative and Translational Medicine: The Therapeutics Promise for Cardiovascular Diseases.

ANNOUNCEMENT

Success – Thank You! Reference #: 9076095: The National Academies 2016 Communication Awards Nomination

I AM PROUD TO CONGRATULATE

  • Larry H Bernstein, MD, FCAP
  • Stephen J Williams, PhD
  • Tilda Barliya, PhD
  • Dror Nir, PhD

 

They constitute the TEAM that I nominated for 

The National Academies 2016 Communication Awards, Keck Futures Initiative – Nomination 

  • Category: Online 
  • Subject for Nomination: BioMed e-Series published in 2015 by Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence on Amazon.com

 

BioMed e-Series

https://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com/biomed-e-books/

  • Cancer Biology & Genomics for Disease Diagnosis,
  • Genomics Orientations for Personalized Medicine,
  • Metabolic Genomics and Pharmaceutics,
  • Milestones in Physiology: Discoveries in Medicine, Genomics and Therapeutics,
  • Etiologies of Cardiovascular Diseases: Epigenetics, Genetics and Genomics,
  • Regenerative and Translational Medicine: The Therapeutics Promise for Cardiovascular Diseases

100 words

BioMed e-Series published in 2015 e-Books to popularize the Scientific findings of the frontier in Medicine and Life Sciences focusing on the top two Public HealthCare hazards: Cardiovascular Diseases and Cancer. The e-Series consists of medical interpretations of the most challenging causes of mortality and morbidities in Cancer Biology & Genomics for Disease Diagnosis, Genomics Orientations for Personalized Medicine, Metabolic Genomics and Pharmaceutics, the Milestones in Physiology: Discoveries in Medicine, Genomics and Therapeutics, the Etiologies of Cardiovascular Diseases: Epigenetics, Genetics and Genomics. Precision Medicine as

https://fs22.formsite.com/res/showSuccessPage?EParam=m%2FOmK8apOTBRmouoTFrqiVATUbkBsVmGEQn3K0X14DG3VhR5CvnKsC1mzhLD6ne%2BXKN%2Fe20J%2FjE%3D

https://fs22.formsite.com/naseo-ca/2016_com_award_nom/index.html

 

Effective 1/27/2016

LPBI’s BioMed e-Series  was Submitted on 1/27/2016 for The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine



2016 Communication Awards 
For Excellence in Reporting and Communicating

Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

 

The Keck Futures Initiative – a program of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, with the support of the W.M. Keck Foundation – will award four $20,000 prizes in 2016 to individuals or teams (up to four individuals associated with the creation of the work being nominated) who have developed creative, original works that address issues and advances in science, engineering and/or medicine for the general public. Nominations are accepted in four categories: Book; Film/Radio/TV; Magazine/Newspaper; and Online. The winners will be honored in the Fall 2016 and are expected to attend in person.

http://keckfutures.org/awards/nominate.html

Submission for Category: Magazine/Newspaper

From: <form_engine@fs22.formsite.com> on behalf of “commawards@nas.edu” <form_engine@fs22.formsite.com>

Reply-To: <commawards@nas.edu>

Date: Monday, February 1, 2016 at 11:37 AM

To: Aviva Lev-Ari <AvivaLev-Ari@alum.berkeley.edu>

Subject: 2016 Communication Awards Nomination Form Result #9101075

 

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine



 

2016 Communication Awards 
For Excellence in Reporting and Communicating

Science, Engineering, and Medicine

 

Nomination Confirmation 

 

 

Thank you for submitting a nomination for the 2016 National Academies Communication Awards.

 

Please select the category of your nomination: * Magazine/Newspaper
Publisher(s): * Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence – http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com
Magazine/Newspaper Entry Summary (Please limit to 100 words): * In February 2012, a new venture was launched Doing Business As (DBA) Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence. Founder, Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence Services is Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN.

 

An online scientific EXCHANGE — an Open Access Online Scientific Journal for curation and reporting on frontiers in Biomedical, Genomics, Biological Sciences, Healthcare Economics, Pharmacology, Pharmaceutical & Medicine. The website, http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com a scientific, medical and business multi expert authoring environment in LIFE SCIENCES, PHARMACEUTICAL, HEALTHCARE & MEDICINE INDUSTRIES.

 

1,879 are following our Journal, 868,702 views, 7,175 scientific comments 4,068 Scientific Articles, 472 Categories of Research, 8,267 Tags — ALL that is BioTech !!!!!!!!

Success – Thank You! Reference #: 9101075: Category Magazine/Newspaper -The National Academies 2016 Communication Awards Nomination

I AM HAPPY YO SHARE WITH YOU THE NOMINATION OF OUR OPEN ACCESS ONLINE SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL 

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com

 

For The National Academies 2016 Communication Awards, Keck Futures Initiative – Nomination for

Excellence in Reporting and Communicating Science, Medicine and Engineering

 

  • Category: Magazine/Newspaper
  • Subject for Nomination: Journal published in 2015 by Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence 

 

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com

100 words

In February 2012, a new venture was launched Doing Business As (DBA) Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence. Founder, Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence Services is Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN.

An online scientific EXCHANGE — an Open Access Online Scientific Journal for curation and reporting on frontiers in Biomedical, Genomics, Biological Sciences, Healthcare Economics, Pharmacology, Pharmaceutical & Medicine. The website,  http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com a scientific, medical and business multi expert authoring environment in LIFE SCIENCES, PHARMACEUTICAL, HEALTHCARE & MEDICINE INDUSTRIES.

1,879 are following our Journal, 868,702 views, 7,175 scientific comments 4,068 Scientific Articles, 472 Categories of Research, 8,267 Tags — ALL that is BioTech !!!!!!!!

https://fs22.formsite.com/res/showSuccessPage?EParam=m%2FOmK8apOTBRmouoTFrqiVATUbkBsVmGEQn3K0X14DG3VhR5CvnKsC1mzhLD6ne%2BXKN%2Fe20J%2FjE%3D

https://fs22.formsite.com/naseo-ca/2016_com_award_nom/index.html

 

ANNOUNCEMENT

Effective 2/1/2016

LPBI’s http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com was Submitted on 2/1/2016 to

2016 Communication Award – Excellence in Reporting and Communicating

Science, Medicine and Engineering

The Keck Futures Initiative – a program of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, with the support of the W.M. Keck Foundation – will award four $20,000 prizes in 2016 to individuals or teams (up to four individuals associated with the creation of the work being nominated) who have developed creative, original works that address issues and advances in science, engineering and/or medicine for the general public. Nominations are accepted in four categories: Book; Film/Radio/TV; Magazine/Newspaper; and Online. The winners will be honored in the Fall 2016 and are expected to attend in person.

http://keckfutures.org/awards/nominate.html

 

Submission for Category: Book

Nomination of e-Book, Series A: Cardiovascular Diseases, Volume 2, Cases in Development of Scientific Curation Methodology

2016 Communication Awards Nomination Form Result #9143807

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine

2016 Communication Awards for Excellence in Reporting and Communicating Science, Medicine and Engineering


Nomination Confirmation 

 

Thank you for submitting a nomination for the 2016 National Academies Communication Awards. Below please find the supporting materials necessary for your nomination category, as well as the address to which they should be sent.

Please select the category of your nomination: *

Book

Book Title: *

Volume Two: Cardiovascular Original Research: Cases in Methodology Design for Content Co-Curation

Publisher(s): *

Amazon Kindle Direct

Publication Date: (Please select one): *

November 2015

Book Entry Summary (Please limit to 100 words): *

The explosion of scientific information has created difficulties tying together disparate discoveries, ideas, and potential applications. Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence is developing an innovative methodology for Global access to Biomedical knowledge rather than traditional search. To attain this complex goal they disseminate ORIGINAL Research via Content Curation by experts using critical thinking process & interpretation over open access networks, offering better organization and visibility of critical information useful for innovations in academic, clinical, and industrial research. Volume Two: Cardiovascular Original Research: Cases in Methodology Design for Content Co-Curation at http://www.amazon.com/dp/B018Q5MCN8 is nominated as an example of this methodology.

Are you nominating an individual or team (up to four individuals)? *

Team

Is this a self- or third-party nomination? *

Third-Party Nomination: I am nominating someone other than myself.

First Name *

Larry H

Last Name *

Bernstein, MD, FCAP

Title *

Chief Scientific Officer

Organization *

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence

Street Address

54 FIRETHORN LANE

City

NORTHAMPTON

State

MA

Postal Code

01060

Country

USA

E-Mail Address *

larry.bernstein@gmail.com

Phone Number *

4137278523

URL

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com

First Name

AVIVA

Last Name

Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

Organization

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence

E-Mail Address

avivalev-ari@alum.berkeley.edu

First Name

Justin D.

Last Name

Pearlman, MD, PhD, FACC

Organization

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence

E-Mail Address

jdmdphd@gmail.com

First Name *

Stephen J.

Last Name *

Williams, PhD

Title *

Editor

Organization *

Leaders in Pharmaceutical Business Intelligence

Street Address

7373 Ridge Avenue

Apt/Suite/Office

116

City

Philadelphia

State

PA

Postal Code

19128

Country

USA

E-Mail Address *

sjwilliamspa@comcast.net

Phone Number *

2154870259

URL

http://pharmaceuticalintelligence.com

How did you hear about this award? (Please check all that apply): *

  • Colleague/Word of Mouth
  • Email Announcement
  • Science 2.0
  • Science Online

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

20160413-verily-google-life-sciences

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

  • Google Fiber and
  • 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
  3. comments
  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.

Andy Conrad, Ph.D.

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.

 

FOLLOW the LEADER of Parish in the Tsunami

 

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

http://news.sciencemag.org/math/2015/01/googlex-searches-ways-boost-cancer-immunotherapy

 

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

http://venturebeat.com/2015/11/08/google-life-sciences-and-american-heart-association-commit-50m-to-study-heart-disease/

 

Google Life Sciences Division Is Now Called… Verily?

http://gizmodo.com/google-life-sciences-division-is-now-called-verily-1746729894

 

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.

http://www.wired.com/2015/12/googles-verily-is-spinning-off-verb-a-secretive-robot-surgery-startup/

 

Google Life Sciences Rebrands as Verily under Alphabet – Fortune

Vik Bajaj, CSO

http://fortune.com/2015/12/08/google-alphabet-verily/

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

By CHARLES PILLER  DECEMBER 7, 2015

http://www.statnews.com/2015/12/07/verily-google-life-sciences-name/

 

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

Erika Check Hayden 21 October 2015

http://www.nature.com/news/why-biomedical-superstars-are-signing-on-with-google-1.18600

 

GOOGLE LIFE SCIENCES MAKES DIABETES ITS FIRST BIG TARGET

http://www.wired.com/2015/08/google-life-sciences-makes-diabetes-first-big-target/

 

GOOGLE WON THE INTERNET. NOW IT WANTS TO CURE DISEASES

http://www.wired.com/2015/08/google-won-internet-now-wants-cure-diseases/

 

Google Reveals Health-Tracking Wristband

Caroline Chen and Brian Womack

June 23, 2015 — 9:30 AM EDT

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-23/google-developing-health-tracking-wristband-for-health-research

 

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

ALISTAIR BARR and JOSEPH WALKER

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2015/03/27/google-moves-to-the-operating-room-in-robotics-deal-with-jj/

 

Google, Biogen Seek Reasons for Advance of Multiple Sclerosis

Caroline Chen

January 27, 2015 — 9:00 AM EST

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-27/google-biogen-seek-reasons-for-advance-of-multiple-sclerosis

 

Google’s Newest Search: Cancer Cells

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

http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-designing-nanoparticles-to-patrol-human-body-for-disease-1414515602

 

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

http://www.wsj.com/articles/google-to-collect-data-to-define-healthy-human-1406246214

 

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

MARK SCOTT JULY 15, 2014

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/business/international/novartis-joins-with-google-to-develop-contact-lens-to-monitor-blood-sugar.html

 

Google[x] searches for ways to boost cancer immunotherapy

Jon Cohen

15 January 2015 6:25 am

http://news.sciencemag.org/math/2015/01/googlex-searches-ways-boost-cancer-immunotherapy

 

SOURCE

https://verily.com/

Part II: Innovations at a Different Scale: GDE Enterprises

A Case in Point of Healthcare in Focus –

Work-in-Progress

 

 

Read Full Post »