Berkeley Lab Innovation Grants

1. Berkeley Lab Innovation Grants September 2013

2. Program Details • Up to $100,000 for: • Technology development to specified milestones • Prototype • Improve efficiency, durability, other • Integration of components • Funds from licensing royalties • No G & A burden

3. Why is there a need ? Great Idea! marketABLE PRODUCTS Valley of Death

4. How the Companies See It • Technical risk • - What will design, testing, and production cost? • - Will it integrate with our other technology? • - Is something else out there that is better? • Market risk • - What segments of our customer base will want it? • - Will it meet customer expectations, including cost? • Can we sell enough units to make a profit?

5. What do companies say? “While this is interesting, it is at too early a stage for us to pursue discussions at this time.” “Is there a prototype for us to evaluate ?” “Please provide data relevant to operating conditions.” “Has the technology been integrated with other system components ?” “Can the system be used in a continuous flow mode ?” “What is the efficiency ?”

6. Goal of Innovation Grants • Mature the technology sufficiently to get it licensed once Innovation Grant milestones have been achieved • Ideal if milestones are informed by industry feedback

7. Leverage investment in R & D High Level of technology development Operating data Integration with other components Prototype Some scale up Low Low High Likelihood of getting licensed

8. Stakeholder Incentives Inadequate to Bridge the “Valley of Death” Science Stage Feasibility Stage Scientific Investigation Published Disclosures Proof of Concept Demo or Prototype ? Lack of Basic Economic and Business Metrics Govt. Funding Corp. & Private Investment Pursuit of Scientific Knowledge Pursuit of Profit

9. Translating Invention into Commercial ProductsStep & Loop Progression Sales & Profit Marketing Product Development Demonstration Prototype Social Impact Proof of Concept Characterization Discovery Scientific Knowledge Field Test Pile of good, but not good enough

10. Criteria for Proposal selection There must be an ROI or software disclosure on which the proposed works builds Is there sufficient market size to attract entrepreneurial or industry investment? Does the technology offer significant benefits over competitive alternatives? Is the technology perceived by industry as too risky without further evidence? Will achieving the proposed development milestones give the technology a good chance of being licensed?

11. 2012 and 2013 Awardees Spectrally Selective Dynamic Window Coatings Based on Nanocrystals - Delia Milliron Parallel Software Framework for TOUGH Suite of Codes - George Pau, Stefan Finsterle, Eric Sonnenthal Integrated Geophysical Electromagnetic Seismic Subsurface Imaging - Michael Commer, Greg, Newman, Petr Petrov iMEA Chip Prototyping and Optimization - Daojing Wang, Rafael Gomez-Sjoberg Neutron Generator to Replace Radioactive Sources - Qing Ji, Thomas Schenkel Endothelial Function in Blood Pressure Cuff - Jonathan Maltz, Thomas Budinger Improved Carbon Black Additive for High Energy Li-ion Batteries - Robert Kostecki, Vincent Battaglia, Simon Lux Graphene-based Optical Modulator for Data Communication - Xiang Zhang Radiation Sensitivity Assessment - Sylvain Cotes, Jian-Hua Mao, Steven Yannone Bifunctional Chelators for Use in Radiopharmaceuticals - Kenneth Raymond Rapid MRI Well Logging Alex Pines, Vik Bajaj, Dmitry Budker 2012 2013

12. The Process Questions ? – call x 6467 and ask for Bill or Pam October 15 – Proposals due Tech Transfer will meet with each applicant External review panel - December Awards announced -- December 2013 Work can begin as early as January 2014 Tech Transfer will work with each awardee to develop a commercialization plan