
Google Patents Needle-Free Blood Draw - e15ctr0n
http://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?PageNum=0&docid=20150342509&IDKey=9B7DC623905A&HomeUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fappft.uspto.gov%2Fnetacgi%2Fnph-Parser%3FSect1%3DPTO1%2526Sect2%3DHITOFF%2526d%3DPG01%2526p%3D1%2526u%3D%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html%2526r%3D1%2526f%3DG%2526l%3D50%2526s1%3D20150342509.PGNR.%2526OS%3D%2526RS%3D
======
gliese1337
Mewonders why _Google_ is developing this. Sure, Google is pretty diverse, but
medical technology still seems a bit out-of-scope.

Questions of corporate motivation aside, however, this will never replace the
majority of blood draws. The patent claims it is only intended for small
samples, so if the lab needs more than this device can reliably extract in one
go, they'll do it the old-fashioned way. Additionally, there's a high
likelihood of hemolysis (rupturing of red blood cells, which releases
haemoglobin and the rest of the contents of the cytoplasm into the blood
plasma). The patent does not appear to address that issue (perhaps I just
missed it, but I saw no references), but my wife (who is an ICU/ER nurse)
tells me it is problem. That also severely restricts the range of tests for
which blood drawn by this method would be suitable.

~~~
minimaxir
Keep in mind that Google has an _entire division_ for projects that are not
necessarily tired to the core search business.

A system for blood-free draw that works reliably would fit the moonshot
descriptor quite easily.

~~~
justinator
Their core _advertising_ business

~~~
jessedhillon
I'm actually curious about what you think your comment is adding.

------
danso
Related to the snarky comments about how this relates to Google's
search/advertising business...that raises an interesting question: why isn't
this filed under _Alphabet Inc._ rather than Google? I thought that was the
purpose of having Alphabet, to be the umbrella over old-Google's old and new
businesses?

edit: I can answer my own question: this was published on December 3, 2015.
But it was filed May 28, 2014, which was created in 2015.

~~~
ryanmonroe
Check the file date (May 2014). This was filed before the existence of
Alphabet.

------
joelberman
Just glucose monitoring for diabetics would make this a valuable patent. The
last try at noninvasive glucose monitoring did not work out very well.

------
coliveira
This should be better classified now as Alphabet's technology. Google is just
the software/advertisement side of the business.

------
incepted
They're probably patenting this to make sure nobody else does, and if Google's
track record is any indication, they will probably make this available for
free.

~~~
rayiner
"Patenting it so someone else can't" is just something people say. Publishing
the details of the technique would be enough to establish prior art--no need
to file a patent. There is such a thing as defensive patenting, but that's
more about building up a portfolio of patents in an area so that if someone
sues you, you have something to counterclaim with.

~~~
chii
> building up a portfolio of patents in an area so that if someone sues you,
> you have something to counterclaim with.

this is the reason i say patents have become perverse.

------
natvod
What impact would this have on the already embattled Theranos?

~~~
saisi
I believe they occupy different, but slightly overlapping niches in the chain
of causation. Theranos' claim to fame is a method of blood testing that
requires drawing of significantly smaller amounts compared to traditional/
contemporary methods of blood testing. The claim is that Theranos' method can
produce satisfactory blood test results with smaller vials of blood. Google's
patent however is specifically on the means of drawing. Therefore, a medical
care provider could reasonably combine Google+Theranos' methods, unless of
course Theranos' method has a strictly incompatible means of drawing blood.
Hopefully someone more versed can shed more light on this

------
Turing_Machine
So this thing is basically shooting you with a very tiny bullet? Interesting.

------
awgneo
This company is as scatter brained as I am.

~~~
HappyTypist
Android Wear smartwatch with automatic glucose monitoring.

~~~
BlakePetersen
I'd give anything for one of those... Those Dexcom CGM needles are scary long.
=\

------
jaggederest
Looks like a lancet to me, I wonder how it changes the experience compared to
a spring-loaded draw.

~~~
BlakePetersen
As a type-1 diabetic, to check my glucose, I have to use a spring-loaded
device that pricks my finger with a needle which I then squeeze out to get a
large enough sample, then pick up another device with a test strip attached
where I collect the sample.

Read the last paragraph (0003) of the Background and then look at that watch
device. If I could flip my wrist over, push a button, hear a hiss and 5
seconds later I can tell where my levels are, my day to day life, for the rest
of my life, is made that much easier.

~~~
jessaustin
That particular level of automation wouldn't be the end state for the
technology. Why not a wristband you wear that just does all of that itself,
when it decides to, and then either tells you to eat or communicates with some
other device able to change your blood chemistry?

------
tux1968
The link no longer works.

~~~
e15ctr0n
Try

[http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=...](http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-
Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=20150342509.PGNR).

or

[http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2015/0342509.html](http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2015/0342509.html)

------
hugenerd
This is a publication, not a patent. The title is incorrect.

------
vpribish
It's more interesting than, but not as amusing as, a tiny hicky-machine.

------
cdnsteve
This sounds evil...

~~~
BlakePetersen
You obviously couldn't bother to read three paragraphs in to see clearly how
this is not.

~~~
Animats
Yes, it _is_ shooting you with a tiny bullet and sucking up the blood splash
that results. The patent calls it a "micro-particle", 10µm to 250µm caliber.
It can be "dart-shaped" or spherical. Muzzle velocity may be supersonic. The
suggested material is gold particles held together with biodegradable glue,
which is a neutral material for humans. Or maybe just a water droplet.

It seems they've tested this thing. On Google employees?

~~~
danieltillett
This is basically the same way you can get DNA into cells for gene
transformation. These “bullets” better not have any DNA on them.

------
aczerepinski
This is for more relevant search results, right?

~~~
mirimir
This is rather a snide comment. But yet, how much more invasive is
physiological monitoring than allowing video and audio monitoring of ones
home? Or ones children, via dolls?

