Love Park Robotics, led by CEO Tom Panzarella, is developing advanced driver assistance systems for electric powered wheelchairs.

As a winner of National Science Foundation (NSF) Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) grants, they are promoting cooperative navigation, destination intent, and collision avoidance featuring ?human in the loop? automation.

Similar technology is featured in the recent popularity of driverless automobiles. Though not a self-driving, robot wheelchair, their product line seeks to augment human capability and make up for increasing physical impairment and cognitive disabilities of their target audience.

Earlier this year, I met Tom at the company?s Philadelphia office. He and I finished a year-long consulting arrangement in 2012. I was assigned to be his advisor to help him attempt to win the NSF Phase II SBIR grant.

In discussing next steps in his business strategy, we considered the unique challenges and opportunities of robotics companies. Another conversation in late summer about Willow Garage and the importance of “productization” led us to consider if a research-heavy startup can really succeed in the market.

With his company at a crossroads between grants won, investor money received, and projected product revenues, he?s about to find out. The following is a Q&A with CEO Tom Panzarella.

Q: Why robotics and wheelchairs?

A: Prior to founding Love Park Robotics, I served as Chief Technology Officer for Freedom Sciences (FS), a leading manufacturer of automotive access solutions for people with disabilities.

The products included wheelchair lifts, docking systems, turning automotive seats, and a mobile robotics system called the Automated Transport and Retrieval System (ATRS). ATRS represents the current state-of-the-art in commercialized smart-wheelchair technology.

It specifically addresses the problem of automotive access for wheelchair users while providing a safer and more economical transportation alternative to van conversions, the current industry standard. This is accomplished by seamlessly integrating robotics and automation technologies with existing mobility products intended for retro-fitting into structurally unmodified automobiles.

ATRS features a smart-wheelchair that self-navigates between the vehicle?s driver seat position and a lift platform at the rear of the vehicle where the wheelchair is automatically secured and stowed for transport.

This eliminates the need for an attendant to stow and retrieve the wheelchair for the driver.

FS was acquired at the end of 2010. While I didn?t remain with the company, I was asked to assist FS as a consultant. This is when I formed Love Park Robotics. My long-term goal for the new venture was not to build a consulting company but rather a proprietary products company. I wanted to leverage my experience in commercializing robotics-based mobility aids and develop something more general than ATRS.

To that end, I performed a significant amount of market research. I quickly realized there was a need for a next generation electric powered wheelchair. I verified my assumptions with some of my industry contacts and further verified them with clinical experts. Once I knew there was a market, I began to seek out funding in the form of federal R&D grants.

We were lucky enough to be awarded a Phase I SBIR from NSF to prove out the feasibility of our idea. We have progressed on to Phase II funding and are now on our way to commercializing a suite of products based on our CoPilot technology stack.

I have been working on robotic smart-wheelchairs for about a decade now. Through my experiences at FS and in commercializing ATRS, my work has touched the lives of many people. Whether it was helping a paralyzed veteran to continue working as a real estate agent or assisting a college kid in attending university without requiring his parents drop him off and pick him up, the work in this space is very rewarding. I feel lucky to be able to apply my passion for developing advanced technologies that help others live a higher quality of life.

Ironically, in the mainstream automotive market, advanced driving aids (similar to those employed in CoPilot) are typically reserved for high-end luxury vehicles. These are “really nice-to-haves”. In the wheelchair market, these same capabilities may mean the difference between living at home and being institutionalized. The societal impact is what motivates me.

Q: How does your technology compare to other self-driving vehicles?

A: The most direct comparison to what we are doing for wheelchairs is what the automotive industry calls ?advanced driver assistance systems ?(ADAS). For many new vehicles, ADAS includes things like auto-parallel parking, lane departure warning systems, adaptive cruise control, active breaking, pedestrian detection, collision avoidance, etc.

These types of capabilities are necessary for wheelchairs as well as other transport applications. For example, someone with hand tremors may be able to navigate their wheelchair in open spaces but experience difficulty passing through a tight doorway. So, an ?ADAS? for wheelchairs would include doorway detection and navigation. From a technical perspective, the methods for estimation and control as well as the employed sensors are very much the same.

Significant interest in self-driving vehicle technology started with the 2004 DARPA Grand Challenge. U.S. military leadership, considering difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan, wanted to test out soldier-less convoys to minimize casualties from roadside bombs. Teams made up of tech enthusiasts and university research groups vyed for a $1M prize. In follow-on events, automakers became more actively involved and sponsored teams.

Over time, the technology got better, the vehicles passed the challenges, and companies sought to position these capabilities for the mass market.

Nowadays, autonomous vehicle technology is becoming commonplace and is available in some form or another from many leading car makers. We?d like to see similar technology available to wheelchair users. The catch is that the technology will not be paid for if it is viewed as a luxury item. Proof of medical necessity is required for the technology to be paid for by insurances.

Q: Why aren?t driver assisted wheelchairs on the market yet?

A: There are many reasons. For instance, they are hard to build at the reliability level that is required and within a cost budget that the market can bear. Additionally, you have to be very concerned about constraints like power budget, form factor, and aesthetics. Many of the autonomous wheelchair videos found on YouTube disregard these things. In my mind, these elements and other commercialization concerns are the difference between a lab project and a commercially viable product.

Healthcare in the U.S., in large part, relies upon third-party payers. If the product is not medically necessary (i.e., luxury item) it will not be paid for. You have to build something the market needs and not just have a cool technology. Also, FDA regulations scare many people away.

In some cases, I think the overall market numbers don?t excite larger companies, so they aren’t interested. For example, if you look at the size of the wheelchair market versus the worldwide automotive market, there is really no comparison. For a bootstrapped startup, the wheelchair market is plenty big to get established in and represents a nice niche.

Q: What are the pros and cons of seeking SBIR grant funding?

A: The SBIR program provides a viable investment source and generous usage of U.S. taxpayer money. There?s no sharing of equity or IP rights, so the non-dilutive nature of the grant is attractive. An important aspect of applying for Phase II is that NSF (in this case) almost forces you to partner. This activity ? reaching out to suppliers, investors, and corporate interests ? drives up the probability of commercialization success over time.

In my experience, venture capitalists try to avoid investments that present technical risk. They want to know whatever it is you are building will work. This allows them to focus on evaluating if the market risk meets their investment profile. NSF, on the other hand, requires there to be technical risk. It is your job to convince the NSF reviewers that your team is the right group to take on that risk and, if you can prove its feasibility, that a market for the resulting product or service exists.

So, if a company can win SBIR grants, it?s like a technical ?stamp of approval? by the government granting agency and therefore becomes very attractive to post-SBIR investors ? NSF calls this Phase III. For us, this helped in finding angel investors to commit financial support. Additionally, it gave us credibility when reaching out to corporate partners.

On the downside, grant applications are time consuming to prepare with no guarantee of winning. When you do win, it is usually six months or more until you actually receive any money. Also, the budget supplied with the grant application is very tight with very little room for funds to be allocated to unforeseen costs that will inevitably pop up for any startup taking on a high technology development project. Clearly, a company cannot commercialize a high tech product on SBIR grant funding alone.

They will have to partner, sell something, or win additional investment elsewhere.

Q: How do you get to ?minimal viable product? vs. the dangers of perpetual research?

A: We plan to get our first consumer product on the market in 2014. Licensing is our business model and we are currently in talks with interested parties. The Lean Startup concept of minimal viable product is 100% valid. At first, we had a bunch of technology and capabilities but it was not organized into concrete products.

While we are still investing in building new technology, we are also synthesizing various pieces of our existing technology into saleable products. These products will not showcase every feature or capability of our technology stack but they will solve very specific problems that we expect customers will be willing to pay for.

The biggest challenge of running a research-based startup and a long path to market is the same as any startup: making sure you have enough cash in the bank to pay your people and get your product built. You need a team that is focused on getting to the market and shifting your income stream from federal R&D grants to product-originated income.

So, you want people who are both smart and commercialization focused. Perpetual R&D is best left to the university labs. At Love Park Robotics, we are not interested in becoming an ?SBIR mill?. We want to build high-tech products for commercial sale that will change the world for the better.

However, one benefit to the longer-term research focus, enabled by SBIR grants, is the fact that you have the time to focus on the hard technical problems and take risks that many more established companies cannot. This is where true innovations come from. Additionally, the strategic partner focus of an SBIR program like NSF is invaluable for a startup.

Once a relationship with a strategic corporate partner is built, your project almost feels like a ?Skunk Works? operation for that company ? potentially, your first customer.

One of our strategic partners once said that they view us as an extension of their internal R&D team. We take on challenges that they?re too busy for due to the day-to-day distractions associated with supporting their existing products out in the market.

Lance Manning is a R&D Advisor with the Larta Institute and works with companies funded by the NSF, NIH, and U.S. Army. His Twitter ID is @LanceKManning.