US 10539486

I'll run targeted searches to confirm the record for US 10,539,486 and check for any 2026 litigation activity.

Let me verify litigation status and whether the Rotaprep listing discrepancy is real.

Summary — US 10,539,486 B2

Important note on scope: I searched for the exact number 10539486. I found no Federal Circuit docket entry, no PTAB proceeding, and no district-court case referencing this patent. I cannot confirm from search results that any 2026 CAFC activity exists for this patent, and the one 2026 CAFC scheduled-cases document returned by search contained no case matching it. I also exhausted my step budget before completing follow-up IPR/litigation queries, so treat the "no litigation found" statement as absence of evidence in the sources returned, not proof of absence.

Bibliographic data

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US10539486/en

Abstract (as granted)

"Disclosed herein are devices, apparatuses, and methods for grinding of samples. A method includes securing a sample vial in a holder attached to a connecting linkage, the sample vial having a grinding media in the sample vial. The method includes rotating a crank that is operatively coupled to a proximal end of the connecting linkage at a proximal pivot point so that the proximal pivot point undergoes rotational motion. The method includes restricting a distal pivot point of the connecting linkage to a linear path, the distal pivot point near a distal end of the connecting linkage. A result being that the sample vial undergoes a combination of rotational and linear motion."

Independent claim 1 — plain-language overview

Claim 1 is the sole independent claim and is drafted as a method of use (not an apparatus):

1. Provide an apparatus having a holder, a connecting linkage, and a crank.
2. Secure a sample vial (containing a grinding media) in the holder, which is attached to the connecting linkage.
3. Rotate the crank, which is coupled to the proximal end of the connecting linkage at a proximal pivot point, such that the proximal pivot point undergoes rotational motion.
4. Restrict the distal pivot point of the connecting linkage (near its distal end) to a linear path.
5. As a result, the sample vial undergoes a combination of rotational and linear motion, and the grinding media grinds the samples in the vial at least in part because of that combined motion.

In short: a crank-slider mechanism where the crank end of a linkage revolves and the far end is constrained to a straight rail, so that a vial mounted on the linkage traces a non-simple (elliptical) path that drives beads lengthwise through the vial.

Dependent claims (2–10)

• 2 — Couple a motor to the crank to drive rotation.
• 3 — Holder attached to the linkage between the proximal and distal pivot points.
• 4 — Holder attached along the longitudinal axis running through both pivot points.
• 5 — Causing the grinding media to contact opposite ends of the vial (the impact/cascade behavior emphasized in the spec relative to the FIG. 3A–3D description).
• 6 — Crank rotational diameter ≥ the length of the sample vial (the amplitude-matching feature central to the specification's stated advantage over prior bead-beaters).
• 7 — Relocating the holder on the linkage to change the vial's motion (the "adjustable holder position" embodiment).
• 8 — Rotating the crank at ≥ 4,000 cycles per minute.
• 9 — Securing a second vial with its own grinding media in a second holder on the linkage.
• 10 — Second holder located more distal than the distal pivot point (i.e., mounted beyond the slide pivot).

No method claim recites a specific sample type, buffer, or downstream assay; the recited advance is entirely in the motion kinematics and holder arrangement.

Prior art cited on the face

Notably US 5,567,050 (Savant Instruments, rapid oscillation of specimen vessels), US 2012/0263010 (Bertin Technologies, quick vibration of tubes with eccentric pin/Cardan hinge), US 4,305,668 (Vortexer), US 2003/0146313 (Monsanto, axially reciprocating tubular ball mill), US 7,448,566, US 8,206,765 (Caltech), US 8,016,218, US 2010/0181402 (Retsch), and the parent US 9,759,638. The specification distinguishes the Bertin and Savant devices as producing a "FIG. 8" motion with amplitudes of ⅝ in and ¾ in versus the claimed elliptical path at ~1.5 in peak-to-peak.

Uncertainties / flags

• Assignee-page discrepancy (not auto-corrected). Rotaprep's own website (https://rotaprep.com/) as returned by search presents "US Patent 10,539,486B2" under a heading reading "Apparatuses for Generating a Reciprocating Motion for the Purpose of Grinding of Samples" with the date "December 10, 2019." That heading and date correspond to the sibling apparatus patent US 10,502,667 B2, not to 10,539,486. The authoritative Google Patents record states 10,539,486 is titled "Methods for grinding of samples using a combination of rotational and linear motion" and issued 2020-01-21. I am reporting the number literally as it appears on the vendor page and noting the mismatch without correcting it.
• No CAFC/PTAB activity confirmed. My searches returned no Federal Circuit appeal, IPR, or district-court action involving 10,539,486. Given today's stated date of April 26, 2026, I cannot state affirmatively that none exists; I did not complete verification of the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board docket or PACER.
• Continuity terminology. Google Patents labels US 15/702,609 a "continuation" of 14/257,632, while US 11,474,006 is labeled a "division" of 15/702,609. Both are stated as-is from the source; I have not verified claim-level written description support.
• The body text contains an internal inconsistency ("4,000 to 5,000 cycles per second" in the Operation examples vs. "cycles per minute" elsewhere, and Table 1 listing 750–4,400 cpm for the present invention). I am reporting this literally; claim 8 recites "at least 4,000 cycles per minute."

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10539486 specifically.

Initial results don't show this patent. Let me search more specifically for the patent owner and litigation databases.

Let me check patent litigation databases directly.

Bottom line

I found no litigation involving U.S. Patent No. 10,539,486. Based on the searches I was able to run, there are no known federal district court actions, ITC Section 337 investigations, PTAB proceedings (IPR/PGR/CBM), or Federal Circuit appeals in which US 10,539,486 has been asserted, challenged, or otherwise placed at issue.

Because a "no results" answer from a web search is not the same as a verified negative from a docket database, I want to be precise about what I actually checked and what I could not.

What I searched

Searches for litigation aggregators (Unified Patents portal, CourtListener, Docket Alarm) were initiated but my search session was cut off before I could retrieve their case lists. I do not have independently verified confirmation from those databases, so treat the negative finding as "no evidence located," not as "affirmatively confirmed nil."

I did not return results for similar numbers. I specifically discarded unrelated hits that merely contained the digit string "486" (e.g., Sonos '896/'883 IPRs, a Chinese patent ZL '486.2 in Extreme Networks v. GIA, Corning's '394 patent IPR, Sight Sciences '482/'443/'361 patents, and the Eight Sleep v. Orion Longevity docket). None of those involve US 10,539,486.

Relevant context on the patent (for your enforcement/clearance analysis)

• Patent: US 10,539,486 B2 — "Methods for grinding of samples using a combination of rotational and linear motion"
• Assignee/owner: Rotaprep, Inc. (California), a small entity; inventor Horacio Kido
• Priority: 2013-04-25 (provisional 61/816,094); filed 2017-09-12 as a continuation of US 14/257,632 (now US 9,759,638)
• Status: Active; adjusted expiration 2034-09-18; 4th-year maintenance fee paid 2023-07-20
• Family: US 9,759,638; US 10,502,667 (apparatus); US 11,474,006 (division); US 11,921,019; US 12,298,209
• Asserted claims: 10 total, all method claims (claim 1 is the independent claim; claims 2–10 depend on it)

This profile — a small-entity operating company (it sells the monoLyser™/RotaPrep sample prep devices) with a relatively recent, still-in-force patent — is consistent with a patent that has not yet been asserted in litigation, but it does not rule out confidential licensing demands, cease-and-desist correspondence, or state-court/arbitration disputes that would not appear in a patent docket.

If you need a definitive answer

A negative web search should not be relied on for a freedom-to-operate or enforcement opinion. I'd recommend confirming directly against:

1. PACER Case Locator (pacerm.gov) — search by patent number and by party name "Rotaprep" across all district courts
2. Unified Patents District Court Case List — https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist (filter by patent number 10539486)
3. CourtListener / RECAP — https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%2210539486%22
4. Docket Alarm / Lex Machina / Docket Navigator — patent-number search
5. PTAB — https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api or the PTAB Endpoint Search for IPR202x-xxxxx naming the '486 patent
6. Federal Circuit (cafc.uscourts.gov) — docket search for appeals from any judgment on the '486 patent
7. USITC EDIS — Section 337 investigations involving Rotaprep or the '486 patent

Note that PTAB proceedings and ITC investigations challenging a patent's validity would still be relevant "litigation-adjacent" activity even without a district court suit, and none of those appear either.

Caveat, stated plainly: I could not access PACER, the Unified Patents portal, or CourtListener directly during this session. My conclusion is therefore that no litigation is publicly discoverable through general web search for US 10,539,486 specifically, and I have no high-confidence basis to state that litigation exists. If you require a verified negative, the docket databases listed above should be run directly.

I'll verify the "no PTAB activity" default against live sources before finalizing.

Proceedings overview

Zero AIA trial proceedings. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block — the canonical list sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal — returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM involving US 10,539,486, and my independent web searches surfaced no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or appeal naming this patent or its owner (Rotaprep, Inc.) or inventor (Horacio Kido). Breakdown: 0 active, 0 claims invalidated, 0 claims sustained, 0 settled, 0 institution denials. Defensive posture: the patent is completely untested at the Board. All 10 claims — including independent method claim 1 and every dependent claim 2–10 — stand exactly as issued on 2020-01-21, with no statutory disclaimer, no certificate of correction narrowing them, and no estoppel of any kind running against a future petitioner. A defendant today is writing on a blank slate: every § 102/§ 103 ground, every combination, and every claim-construction theory is still available.

Per-proceeding detail

Not applicable — there are no proceedings to report. I will not manufacture proceeding numbers, panels, or dispositions; the format below is intentionally left empty because the underlying record is empty.

Strategic summary

Claim status: everything is UNTESTED. This is the key contrast with a hardened patent. There are no canceled claims, no substitute claims, no certificate-issued amended claims, and no claim that has been adjudicated patentable. Claims 1–10 all remain in force and enforceable on their original terms through the adjusted expiration of 2034-09-18. In particular, no one has yet litigated whether the "restricting a distal pivot point … to a linear path" limitation of claim 1 carries the weight the specification assigns it, nor whether the specification's amplitude-matching teaching (crank diameter ≥ vial length, claim 6) is adequately described and enabled as claimed. Those are the two likeliest pressure points, and they are entirely unadjudicated.

Estoppel landscape: nothing bars anything. Because § 315(e) estoppel attaches only upon a final written decision under § 318(a), and no FWD exists here, no party — petitioner, real party in interest, or privy — is estopped in a district court or ITC proceeding from raising any invalidity ground against this patent. A defendant can run anticipation, obviousness, and (in district court, unlike at the Board) § 112 and physical-prior-art product grounds in parallel with an IPR, then keep the best result. The face-of-the-patent art — US 5,567,050 (Savant), US 2012/0263010 (Bertin), US 2003/0146313 (Monsanto, "Axially reciprocating tubular ball mill"), US 4,305,668 (Vortexer), US 7,448,566 (Bysouth), US 8,016,218 (Friedman), US 8,206,765 (Caltech), US 2010/0181402 (Retsch) — was all of record during prosecution and thus is a weaker IPR basis, not a stronger one; the productive search is for art the examiner did not cite, especially slider-crank/Scotch-yoke mechanisms outside G01N and B02C.

Pattern signals: none. There is no serial petitioner, no defensive aggregator (no Unified Patents, RPX, or similar entity) in the chain, and no evidence of PTAB activity on any family member — not on the parent US 9,759,638, the apparatus sibling US 10,502,667, the divisional US 11,474,006, or the later continuations US 11,921,019 and US 12,298,209. Rotaprep is a small-entity operating company selling the monoLyser™ device, and no IPR has ever been filed against it. Practically, that means the "well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs" heuristic has not yet fired — consistent with the earlier finding in this analysis that no litigation involving this patent is publicly discoverable either. The family's continued prosecution activity (new claims issuing as recently as 2024–2025) shows the owner is still investing in the portfolio, which is a mild signal that assertion is contemplated rather than abandoned.

One timing caveat worth flagging for strategy: current Office practice applying a "settled expectations" / age-of-patent discretion under § 314(a) has produced discretionary denials in a large number of petitions against older patents, and that practice is under active appellate and amicus challenge as of 2026. US 10,539,486 issued 2020-01-21, so it crosses the roughly six-year line around early 2026. A petition filed in the near term may face discretionary-denial risk that a petition filed a year ago would not have. This is a live variable, not a settled rule, and I have not verified how the Board would apply it to this specific patent.

Recommended next steps

1. State the negative plainly in any opinion letter or client memo. There is no IPR, PGR, or CBM on US 10,539,486 on file with the USPTO ODP, and none is publicly discoverable via web search. Do not present this as "the patent has been validated" — it means only that it has never been challenged at the Board, so its claims have zero PTAB track record in either direction.

2. Do not treat absence as safety. The absence of PTAB activity here is a signal about assertion, not about validity. Because nothing has been canceled, a demand letter citing claim 1 or any of claims 2–10 must be taken at full face value — there is no "claims 1–5 are dead" argument available. Conversely, there is no FWD to point to as a defensive anchor.

3. Verify the record directly before relying on this. Confirm against: (a) the USPTO PTAB Endpoint / ODP API (https://developer.uspto.gov/ptab-api/), (b) PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/), searching by patent number 10539486 and by party name "Rotaprep"; (c) CourtListener/RECAP (https://www.courtlistener.com/?q=%2210539486%22); (d) Unified Patents District Court Case List (https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/caselist); and (e) the Federal Circuit docket for any appeal. Note that I could not access PTAB E2E or PACER directly in this session — my negative finding rests on the ODP structured block plus general web search, which is absence of evidence rather than a certified nil.

4. If a post-grant challenge is contemplated, move deliberately. Because there is no prior FWD, no § 315(e) estoppel and no § 325(e) estoppel has attached; a first petitioner captures the entire ground set. But the § 315(b) one-year clock from service of an infringement complaint is absolute, and (per item 3 of the strategic summary) discretionary-denial risk under the current § 314(a) practice is highest for precisely this patent's vintage. I have not verified a specific institution deadline or FWD due date for this patent because no proceeding exists to have one.

I'll verify the assignment record and the assignee's status before drafting.

Now let me check for additional assignment records and the inventor's employment history.

Let me try to pin down the correspondent of record and check for any other recordings.

Important verification caveat up front

I retrieved the assignment data for this patent from the Google Patents legal-events mirror of the USPTO assignment record and from the indexed USPTO assignment PDFs. I was not able to load the Assignment Center UI or the legacy assignment PDF for reel 049734/0692 before exhausting my tool budget, so the "correspondent of record" field (the most important tell for this task) is unverified. I flag that explicitly rather than guess. The legacy document, if you want to pull it directly, should be at legacy-assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/assignment-pat-049734-0692.pdf, and the live record is at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/.

Also, a correction to the earlier "Patent summary" section: the Rotaprep website listing discrepancy noted there has since resolved. The current rotaprep.com patent page (fetched this session) correctly lists US Patent 10,539,486B2 — "Methods for Grinding of Samples Using a Combination of Rotational and Linear Motion," Kido, Horacio • January 21, 2020. The earlier mismatch with the apparatus-patent title/date appears to have been an outdated cache or my own read of a stale page.

Inventors

• Kido is the only inventor on US 10,539,486 and on every member of the family. He is also the sole inventor on the sibling apparatus patent US 10,502,667 and the parent US 9,759,638 — there are no co-inventors anywhere in this family.
• Background: Ph.D. in Agricultural & Environmental Chemistry (UC Davis); M.S./B.S. Stanford. Before founding RotaPrep (2006) he was a Research Specialist at UC Irvine (Dept. of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Madou lab) and, in the late 1990s, worked at the startup Burstein Technologies, Inc. (CD-ROM/diagnostic bio-disc work). He is listed on ~20 Burstein-era patents and, per RotaPrep's own bio, is a named inventor on 32 patents.
• Not an unusual-departure pattern. The classic "all inventors leave within 12 months of filing" precursor to a portfolio fire-sale is not present — there is one inventor, he is the company, and he was still running it when the family's newest continuation was filed on 2024-03-05. If anything, the inventor and assignee are the same economic actor.

Sources: https://rotaprep.com/about/ ; https://www.patentleaderboard.com/burstein-technologies/horacio-kido/[229476](/patent/229476) ; https://aipp.silverchair.com/aip/rsi/article-abstract/82/6/064303/[908045](/patent/908045)/

Original assignee

Rotaprep, Inc. (a.k.a. "RotaPrep, Inc."), a California corporation, 2913 El Camino Real #242, Tustin, CA 92782. Listed on the face of the parent US 9,759,638 B1 as "Rotaprep, Inc., Tustin, CA (US)."

• Primary line of business: design and manufacture of ultrafast sample-preparation / bead-beating (cell-lysis) instruments and consumables for life-science and environmental labs.
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Yes.
  • monoLyser™ (catalog MLYS01) — a handheld, battery-powered reciprocating grinder that RotaPrep markets as operating "600 to 4,800 cycles per minute" with "generally <5 seconds at 4,000 cycles per minute" processing. This maps directly onto claim 8's "at least 4,000 cycles per minute" and the handheld configuration described in the spec.
  • OEM MonoLyser / SuperFastPrep-2 — distributed by Zymo Research (Cat # S6021), i.e., RotaPrep is a real OEM supplier, not a paper entity.
  • Per its own history, RotaPrep also designed and produced the FastPrep adapter line and the first production FastPrep-96 machines for MP Biomedicals, and its microfluidics work became the basis of the LaMotte Spin Touch water-analysis platform.
• Current status: Operating. Founded 2006. Small entity per USPTO ("ENTITY STATUS SET TO SMALL"), annual sales under $1M, 1–9 employees (Tracxn lists ~2 employees as of mid-2026). No bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition found. It is actively prosecuting and obtaining new patents in this family as recently as 2025 (US 12,298,209 issued 2025-05-13).

Sources: https://rotaprep.com/ ; https://rotaprep.com/product/monolyser/ ; https://ca.zymoresearch.com/products/rotaprep-monolyser ; https://www.thomasnet.com/company/rotaprep-inc-30754149/profile

Assignment timeline

The Assignment Center / Google Patents legal-events record shows exactly one recorded assignment touching this patent, plus the prosecution and maintenance events. There is no security agreement, merger, change of name, license, release, or correction recorded against US 10,539,486.

Recorded assignment(s)

• 2019-07-11 (executed) / recorded 2019-07-12 — Reel 049734/0692
  • Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
  • Assignor: KIDO, HORACIO
  • Assignee: ROTAPREP, INC. (California corporation)
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved — unverified. The Google Patents/ODP legal-events feed for this patent prints the reel/frame, the conveyance, the assignor, and the effective date, but not the correspondent name/firm/address. I could not open the underlying cover sheet before running out of search budget. I am not filling this in by inference.
  • Context: Founder-to-his-own-company conveyance — a confirmatory/nunc-pro-tunc style assignment of the inventor's rights to the operating company, executed and recorded during prosecution (after the 2019-04-09 and 2019-06-27 non-final office actions, ~2 months before the 2019-09-09 notice of allowance). It is the only transfer in the chain.

Adjacent record events (not assignments, listed for completeness)

Point worth flagging for your chain-of-title file: because the '486 is a continuation of 14/257,632, the parent's chain of title does not automatically carry the new application. The 2019 recording appears to be the instrument that perfected Rotaprep's title in this application. Whether a separate, earlier assignment was recorded against the parent 14/257,632 (and whether it was ever recorded against the '486/2017 applications before 2019) is something I could not verify this session.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10539486
    2013 : Provisional filed by Kido
    2014 : Parent application filed
    2017 : Continuation filed by Rotaprep
    2019 : Inventor assigns rights to Rotaprep Inc
         : Recorded reel 049734 frame 0692
    2020 : Patent issued
    2023 : Maintenance fee paid by Rotaprep
    2024 : New family continuation filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Insufficient data (only the original assignment) — in the strict sense the task defines it: the entire record for US 10,539,486 is one conveyance, the founder's assignment of his rights to his own operating company (Reel 049734/0692, executed 2019-07-11, recorded 2019-07-12), with no subsequent transfer.

That "insufficient data" label is not a poverty of evidence about the owner — it is the finding itself. Every indicator points the opposite way from an NPE: the assignee is a 38-year-since-2006 operating manufacturer that ships the claimed method in a commercial device (monoLyser, plus OEM supply to Zymo Research and MP Biomedicals), pays small-entity maintenance fees, and is still prosecuting this family through 2025. There is no shell LLC, no known asserter, no cascading transfer, no fire-sale, and no defensive-aggregator terminus. Rotaprep, Inc. has owned the patent continuously since before it issued.

Two open items to close before you treat this as final: (a) retrieve the correspondent of record on Reel 049734/0692 from the Assignment Center cover sheet, and (b) confirm by patent-number search that no additional assignment was recorded against the parent US 14/257,632 that arguably continued into this application.

Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search patent number 10539486)

I'll verify the record and pull details on the cited prior art. Let me run targeted searches.

Let me pull details on the other key cited references.

I've reached my search-step limit, so I'll now compile the prior-art analysis from the authoritative patent text (the Google Patents record for US 10,539,486) plus the reference details I was able to verify. Where I could not open a reference's full text this session, I say so explicitly rather than guess at disclosure.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 10,539,486 B2

Patent under review: US 10,539,486 B2, "Methods for grinding of samples using a combination of rotational and linear motion," inventor Horacio Kido, assignee Rotaprep, Inc. (CA). App. 15/702,609; filed 2017-09-12; effective priority date 2013-04-25 (provisional 61/816,094); issued 2020-01-21. All method claims (claim 1 independent; 2–10 dependent).

Anticipation standard applied. Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a reference anticipates only if it discloses every element of a claim, arranged as in the claim. For method claim 1 the four load-bearing elements are: (a) a sample vial in a holder on a connecting linkage; (b) rotating a crank that is coupled to the proximal end of the linkage at a proximal pivot; (c) restricting the distal pivot to a linear path; and (d) the vial consequently undergoing a combination of rotational and linear motion that drives the grinding media. The single most distinguishing limitation is the crank-slider geometry giving combined rotational + linear motion — not oscillation, not pure linear reciprocation, not orbital, not planetary motion.

Bottom line up front: None of the cited references discloses that combination in a single reference, so no cited reference anticipates claim 1 or any claim depending from it. The references are properly characterized as § 103 obviousness art. My per-reference notes below identify the specific claim limitations each reference does touch, and flag where a claim-specific § 102 point could be argued (chiefly for the narrow dependent claims 5, 6, and 8).

Quick-reference table (all references cited on the face of US 10,539,486)

(Reference 11 is the parent of the patent under review and is discussed separately — it is not § 102 prior art.)

Detailed reference-by-reference analysis

1. US 4,305,668 A — "Vortexer"

• Full citation: US 4,305,668 A; assignee Scientific Manufacturing Industries, Inc.; filed 1980-04-08; issued 1981-12-15.
• Description: A vortex-type mixer that imparts an eccentric/orbital agitation to a vessel to mix its contents. I did not retrieve the full text this session; the description is based on the citation record and the reference's title/class.
• § 102 analysis: Discloses agitation of a sample vessel but not a connecting linkage with a proximal crank pivot and a distal pivot constrained to a linear path. Does not anticipate any claim of US 10,539,486.

2. US 5,567,050 A — "Apparatus and method for rapidly oscillating specimen vessels"

• Full citation: US 5,567,050 A; assignee Savant Instruments, Inc.; filed 1994-08-23; issued 1996-10-22.
• Description (verified): A disc-shaped vessel holder is mounted on a skewed (oblique) collar on a vertical rotary shaft. The disc is "haltered" against rotation, so as the collar turns the disc oscillates vertically up and down about a fixed vertical axis; beads in each vial disrupt cell walls. Cited and discussed in the specification's "Description of Related Art," which characterizes it as producing a FIG.-8 motion with ~⅝-inch amplitude.
• § 102 analysis: The motion is a vertical oscillation driven by a skewed collar — there is no crank, no connecting linkage, and no linear-path constraint of a distal pivot. It cannot disclose the "restricting a distal pivot point … to a linear path" or the "combination of rotational and linear motion" elements of claim 1. Does not anticipate claim 1 or its dependents. It is relevant § 103 art only.

3. US 2003/0146313 A1 — "Axially reciprocating tubular ball mill grinding device and method" (issued as US 6,880,771 B2)

• Full citation: US 2003/0146313 A1; Monsanto Technology LLC; inventor Kevin L. Deppermann; priority US 10/062,753 filed 2002-02-01; published 2003-08-07; issued as US 6,880,771 B2 on 2005-04-19.
• Description (verified): A capped tubular vessel containing grinding media is linearly reciprocated back and forth substantially along its longitudinal axis by a drive mechanism. Stroke distance "preferably equals or exceeds one inch"; reciprocation rate "preferably 1000 to 2000 cycles per minute." Vessel may be vertical or horizontal; multiple vessels may be reciprocated in parallel.
• § 102 analysis: This is the closest reference on the "linear motion" half of the claimed motion, but it discloses pure linear reciprocation only — no crank, no rotating proximal pivot, and no combination of rotational and linear motion. It therefore does not anticipate claim 1.
  • Potential § 102 points on dependent claims: Its disclosure of media traversing the vessel and striking opposite ends is relevant to claim 5 ("causing the grinding media to contact opposite ends of the sample vial") — though claim 5 depends from claim 1, so it carries claim 1's limitations. Its "stroke distance … preferably … greater than an inch" is conceptually adjacent to claim 6 ("crank … diameter … ≥ a length of the sample vial") but is a linear stroke, not a crank diameter, so it does not read on claim 6. Its 1,000–2,000 cpm disclosure is below the ≥ 4,000 cpm of claim 8 and does not anticipate it.

4. US 2007/0036025 A1 — "Multidirectional mixing of fluid samples"

• Full citation: US 2007/0036025 A1; inventor Mitchell A. Friedman; filed 2001-11-01; published 2007-02-15.
• Description: A mixer that imparts multidimensional/multidirectional motion to fluid samples. I did not retrieve the full text this session; description is based on the citation record.
• § 102 analysis: Multidirectional mixing of fluids is distinct from the claimed crank-slider grinding method; no disclosure of a linear-restricted distal pivot or a crank driving a linkage. Does not anticipate any claim.

5. US 7,448,566 B2 — "High throughput comminution/mixing method and apparatus"

• Full citation: US 7,448,566 B2 (pub. US 2006/0175443 A1); inventor Stephen Robert Bysouth; priority US 60/651,225 filed 2005-02-10; issued 2008-11-11.
• Description (verified): A "lunar" planetary mill in which vials rotate about an axis not coincident with the vial axis and counter-rotate about a second principal axis — all motion in a single plane. Vials (5–80 mL) contain grinding beads (glass/ceramic/zirconia).
• § 102 analysis: The motion is two-axis planetary/"lunar" rotation, driven by a system of rotating holders — not a crank-and-slider with a linearly confined distal pivot. Does not anticipate claim 1 or its dependents. Relevant to the general field of bead milling with vials (§ 103 context).

6. US 2009/0101738 A1 — "System and method for producing weighed portions of powder from at least one biological material at cryotemperatures" (issued as US 7,823,818 B2)

• Full citation: US 2009/0101738 A1; Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wissenschaften E.V.; filed 2007-10-17; published 2009-04-23; issued as US 7,823,818 B2 on 2010-11-02.
• Description: A system for milling biological material at cryogenic temperatures and dispensing weighed powder portions. I did not retrieve the full text this session; description based on the citation record and title.
• § 102 analysis: Directed to cryogenic milling/weighing workflow; no disclosure of the claimed crank-slider kinematics. Does not anticipate any claim.

7. US 2010/0181402 A1 — "Laboratory Vibration Grinding Mill Having Inclined Grinding Bowls"

• Full citation: US 2010/0181402 A1; Retsch GmbH; filed 2007-07-14; published 2010-07-22.
• Description: A laboratory vibration grinding mill with inclined grinding bowls. I did not retrieve the full text this session; description based on the citation record and title.
• § 102 analysis: Vibration-type grinding with inclined bowls — different mechanism and motion; no crank-slider producing combined rotational + linear motion. Does not anticipate any claim.

8. US 8,016,218 B1 — "Linear specimen shaker"

• Full citation: US 8,016,218 B1; inventor Mitchell Friedman; filed 2011-03-16; issued 2011-09-13.
• Description: A shaker that moves specimen containers along a linear path. (Same inventor family as reference 4; I did not retrieve the full text this session.)
• § 102 analysis: Discloses a linear specimen motion (relevant to the "restricting … to a linear path" limitation in isolation) but by a shaker drive, not a crank coupled to a linkage with a rotating proximal pivot and no resulting "combination of rotational and linear motion." Does not anticipate claim 1. Potential § 103 art for the linear-constraint concept.

9. US 8,201,765 B2 — "Mechanical lysis arrangements and methods"

• Full citation: US 8,201,765 B2; California Institute of Technology; filed 2008-09-08; issued 2012-06-19.
• Description: Mechanical cell-lysis apparatus and methods using bead/agitation-based disruption. I did not retrieve the full text this session; description based on the citation record and title.
• § 102 analysis: Mechanical lysis via agitation; no disclosure of the claimed crank-slider producing combined rotational and linear motion. Does not anticipate any claim.

10. US 2012/0263010 A1 — "Device for the Quick Vibration of Tubes Containing, In Particular, Biological Samples"

• Full citation: US 2012/0263010 A1; Bertin Technologies; priority 2009-11-10; published 2012-10-18 (counterpart EP 1,525,047 B1).
• Description (verified): An electric motor drives a disk carrying an eccentric pin; the tube support, oriented perpendicular to the pin, is connected to the pin by a link and to the fixed baseplate by a Cardan-type hinge with two perpendicular axes X and Y. The tubes thereby move on a figure-of-eight path over a substantially spherical surface, causing beads to sweep the tube interior. Rotation 3000–7000 rpm.
• § 102 analysis: This is structurally the closest reference — it has a rotating crank-equivalent (eccentric pin) linked to a support — but the support is constrained by a hinge with two rotational degrees of freedom (Cardan), not by restricting a distal pivot to a linear path, and the resulting motion is a spherical figure-8, not the claimed "combination of rotational and linear motion." The specification itself distinguishes this device as FIG.-8 motion with ~¾-inch amplitude. Does not anticipate claim 1 or any dependent claim. It is the most significant § 103 reference and drives the examiner's consideration of whether the crank-slider arrangement was obvious.

11. US 9,759,638 B1 — "Apparatus and method for grinding of samples for analysis"

• Full citation: US 9,759,638 B1; Rotaprep, Inc.; inventor Horacio Kido; priority 2013-04-25; issued 2017-09-12.
• Status: Same family / same inventive entity as the patent under review (it is the parent from which 15/702,609 is a continuation). Its claims are directed to the apparatus.
• § 102 analysis: Because it is by the same inventor and same assignee as US 10,539,486, it is not "prior art by another" and does not qualify as § 102 prior art against this patent. It appears in the record only as the parent disclosure/benefit claim. Cannot anticipate any claim.

Consolidated § 102 conclusion

No cited reference discloses all elements of claim 1 in a single reference, so no cited reference anticipates claim 1 or any claim depending from it. The references that come closest to individual limitations (Bertin for the crank-plus-link architecture; Monsanto for bead traversal and axial grinding; Savant for high-frequency oscillation and multi-vial capacity) are combinable-under-§ 103 material at most.

Caveats and flags (stated plainly)

1. Two references in the family list that I could not open this session. My descriptions of US 4,305,668; US 2007/0036025; US 2009/0101738/US 7,823,818; US 2010/0181402; US 8,016,218; and US 8,201,765 rest on the citation record (number, title, assignee, dates) and general field knowledge — not on this session's reading of their full texts. I did not finish retrieving the Caltech and additional references before exhausting my search budget. Treat those § 102 conclusions as provisional pending full-text review.
2. The patent's internal inconsistency is carried forward, not corrected. The Operation examples say the device runs at "about 4,000 to 5,000 cycles per second," while the Summary and the abstract-level discussion say "cycles per minute," and Table 1 lists the present invention at 750–4,400 cpm. Claim 8 recites "at least 4,000 cycles per minute." I report this literally and do not harmonize it; note that it also affects how one compares claim 8 against Savant/Bertin cpm/rpm figures.
3. "Cited by examiner" vs. "cited by third party." The Google Patents record groups these references without per-item examiner/third-party attribution in the fetched text. I have not verified which were examiner citations versus IDS submissions. This matters for any § 103 argument (e.g., teaching-away, unexpected results) and should be confirmed against the file wrapper via USPTO PatentCenter.
4. Scope of search. I searched the patent number 10539486 and the principal references. I did not run a full third-party prior-art search beyond the face-of-patent citations; the task asked specifically for the citations of record, and those are what I analyzed. A validity opinion would additionally require searching non-patent literature (e.g., the Burden "Guide to the homogenization of biological samples," 2008, which appears in the similar-documents list) and foreign art not of record.
5. No litigation/PTAB activity was confirmed for this patent in prior work on this matter; nothing in this session changes that finding.

If you want, I can next (a) retrieve and verify the full text of the six references flagged in caveat 1, or (b) build an element-by-element claim chart mapping claim 1 against Bertin US 2012/0263010 and Monsanto US 2003/0146313 for a § 103 obviousness assessment.

I'll ground this analysis in the actual prior-art references cited on the face of the '486 patent, verifying the most load-bearing ones.

Let me verify the Friedman multidirectional-mixing reference and the Bertin device, both cited on the face and both potentially close to the claimed kinematics.

I have strong grounding on the two closest references. Let me confirm the drive mechanism of the Monsanto ball mill and check the Bysouth high-throughput reference, both cited on the face.

Obviousness Analysis — US 10,539,486 B2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Caveat on scope and sourcing. This analysis uses the references listed on the face of US 10,539,486 (the "Patent Citations" and "Citations" panels at https://patents.google.com/patent/US10539486/en), verified where possible against the references' own texts. I reached my search-step limit before I could open US 7,448,566 B2 (Bysouth) or US 8,201,765 B2 (Caltech) in full; my statements about those two are limited to their titles/assignees, and I have not relied on them for any limitation. Everything load-bearing below is grounded in US 6,880,771/US 2003/0146313 (Monsanto), US 8,016,218 B1 (Friedman), US 2012/0263010/US 8,834,010 (Bertin), and US 2007/0036025 A1 (Friedman).

1. Framework

Governing law. The application was filed 2017-09-12 as a continuation of Ser. No. 14/257,632 (filed 2014-04-21), claiming benefit of provisional 61/816,094 (2013-04-25). Because the application was filed after 2013-03-16, AIA § 102/§ 103 govern, with an effective filing date of 2013-04-25. All references below published before that date, so all are § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) art.

Standard. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007): where a claim "simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement," the combination is obvious; a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, and design incentives/market forces/common sense, supply the required rational underpinning. Graham v. John Deere, 383 U.S. 1 (1966). Because these are method-of-use claims, the question is whether the combined art discloses or suggests each recited step; a prior-art device disclosed as performing the step, or in which the step is inherent, suffices (In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473; In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743).

The dispositive technical fact. Claim 1 recites a crank rotating a proximal pivot of a linkage whose distal pivot is confined to a straight line, with the vial mounted on the linkage, producing "a combination of rotational and linear motion." That is the definition of a slider-crank (crank-and-slider) mechanism. It is elementary kinematics — and, critically, so is the consequence: for a crank radius r, connecting-rod length L, and a point on the rod a fraction t from the crank pin, the locus of that point is an ellipse (exactly in the standard idealization, and to a very close approximation at typical L/r). At the rod midpoint it is an ellipse of semi-axes r and r/2. The "elliptical trajectory" the '486 touts is not an invention; it is the inherent output of the mechanism. The patent's own specification concedes this: "Since holder (18) is placed approximately halfway between the crank (10) and carriage (12), it experiences a combination of linear and rotational motion, resulting in an elliptical trajectory," and Table 1 labels the invention's action simply "crank-slider (combination of circular and linear motion)." That is a binding admission that the claimed kinematic architecture is a known, named mechanism.

Threshold note on the parent. US 9,759,638 B1 appears on the '486's face as an examiner citation, but it is the '486's own parent, same inventive entity and same assignee (Rotaprep). It is therefore not available as § 102/§ 103 art against the '486 (the work is the applicant's own, and commonly owned under the AIA § 102(b)(2) exceptions). Any obviousness theory built on the '486's own family — including US 10,502,667 and US 11,474,006 — fails. The attack must come from the third-party art, and it can.

2. What the cited art actually discloses

3. Combination A (primary): Friedman '218 + Monsanto ('771/'313)

This is the strongest attack, and it maps every element of claim 1.

Motivation — articulated, and largely supplied by the references themselves:

1. Same field, same problem. Both are laboratory sample-preparation devices that break down solids in a sealed tube using a dense grinding body. Monsanto is expressly for "seeds and plant tissues" screening with "sample isolation"; Friedman '218 is for breaking up solids in food/water-safety samples. KSR: familiar elements in an analogous field.
2. Friedman '218 states the very motivation for the claimed geometry. Its background says the ball "works best when shaken rapidly in this essentially straight line motion" and "can be driven from one end of the … tube to the other." That is the '486's stated object (media traversing the full vial length) — supplied by the art, not the applicant.
3. Monsanto supplies the amplitude and rate teachings. Stroke "equals or exceeds one inch" (→ claim 6's amplitude/vial-length correlation) at 1000–2000 cpm (→ claim 8's rate range, and a known range to optimize within, In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454 (CCPA 1955)).
4. The substitution is a predictable design choice. Replacing Friedman's rocker constraint (pivot arm 140 about fixed pivot 150) with Monsanto's prismatic constraint (carriage 40 on surface 42 / rod 24 in bearing 26) is the substitution of one of the four elementary planar joint constraints for another to obtain a straight-line rather than arcuate path. Result: a slider-crank — the most elementary rotary-to-reciprocating converter, and the mechanism the patent's own Table 1 names. KSR; MPEP 2144.04 (design choice); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553 (CCPA 1975) (change in arrangement/form).
5. Result is predictable, not unexpected. Mounting the holder on the rod yields the elliptical locus by geometry, as § 1 explains and as the specification itself concedes.

Anticipation fallback. If "linear path" is construed broadly to cover the "near-linear" path of Friedman '218 claims 8–9, Friedman '218 alone discloses a substantial part of claim 1, and the residual gap (a linearly-guided carriage) is filled by Monsanto under § 103.

4. Combination B: Bertin + Monsanto (+ Friedman '025)

If one prefers a reference that already uses a rotating disk with an eccentric pin plus a link to drive a vial support — i.e., a crank-link arrangement — Bertin is it.

• Bertin discloses the crank (disk 16 + eccentric pin 17), a link 19 to a vial-carrying support 20, and a constraint (Cardan hinge, two rotational DOF) producing a closed figure-eight path. Its stated purpose is identical to the '486's: causing "the beads to sweep fully over the inside of the test tubes." It also discloses the claimed rate range in terms (3000–7000 rpm, bracketing claim 8's 4000 cpm) and inclined-tube adjustment.
• The only difference from claim 1 is the nature of the constraint on the distal end of the link: Bertin uses two revolute DOF (producing a figure-eight on a spherical surface); the claim requires a single prismatic DOF (producing an ellipse in a plane). Friedman '025 expressly teaches that combining a linear motion component with a rotational/arcuate component produces an elliptical locus ("horizontal elliptical motion," "three-dimensionally warped elliptical motion") — so the art recognizes both the figure-eight and the ellipse as members of the same family of two-component composite motions, and the choice between them is a matter of selecting the guide.
• Monsanto supplies the linear-guide concept (bearing 26, carriage 40 on surface 42, axial reciprocation) and the in-vial grinding step.

Motivation: Bertin and Monsanto both target rapid bead-based grinding/homogenization of biological samples, and both expressly seek full-length bead sweep of the tube. Bertin itself states the endpoint ("sweep fully over the inside of the test tubes"); Monsanto states the means (linear axial reciprocation with a stroke ≥ 1 inch). A POSA seeking a larger, planar, axially-directed sweep than the figure-eight provides would constrain the link's far end with a slide — a finite, predictable set of options.

5. Claim-by-claim outcome

6. Objective indicia and the applicant's own admissions

The patent's likely rebuttal is an unexpected 10× speed gain (1–5 s vs. 5–60 s) and reduced heat/RNA degradation. That rebuttal is weak on this record:

1. The specification concedes the solution. The Background states: "the previously mentioned drawbacks could be mitigated if the amplitude of oscillatory motion were to be extended to be at least equal to the length of the tube … Doing so would cause the milling beads within the tube to traverse the whole length of the tube." That is an affirmative statement that the asserted advance was known and available; it defeats "unexpected results."
2. The improvement is a direct function of a result-effective variable (amplitude/stroke). In re Aller; and Friedman '218 had already articulated the ball's end-to-end travel as the goal.
3. No controlled comparison. Table 1 juxtaposes manufacturer specifications for different commercial products; it is not a controlled experiment isolating the claimed geometry against the closest art.
4. No teaching away. Every relevant reference pushes toward greater bead sweep (Bertin: "sweep fully over the inside of the test tubes"; Friedman '218: end-to-end straight-line travel; Monsanto: stroke ≥ 1 inch). Nothing teaches away from the claimed amplitude.
5. No nexus for any asserted commercial success — the record supplied contains no sales/market-share data linked to the claimed method steps.

7. Residual uncertainties (stated plainly)

• Internal inconsistency already flagged upstream is relevant here too: the "Operation" examples recite "4,000 to 5,000 cycles per second" whereas Table 1 lists 750–4,400 cpm for the invention and claim 8 recites "cycles per minute." For § 103 purposes this cuts against the patentee: it shows the rate was treated as a tunable parameter, and Bertin's 3000–7000 rpm comfortably brackets the claimed value.
• I did not verify US 7,448,566 B2 (Bysouth) or US 8,201,765 B2 (Caltech) in full, and I make no claim about their specific disclosures. They are not needed for the combinations above.
• The Google Patents citation list is internally redundant — US 2009/0101738 A1 and US 7,823,818 B2 (both Max-Planck) appear in both the "Citations (11)" and "Patent Citations (12)" panels. Reported as-is; it does not affect the analysis.
• Additional lead, not on the '486 face: the Monsanto EP family (EP 1 474 239 B1) cites US 5,702,060 as disclosing a grinding method of loading a jar with balls and material, capping, and "moving the capped vessel in a reciprocating regime of movement along the said axis." If verified, that reference may independently supply the axial-reciprocation grinding step and would strengthen Combination A further. I flag it as unverified.

Bottom line

Claim 1 is a method of operating a slider-crank — with the vial mounted on the connecting rod between the crank pivot and a linearly-guided carriage — to drive grinding media axially through a sealed vial. Friedman US 8,016,218 B1 supplies the crank, connecting linkage, specimen holders, in-tube grinding ball, adjustable stroke, clamped multi-vial capacity, and the express motivation for straight-line end-to-end bead travel. Monsanto US 2003/0146313 A1 / US 6,880,771 B2 supplies the linearly-guided carriage, the axial-reciprocation grinding step, the ≥ 1-inch stroke, and multi-vessel capacity. Bertin US 2012/0263010 A1 / US 8,834,010 B2 supplies an eccentric-disk-plus-link drive whose express purpose is full-length bead sweep, at 3000–7000 rpm. The elliptical path is an inherent geometric property of the claimed mechanism, and the specification itself concedes the mechanism ("crank-slider") and the solution (amplitude ≥ tube length). Claims 1–10 are, on this record, obvious under § 103; the strongest grant-date weaknesses are claims 1, 5, 6, 8, and 9.