US 10876937

I'll run targeted searches for this exact patent number and any related litigation/docket activity.

Let me check for any litigation or Federal Circuit activity involving this patent.

US 10,876,937 B2 — Summary

Search scope caveat (stated up front): I searched for this exact number (US 10,876,937 / "10876937") in connection with USPTO records and Federal Circuit activity. My searches returned no CAFC 2026 docket or appeal involving this patent, and no litigation hit naming it. I could not directly query PACER/CM-ECF or the Federal Circuit's docket system from these searches, so treat the "no litigation found" result as absence of evidence in the sources retrieved, not as a verified confirmation that no suit or appeal exists. I also note that a Google Patents-sourced hit returned a page fragment mentioning "US10876937B2 … Biogenex Laboratories, Inc." in the citation table of an unrelated patent, and one FEC filing page contained the digits "10876937" in a string of contributor/transaction identifiers — that is coincidental numeric noise, not a reference to the patent, and I did not treat it as such.

Bibliographic data (from the authoritative Google Patents full text provided)

Note on inventorship: the patent face lists only Krishan L. Kalra as inventor, while the USPTO assignment record lists both Kalra and Siva Kumar Y.N. as assignors. Both are quoted literally from the record; I am not reconciling them.

Abstract (as issued)

"An assembly for forming a microchamber for an inverted substrate is disclosed. The assembly can include a body having a chamber formed therein. A dispensing cavity can be provided to supply a reagent to the chamber. A slide support structure can be configured to support the slide such that the tissue sample faces the chamber when the slide is mounted to the slide support structure. The chamber and the slide support structure can be dimensioned such that, when the reagent is supplied to the dispensing cavity, the reagent is drawn to the chamber by way of capillary forces acting on the reagent."

Plain-language overview of the independent claims

Claim 1 — the apparatus (assembly), with slide-holding lever + sliding mechanism

An instrument for treating a tissue sample on a slide, comprising:

• a body with a recessed chamber (a "microchamber") having a floor;
• a fluid dispensing cavity in the body that feeds reagent into the chamber (a port/opening, optionally via a dispensing channel);
• a substrate support structure that holds the slide elevated above the chamber floor, with the sample-bearing lower surface facing the floor — so the slide mounted on the support itself closes off the top of the chamber and the sample sits inside it (inverted substrate arrangement);
• a slide holding lever with two laterally mounted support tabs at one end that press down on the top surface of the slide with two opposing forces directed toward the chamber floor; the other (opposed) end carries a pivot mechanism attached to the substrate support structure, so the lever can rotate the tabs toward the floor (i.e., it clamps/loads the slide);
• a sliding mechanism that slidably engages the substrate support structure so the slide can be slid toward the dispensing cavity to position it over the chamber floor and underneath the two tabs; and
• the chamber and support structure are together dimensioned to give laminar, capillary-driven flow of reagent into the chamber when reagent is dispensed.

In short: a slide is slid in upside-down over an open microchamber, clamped down by a pivoting two-tab lever, and reagent is wicked in by capillary action in a laminar (bubble-free, uniform) front. Notable dependent claims: glass slide embodiment (2); chamber depth ~40–85 µm (3); 15–200 µl, and ≤ ~80 µl (4, 5); port on the short (lateral) end (6) or the long (longitudinal) end (9); evacuation gateway (7) and bubble gate (8); heating mechanism/thermal-cycling module and heat sink on the back of the body (10, 11); clip + guide stopper (12); hooks/projections (13); dispensing channel (14); protective coating on the floor (15); modular components (16); etched floor (17); micromachined floor (18).

Claim 19 — the method of analyzing a sample

Steps:

1. couple the sample to a substrate (e.g., tissue on a slide);
2. mount the substrate on a substrate support structure elevated over a chamber floor of a chamber in the support structure, with the sample facing the floor and the substrate forming at least the top of the chamber;
3. slide the substrate longitudinally toward a fluid dispensing cavity to position it over the chamber floor, thereby enclosing the sample in the chamber;
4. apply two opposing forces across the width of the substrate via two laterally disposed support tabs (directed toward the chamber floor) to seat the substrate under the tabs; and
5. dispense reagent between the floor and the substrate so it reacts with the sample by laminar flow.

In short: the method counterpart to claim 1 — invert, slide in, clamp with the tab pair, and react under laminar/capillary reagent flow. Dependent claims add capillary dispensing through a dispensing cavity (20–22), heating the support structure (23), volume ranges (24, 25), pivoting part of the support structure into place (26), and raising the substrate to let reagent flow in (27), via pressure source (28), mechanical/electromechanical device (29), pivoting mechanism (30), or injected non-reactive liquid (31), with a lift height of ~0.5–1 mm (32).

Claim 33 — the apparatus (assembly), with a lifting mechanism

Same general architecture as claim 1 — body with chamber/floor, dispensing cavity in the body, substrate support structure holding the substrate elevated with its sample-bearing lower surface facing the chamber so the substrate forms the chamber's top portion — but with a different loading/handling recitation:

• a sliding mechanism with a slide clip that slidably engages the support structure so the substrate slides longitudinally toward the dispensing cavity into position over the chamber floor; and
• a lifting mechanism that raises or lowers the substrate relative to the chamber floor, so that when the substrate is raised the reagent flows into the chamber (a gap is opened to let reagent spread, then the slide is lowered back down).

In short: the "lift-the-slide-to-fill" variant — reagent is introduced and the slide is momentarily raised (0.5–1 mm per claim 42) to allow the fluid to spread uniformly, then lowered. Dependent claims 34–38 specify the lifting mechanism as: two-position raise/lower (34), mechanical or electromechanical (35), a pivoting mechanism (36), a pressure source pressurizing the chamber (37), or a non-reactive-liquid fluid source (38); claim 39 gives chamber depth ~40–150 µm; claims 40–41 give the 15–200 µl / ≤ ~80 µl volume ranges.

Supporting disclosure worth noting

• Capillary and laminar-flow rationale is developed in FIGS. 1–2 (nonslip boundary; laminar 102 vs. turbulent 103; bullet-shaped velocity profile).
• Exemplary chamber: ~25 mm × 60 mm footprint, ~70 µm depth, ~80 µl (~60–95 µl range), non-contamination/protective layer 1–10 µm.
• Modular variants (FIGS. 10–14) with different chamber sizes, evacuation gateway sizes, and dispensing channel lengths; detachable top assembly 28 separable from heater base 7 a (FIG. 15); etched floor 19 (FIG. 16) / micromachined floor 20 (FIG. 17); non-stick hydrophobic coating 21 (FIG. 18); FIG. 19 shows vent 24, lift pressure 25, clamp, and slot 27.
• Prior art cited on the face includes US 6,238,910 B1 (Genomic Solutions), US 7,942,093 B2 (Erie Scientific, "Cover slip"), US 2005/0239195 A1 (Millenium Biologix, "Reaction chamber"), US 2005/0270642 A1 (McLellan, "Microscope slide cover with integrated reservoir"), and US 2010/0209298 A1 (Kalra, "Sample Processing System"), plus the ISR/WO dated Feb. 27, 2015 for PCT/US2014/059132.

Uncertainties I want to flag explicitly

1. Claim 1 text as retrieved contains apparent OCR artifacts. The fetched claim 1 reads "…abut a top surface of the substrate with fain two opposing forces…" and, in related narrative, "…on a sick of the slick 8…". I am reading "fain" as "for," but I am not auto-correcting the record; verify against the USPTO/EPO claim text before relying on that wording.
2. Inventor discrepancy between the face of the patent (Kalra only) and the assignment record (Kalra and Siva Kumar Y.N.), as noted above.
3. Filing-date nuance: the record shows Oct. 3, 2014 as the US application filing date, while the continuation's priority string recites "PCT/US2014/059132, filed Apr. 1, 2016" — the Apr. 1, 2016 date is the §371 national-stage entry date of the parent, not the PCT filing date. Both dates appear in the record as given.
4. No verified litigation or CAFC 2026 activity for US 10,876,937 was found in my searches. The Federal Circuit decisions I did surface involving BioGenex (e.g., Ventana Medical Systems, Inc. v. BioGenex Laboratories, Inc., 2006, and the "dispensing"-construction appeal discussing the '861/'707/'535 family) concern different patents and are not about US 10,876,937.

I'll search for litigation involving US patent 10876937 across patent litigation sources.

Let me search more targeted litigation databases.

Let me check the Unified Patents litigation portal and docket databases directly.

Litigation Search Results — U.S. Patent No. 10,876,937

I ran multiple targeted searches across patent‑litigation sources (Unified Patents litigation portal, CourtListener/RECAP, Justia federal dockets, PTAB/PTActs records, and general web search) looking specifically for the literal string "10,876,937" / "10876937" in connection with infringement actions. I did not find any district court litigation, ITC investigation, or PTAB proceeding asserting or challenging this patent.

Bottom line

No litigation is known involving U.S. Patent No. 10,876,937. I found no case with this patent asserted as a patent‑in‑suit.

What the searches did surface (not litigation — for completeness and to rule out confusion with other numbers)

• Patent identity confirmation: U.S. 10,876,937 B2, "Assembly for forming microchamber for inverted substrate," current assignee BioGenex Laboratories, Inc., inventor Krishan L. Kalra (with Siva Kumar Y.N. per the assignment record), application 15/026,925, priority 2013‑10‑04, granted 2020‑12‑29, adjusted expiry 2034‑11‑03. It is the U.S. national‑phase of PCT/US2014/059132 (WO 2015/051295), with an EP family member EP3052609B1 and a continuation US 11,506,579 B2 (from app. 16/827,294).
• Citation context only: The number appears in patent citations on unrelated patents (e.g., cited as prior art in JP/CN family listings) and in non‑patent contexts (a Brazilian corporate registry, an FEC filing, and a materials‑science DOI that coincidentally ends in 10876937). None of these are litigation.
• No hits on the Unified Patents litigation case list or PTAB records for this patent number.

Important caveats / confidence level

• I could not fully render the Unified Patents litigation portal page or run live PACER/RECAP docket queries for this exact number within the search budget; my conclusion rests on multiple targeted web searches returning no matching case.
• BioGenex is a relatively small, actively litigious‑adjacent competitor in the histology/IHC space, and its related patents (e.g., the "sample processing system" family) have seen citation activity. But I found no record of this specific patent being asserted.
• Confidence: Moderate‑to‑high that no litigation exists as of this date. Given I could not exhaustively query every docketing system, I would recommend a direct confirmation search on Unified Patents' litigation portal and PACER/RECAP using the exact number 10876937 (and variant "10,876,937") before relying on this for a filing or opinion.

If you'd like, I can attempt additional targeted lookups (e.g., specific assignee‑vs‑competitor dockets such as BioGenex v. Leica Biosystems, Roche/Ventana, Agilent/Dako, or Sakura Finetek) to check for any assertion of this patent under a different pleading caption.

I'll verify the structured data against public records before writing this up.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file for US 10,876,937: zero (0). The structured PTAB/ODP block returns no IPR, PGR, or CBM for this patent, and my independent searches of PTAB petition documents, PTAB E2E-adjacent sources, and Federal Circuit/CourtListener material surfaced no petition number naming US 10,876,937 (or its continuation, US 11,506,579) as the challenged patent. Breakdown by status is therefore 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denials. The defensive posture is the opposite of "hardened": there is no PTAB record at all, which means every one of claims 1–42 is UNTESTED, no claim is canceled, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel exists against any party, and the full statutory window to file an IPR/PGR is still open to anyone who has been (or may be) sued.

No proceedings to report

There is no proceeding number to list. Per the operating rule against inventing proceeding numbers, I am not synthesizing a placeholder entry. For completeness, here is what the negative finding rests on and what I checked:

Verification caveat, stated plainly: the absence of indexed proceedings is strong but not synonymous with proof that no petition was ever filed and denied/terminated without wide indexing. PTAB petitions denied institution are sometimes poorly indexed by third-party aggregators. If this patent is now in active assertion, the definitive check is a Patent Center / PTAB E2E search on the patent number and on "BioGenex Laboratories, Inc." as patent owner, plus a PACER/Docket Alarm litigation search — I recommend a human paralegal run both before any defense is priced out.

One screening lead to disregard, not to rely on: PGR2022-00023 (paper dated 2023-04-25) challenges U.S. Patent No. 10,993,942 and cites Ventana Med. Sys., Inc. v. Biogenex Labs., Inc., 473 F.3d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2006). That citation is a ubiquitous claim-construction/disclaimer precedent and appears in many unrelated briefs; the petition does not establish that the '942 patent is BioGenex-owned, and in any event U.S. 10,993,942 is not US 10,876,937. I flag it only so it isn't mistaken for a proceeding on this patent.

Strategic summary

Claim status across the patent. All 42 claims stand exactly as issued on 2020-12-29: independent claim 1 (assembly with chamber, dispensing cavity, inverted-substrate support, slide holding lever with two laterally mounted support tabs on a pivoting first end, sliding mechanism, capillary/laminar draw), independent claim 19 (method), and independent claim 33 (assembly with lifting mechanism). No claim of US 10,876,937 has been canceled, confirmed, or even construed by the Board. The continuation US 11,506,579 (filed 2020-03-23 as a continuation of the same PCT; granted 2022-11-22) likewise shows no PTAB activity in my search. Note the claim-1 recitation is unusually structural for this art — the "slide holding lever … two laterally mounted support tabs … pivot mechanism" and the "sliding mechanism … towards the fluid dispensing cavity" limitations are precisely the kind of narrow, printed-publication-specific features an IPR would attack on § 103, and no petitioner has yet tried.

Estoppel landscape. Because no IPR/PGR was ever instituted, no § 315(e)(2) estoppel attaches to any party — neither the petitioner-side estoppel that would bar a losing petitioner, nor any privity-based bar. That cuts both ways for a defendant today:

• Good: you are not locked out of anything by another party's litigation.
• Bad: you also have no free ride — there is no FWD, no Board claim construction, and no invalid-claim finding to borrow. Any invalidity position must be built from scratch on the primary references (US 4,041,995; US 6,238,910; US 2005/0239195; US 2005/0270642; US 7,682,565; US 2005/0238541; US 7,943,093; US 2010/0209298; US 2012/0201723; US 2011/0165034 — the ten references cited on the face of the patent) plus art a petitioner independently locates. § 315(b)'s one-year clock from service of a complaint has not started running for anyone as far as the public record shows.

Pattern signals. Nothing suggests a coordinated PTAB campaign against BioGenex on this family. There is no evidence of a defensive aggregator (Unified Patents, RPX, etc.) in the chain — Unified and similar entities typically file against broad, troll-asserted claims, and this patent is a narrow instrument-architecture patent held by an operating company. BioGenex's litigation history is offensive, not defensive, and old: it won a 1997 jury verdict against BioTek on US 5,244,787 (antigen retrieval); it was sued by Ventana on US 6,352,861 in D. Ariz. (No. 03-CV-92) and won a non-infringement judgment that the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded in Ventana Med. Sys. v. BioGenex Labs., 473 F.3d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (claim construction; Lourie, J., dissenting); and the Ventana/BioGenex disputes settled in 2007 with a cross-license covering US 5,244,787, 5,578,452, 6,451,551, 6,632,598 (BioGenex) and US 6,352,861 (Ventana). None of that involves US 10,876,937. Foreign counterparts: WO 2015/051295 A1 (PCT, status "Ceased"), EP 3 052 609 B1 (granted 2021-06-09, active) and ES 2 885 681 T3 — an EPO opposition on the EP member would have had to be filed by roughly 2022-03-09, and I found no public record of one.

Bottom line for a defendant. The single most important fact is the absence of any PTAB adjudication. Do not tell a client "the claims have been invalidated" — they have not, and no PTAB decision exists to cite. What you have is a clean, unrestricted IPR option and an untested patent whose claim-1 lever/tab/pivot architecture and claim-1 "laminar flow … capillary forces" functional language invite a § 103 challenge and a § 112 indefiniteness challenge respectively.

Recommended next steps

• No PTAB activity exists on US 10,876,937. State that to the client plainly, with the caveat that a petition denied institution may not be well-indexed. Confirm via PTAB E2E and Patent Center (search patent number + "BioGenex Laboratories, Inc." as patent owner) and via a PACER/Docket Alarm search for district-court complaints asserting the '937 or the '579 patent — that litigation search is what starts the § 315(b) clock analysis.
• Treat the patent as fully intact and fully vulnerable. All of claims 1–42 are live. If you are threatened, your best levers are (a) an IPR on claim 1/33 grounded in the ten-of-record references plus the slide-holder/capillary-chamber art cited on the face of the '579 continuation, and (b) a § 112(b) challenge to "laminar flow of the reagent" and "drawn into the chamber by way of capillary forces acting on the reagent," which are recited as functional results in claim 1 without structural definition of the flow regime. Claim 3's "about 40 microns to about 85 microns" and claim 4's "about 15 μl to about 200 μl" give you narrow numeric ranges to design around or attack as obvious in view of the 2013-era microchamber art.
• Calendar the deadlines if a petition is filed. From institution the Board must issue an FWD within one year (35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)), extendable up to six months for good cause; the institution decision itself is due within six months of the petition's filing (§ 314(b)); and a § 315(b) petition must be filed within one year of service of a complaint alleging infringement.
• Do not cite the Federal Circuit case as if it were about this patent. Ventana v. BioGenex, 473 F.3d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2006), is about US 6,352,861 and prosecution disclaimer across sibling applications — it is useful precedent on claim construction and disclaimer, but it is not a PTAB decision on US 10,876,937 and I found no CAFC appeal of any proceeding on this patent. CourtListener record for that case: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/[210899](/patent/210899)/ventana-medical-systems-inc-v-biogenex-laboratories-inc/
• Authoritative source to cite for the negative finding: the Google Patents record for the patent, https://patents.google.com/patent/US10876937/en, which lists no PTAB trial section and shows the family (WO 2015/051295 A1, EP 3052609 B1, ES 2885681 T3, US 2016/0299043 A1, US 15/026,925, US 16/827,294 → US 11,506,579 B2) with no AIA trial entries.

Sources consulted: structured PTAB/ODP block (authoritative for the zero-count); https://patents.google.com/patent/US10876937/en; https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/210899/ventana-medical-systems-inc-v-biogenex-laboratories-inc/; https://cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/06-1074.pdf; PTAB petition document citing PGR2022-00023 (Univ. of screening lead only, different patent). Where I could not confirm a fact — most importantly, whether any institution-denied petition exists outside the indexed record — I have said so rather than filling the gap.

I'll research the assignment record for US 10876937 across the sources available to me.

Let me dig deeper on BioGenex's corporate status and any litigation or further transfers.

Let me verify BioGenex's current corporate status and check for any further transfers, including on the continuation patent.

Ownership Reconstruction — US 10,876,937 B2

Preliminary note on sourcing. I could not query the USPTO Assignment Center API directly; the findings below are grounded in the Google Patents legal-events record for US 10,876,937 (which mirrors the reel/frame data recorded at the USPTO) plus secondary corporate sources. The one recorded assignment's reel/frame is confirmed. The correspondent of record field is not exposed by the sources I could reach, so I have flagged it as unavailable rather than guessing. Verify at USPTO Assignment Center (search by patent number 10876937) or the legacy portal at assignment.uspto.gov.

Inventors

Both inventors executed the assignment to BioGenex on the same document, with signing dates spanning 2014-10-17 to 2014-10-20 (Reel 038337/Frame 0602).

Pattern check — inventor departure: Not observed. Krishan L. Kalra is still identified as Chairman & CEO of BioGenex in current third-party company profiles (Craft.co, SignalHire, PitchBook). This is the inverse of the "all inventors departed within 12 months" fire-sale tell. Note that Kalra is not a hired engineer but the founder-principal, which makes departure unlikely by construction and weakens this signal's diagnostic value here.

Original assignee

BioGenex Laboratories, Inc. (California corporation; HQ at the relevant time San Ramon, CA, later 48810 Kato Road / 49026 Milmont Drive, Fremont, CA 94538).

• Ships a product embodying the claims: YES. BioGenex is a molecular-pathology instrument maker. Its Xmatrx / Xmatrix ULTRADx, Xmatrix Infinity, NanoMtrx and i6000 staining platforms are marketed with a "Reaction micro-chamber" that "reduces micro-reagent consumption by up to 90%" and dispenses 10 µL–850 µL — the exact technical space of the '937 claims (a microchamber formed between an inverted slide and a chamber floor, capillary-drawn reagent, laminar flow). The patent's own description (IHC, ISH, CISH, FISH on 25 mm × 60 mm slides) tracks BioGenex's product catalog.
• Primary line of business: immunohistochemistry / in-situ hybridization reagents and automated staining instrumentation; also a licensing-literate patent holder ("strong intellectual portfolio... in the areas of DNA labeling and amplification, antigen retrieval, automation of tissue and cell sample preparation, automated IHC").
• Current status: Operating. Founded 1981; privately held, no outside backing; ~100–250 employees per third-party profiles; Krishan L. Kalra still CEO. No evidence found of bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition.

Assignment timeline

One recorded assignment exists — the original inventor-to-company assignment. There are no recorded post-issuance transfers.

• 2014-10-17 / 2014-10-20 (executed) / recorded 2016-04-01 — Reel 038337/0602
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest (original employment/prosecution assignment; not a security agreement, merger, or release)
  • Assignor: Krishan L. Kalra; Siva Kumar Y.N.
  • Assignee: BioGenex Laboratories, Inc. (California)
  • Correspondent: Not disclosed by the sources available to me. The Google Patents legal-events entry (AS code, "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST... SIGNING DATES FROM 20141017 TO 20141020; REEL/FRAME:038337/0602") carries no correspondent name or firm. Cannot be assessed for recurrence — flagged as a data gap, not as a clean bill.
  • Context: Ordinary founder/employee-to-company assignment, recorded contemporaneously with 35 U.S.C. § 371(c) national-phase entry of PCT/US2014/059132 on the same day (2016-04-01). The ~18-month execution-to-recording gap is a routine national-phase artifact, not a delayed or back-dated transfer.

No further assignments appear anywhere in the chain. Google Patents lists no post-issue assignment events between grant (2020-12-29) and the current record, and the family member US 11,506,579 B2 (continuation, filed 2020-03-23, granted 2022-11-22, application 16/827,294) is shown in the same "Family Applications" block with no intervening assignee change. The statutory term runs to 2034-11-03; the patent is currently Active.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10876937
    2013 : Priority application filed
    2014 : PCT application filed
         : Inventors assign rights to BioGenex
    2016 : Assignment recorded at USPTO
         : Application published
    2020 : US 10876937 granted
    2022 : Related continuation US 11506579 granted

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The only recorded assignee in the entire chain is BioGenex Laboratories, Inc., a California operating corporation that sells hardware and IVD reagents. No "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" entity appears. No Reel entry supports this signal.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. BioGenex does not appear on any of the enumerated NPE lists (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, Spangenberg entities) in the sources I reviewed. BioGenex has litigated as a patentee/plaintiff in its own market (BioGenex v. BioTek, U.S. 5,244,787, jury verdict 1997) and as a defendant against Ventana (Ventana Med. Sys. v. BioGenex Labs., 473 F.3d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2006), No. 03-CV-92, D. Ariz.) — i.e., classic operating-company competitor litigation, not assertion-vehicle behaviour. Neither case involves the '937 patent.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present (and unverifiable). With only one assignment link, recurrence is impossible by definition. The correspondent name is not surfaced in the data I could retrieve; this is a data gap, not an affirmative negative finding.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Zero transfers after the original assignment; no chained LLCs, no shared correspondent addresses, no common-principal structure.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No infringement suit naming US 10,876,937 was found in my searches. There is therefore no assignment within 6 months before a first suit (and the only assignment predates issuance by six years in any event).

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 proceeding involving BioGenex surfaced; multiple current company profiles describe BioGenex as active, privately held, and operating with ~100–250 employees and Krishan L. Kalra as CEO as of 2022–2026-dated profiles.

7. Privateering — not present. No operating-company-to-NPE transfer exists; BioGenex retained its own patents rather than farming them out. No SEC filings apply (BioGenex is private, no registered public debt/equity identified).

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN.

Verdict

Insufficient data (the record contains only the original assignment — no post-issuance transfers).

Justification. The single recorded assignment — Reel 038337/0602, executed 2014-10-17/2014-10-20, recorded 2016-04-01, KALRA and KUMAR Y.N. → BioGenex Laboratories, Inc. — is a routine founder/employee-to-company conveyance, and no subsequent assignment, security interest, merger, or name change appears through grant (2020-12-29) or on the family continuation US 11,506,579. Because there is no transfer to a licensing-only entity, no known asserter, no cascading or pre-litigation transfer, and no defensive-aggregator termination, every NPE signal is absent and the record is simply too thin to classify as an NPE pattern. The practical (and likely correct) reading is that BioGenex, an operating instrument manufacturer that ships microchamber-based staining systems, has continuously owned the patent since 2014 — but since the verdict categories reserve "Operating-company assertion" for a current assignee that is actively suing competitors on this patent, and no such suit on US 10,876,937 was found, "Insufficient data" is the honest call. Verification link: Assignment Center — search patent 10,876,937 (cross-check Reel 038337/Frame 0602 and confirm the absence of any later reel).

I'll research each cited reference in the USPTO/patent databases to provide accurate citation details and anticipation analysis.

Let me research the remaining cited references in parallel.

Prior Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,876,937 B2

Patent under review (confirmed against the authoritative full text): US 10,876,937 B2, "Assembly for forming microchamber for inverted substrate." Inventor Krishan L. Kalra (with Siva Kumar Y.N. per assignment); assignee BioGenex Laboratories, Inc.; application 15/026,925; priority 2013‑10‑04; filed 2014‑10‑03; granted 2020‑12‑29. National phase of PCT/US2014/059132 (WO 2015/051295). 42 claims (independent claims 1, 19, 33).

Prior-art date status. The effective filing date is 2013‑10‑04, i.e. post‑AIA (after 2013‑03‑16). All ten references cited on the face of the patent were published/granted well before that date, so each is available as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) (patented/printed publication) and/or § 102(a)(2) (U.S. patent/application effectively filed earlier). No citation requires a § 102(b) grace-period analysis.

Bottom-line § 102 conclusion (stated up front)

No single cited reference anticipates any of claims 1–42. Every dependent claim incorporates all limitations of its independent claim (1, 19, or 33), and no cited reference — alone — discloses the combination that distinguishes the independent claims, in particular:

• Claim 1: a slide holding lever having two laterally mounted support tabs at a first end applying two opposing forces toward the chamber floor, a pivot mechanism at the opposed second end attached to the substrate support structure, plus a sliding mechanism that slides the substrate toward the dispensing cavity and underneath those two tabs — combined with the inverted substrate forming the top of the chamber and capillary/laminar fill.
• Claim 19 (method): the mirror-image steps (longitudinal sliding; two laterally disposed support tabs applying opposing forces toward the floor).
• Claim 33: a sliding mechanism with a slide clip combined with a lifting mechanism that raises the substrate so reagent flows in.

The citations are therefore best characterized as § 103 obviousness/background art, not § 102 anticipatory art. Below I give each reference, its citation data, a description, and the specific claim elements/claims it most closely approaches (and whether a single-reference anticipation theory is even colorable).

Reference-by-reference analysis

1. US 4,041,995 A — "Gas pressure-activated drop dispenser"

• Assignee/inventor: Eastman Kodak Company (Columbus, R.L.)
• Dates: priority 1975‑01‑30; filed 1975‑12‑24; granted 1977‑08‑16
• Description: Apparatus/process for drop-by-drop metering of biological fluids. A container with a drop-forming platform is pressurized to form a pendant drop, and the substrate is moved into contact with the drop. Deals with prevention of sample-to-sample contamination and drop-volume reproducibility. (Source: US 4,041,995, Google Patents / PubChem patent record.)
• § 102 potential: None. No chamber, no capillary draw, no inverted substrate, no slide-holding lever/support structure. Barely relevant even as § 103 background (it is a dispensing reference). Claims potentially anticipated: none.

2. US 6,238,910 B1 — "Thermal and fluid cycling device for nucleic acid hybridization"

• Assignee/inventor: Genomic Solutions, Inc. (Custance et al.)
• Dates: priority 1998‑08‑10; filed 1999‑08‑10 (app. 09/371,107); granted 2001‑05‑29
• Description: Automated DNA-microarray hybridization instrument. Slides (solid substrates) are processed in slide pairs with separate clamping mechanisms to seal DNA-sample areas; a fluid manifold controls multiple fluids across each slide; fluid is moved under negative pressure; precise thermal control by slide pair; small liquid volumes; software control. (Source: US 6,238,910 B1 / WO 00/09650.)
• § 102 potential: Discloses a chamber formed with a slide as one wall, clamping, fluid introduction, and precise temperature control — i.e., elements of claims 19, 20, 21, 23 (method of reacting on a slide, capillary/fluid introduction, heating) and the heating/structure concepts of claims 10–11. However, it uses a cover/clamp that seals onto a slide that remains the bottom, no inverted-slide-with-two-tab-lever, no pivot mechanism, no sliding mechanism as claimed. Anticipation of any claim: not colorable (independent claims unmet). Best treated as § 103 art for the heating and chamber-sealing features.

3. US 2012/0201723 A1 — "Fluid exchange in a chamber on a microscope slide"

• Assignee/inventor: Dako Denmark A/S (Loeffler; Bogen); also published as US 8,173,068 B2 / EP1171761
• Dates: priority 1999‑04‑20; published 2012‑08‑09 (from app. 13/439,506 filed 2012‑04‑04)
• Description: A sample chamber is formed by a housing ("cell," preferably a disposable plastic part) sealed against a microscope slide via a gasket; the cell has fluid ports (with a well over at least one port) and valves; reagent is drawn into the chamber by vacuum then released to fill; rinse and waste reservoirs; the background expressly discusses the capillary gap between two apposed slides (Unger/Code-On) where reagent "wicked in by capillary action," and the goal of <100 µl reagent and evaporation prevention during heating. (Sources: US 2012/0201723 A1; EP1171761B1.)
• § 102 potential: Directly relevant to the chamber/port/well structure and capillary-fill concept, evaporation prevention, and low-volume constraints of claims 4, 7 (evacuation/ports), 9, 14 (channel/port), 20–22, and heating-related aspects. Crucially, the slide is the bottom surface (cell on top), i.e., the opposite orientation to the inverted substrate of claim 1, and there is no two-tab slide-holding lever, pivot, or sliding mechanism. Anticipation of any claim: not colorable. Strong § 103 art for the chamber/fluid-handling concept.

4. US 7,943,093 B2 — "Cover slip"

• Assignee/inventor: Erie Scientific Company
• Dates: priority 2001‑12‑12; granted 2011‑05‑17
• Description: A cover slip with spacer segments that, with the substrate, form a chamber of controlled, minimized volume; the cover slip has beam stiffness to maintain a substantially constant gap (despite capillary/adhesion forces); liquid is introduced via capillary action; the design reduces evaporation and minimizes hybridization-solution volume. (Sources: US 7,943,093 B2; related US 6,939,032 B2.)
• § 102 potential: Relevant to the concept of a thin chamber formed between a glass member and a substrate, filled by capillary action, with a controlled small depth/volume — i.e., elements underlying claims 3 (chamber depth ~40–85 µm), 4/5 (volumes), 15 (coating/spacer), 20–22. But it relies on a discrete cover slip placed over the slide (substrate remains bottom); it does not disclose the inverted substrate forming the top of a body chamber, the two-tab slide-holding lever with pivot, or the sliding mechanism. Anticipation of any claim: not colorable. Relevant § 103 art for chamber geometry and capillary filling.

5. US 2005/0239195 A1 — "Reaction chamber"

• Assignee/inventor: Millenium Biologix AG (WO 2003/106033 A1)
• Dates: priority 2002‑06‑13; published 2005‑10‑27
• Description: A reaction chamber assembly comprising a microscope slide/carrier and an assembly cover having at least one port and at least one channel leading to a reaction compartment that, together with the slide, forms a reaction chamber with a predetermined volume. Explicitly modular (bioreactors individually removable/replaceable), optionally disposable, with optional integrated heating/thermoelement; adapted to automated pipettes. (Sources: US 2005/0239195 A1; WO 2003/106033 A1.)
• § 102 potential: This is the closest structural reference on paper for the sub-combination of a body/cover with a port→channel→reaction compartment and a slide forming part of a fixed-volume chamber, plus modularity — i.e., elements of claims 14 (dispensing channel), 16 (modular components), 4/5/40/41 (volumes), 10/11 (heating). But the slide/cover orientation is not the inverted-substrate-with-two-tab-lever arrangement, and it lacks the pivot/sliding slide-holding mechanisms of claims 1 and 33. Anticipation of any claim: not colorable (independent-claim limitations unmet); nonetheless the most useful § 103 platform among the structural references.

6. US 2005/0270642 A1 — "Microscope slide cover with integrated reservoir"

• Inventor: McLellan, Andrew
• Dates: priority 2002‑06‑20; published 2005‑12‑08
• Description: A microscope-slide cover incorporating an integrated reservoir for holding/supplying liquid over a specimen on a slide. (Claim-level detail not fully retrieved in this session — one verification search returned the step-limit; treat the fine description as moderate confidence and confirm against the document.)
• § 102 potential: Relevant to the concept of a slide cover/body providing a reservoir or dispensing feature (cf. dispensing cavity 2 of claims 1/33 and claim 14). Does not disclose the two-tab slide-holding lever, pivot, or sliding/lifting mechanisms. Anticipation of any claim: not colorable. § 103/background.

7. US 7,682,565 B2 — "Assay apparatus and method using microfluidic arrays"

• Assignee/inventor: Biotrove, Inc.
• Dates: priority 2002‑12‑20; granted 2010‑03‑23
• Description: Microfluidic-array assay apparatus and methods (high-throughput microfluidic handling/analysis).
• § 102 potential: Generalized microfluidics/assay background; does not disclose the claimed inverted-substrate microchamber architecture (two-tab lever, pivot, sliding mechanism). Anticipation of any claim: none/not colorable. § 103 background at most.

8. US 2005/0238541 A1 — "Retaining clip for reagent test slides"

• Inventor: Barski, Stanislaw
• Dates: priority 2003‑12‑04; published 2005‑10‑27
• Description: A retaining clip for holding reagent test slides in an instrument (slide-retention hardware). (Fine detail not independently re-verified this session; moderate confidence.)
• § 102 potential: Relevant specifically to the substrate-retention/holding aspects — e.g., the "slide clip 11" of the specification and the "slide clip" limitation of claim 33(e), and the slide-holding/hold-down concept of claim 1(e). However, a slide-retaining clip does not disclose the claimed two laterally mounted support tabs on a lever with an opposed pivot mechanism attached to the substrate support structure, nor the sliding mechanism combined therewith. Anticipation: not colorable. Best § 103 art for the clip/hold-down feature.

9. US 2010/0209298 A1 — "Sample processing system"

• Inventor: Kalra, Krishan L. (same inventor as the patent under review)
• Dates: priority 2006‑03‑09; published 2010‑08‑19
• Description: A sample-processing system for treating/analyzing samples (e.g., on slides) — an automated histology/IHC-type processing platform by the same inventor. (Fine detail not independently re-verified this session; moderate confidence.)
• § 102 potential: Relevant as inventor-originating background art for sample processing on slides and reagent handling. Because it shares the inventor, it is a candidate for § 102(a)(2)/§ 103 treatment and a double-patenting/obviousness-type consideration, but it does not disclose the claimed two-tab-slide-holding-lever + pivot + sliding mechanism combination. Anticipation: not colorable.

10. US 2011/0165034 A1 — "Impact load protection for mass-based product dispensers"

• Assignee/inventor: Ecolab USA
• Dates: priority 2010‑01‑07; published 2011‑07‑07
• Description: Impact-load protection for mass-based (e.g., product/soap) dispensers — dispenser hardware unrelated to slide microchambers.
• § 102 potential: None. Different field; only facial overlap is the generic word "dispenser." Anticipation of any claim: none. (Its presence in the citation list is incidental/art-unit noise rather than substantive art.)

Non-patent citation

• International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Feb. 27, 2015, issued in PCT/US2014/059132 (filed 2014‑10‑03), 18 pages. This is the search report for the parent application, not prior art — it identifies the art the ISA considered relevant to the PCT claims. (It is the document that generated the reference set above.)

Summary table

Most relevant prior art (ranked): (5) US 2005/0239195 A1 → (4) US 7,943,093 B2 → (3) US 2012/0201723 A1 → (2) US 6,238,910 B1 → (6) US 2005/0270642 A1 → (8) US 2005/0238541 A1 → (9) US 2010/0209298 A1 → (7) US 7,682,565 B2 → (1) US 4,041,995 A → (10) US 2011/0165034 A1.

Caveats and confidence

• Citations/dates: Bibliographic data for references 1–5 and 7 were verified from Google Patents, FreePatentsOnline, PubChem, and EPO/EP documents during this session. Descriptions of references 6, 8, 9, and 10 are based on the patent's own citation captions plus general subject-matter knowledge and were not fully re-verified (search budget exhausted) — treat those four as moderate confidence and confirm against the documents before relying on them in a filing.
• § 102 vs § 103: My conclusion that nothing here anticipates claims 1, 19, or 33 rests on the specific, narrow structural limitations (two laterally mounted support tabs on a pivoting lever attached to the substrate support structure; the sliding mechanism; the inverted substrate forming the chamber top; and the slide-clip + lifting-mechanism combination of claim 33). If a claim term were construed very broadly, a § 103 (not § 102) combination of, e.g., reference 5 + reference 8 + reference 3 would be the natural attack — but that is obviousness, not anticipation.
• I did not run a fresh USPTO Patent Public Search / PatentCenter query against "10876937" specifically in this session beyond the authoritative full-text record already provided; the reference set above is exactly the one identified on the face of US 10,876,937 B2 (10 patent citations + 1 non-patent citation). If you want, I can attempt targeted retrievals for references 6, 8, 9, and 10 to firm up their descriptions, and/or screen the "Family Cites Families" and "Similar Documents" lists from the patent record for additional § 103 art.

I'll ground the analysis by pulling details on the key prior-art references cited on the patent page, then build the § 103 combinations.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,876,937 B2

"Assembly for forming microchamber for inverted substrate" (BioGenex Laboratories, Inc.)

Analyst note: This is a technical/legal-analysis work product, not a legal opinion. All prior-art characterizations below are grounded in the references listed on the patent page and the public abstracts I retrieved (URLs cited). Where a limitation is not squarely met by the listed art, I say so explicitly rather than stretching the mapping.

1. Governing framework and threshold dates

Every reference in the "Citations (10)" and "Family Cites Families (6)" sections of the page predates 2013 by years (earliest 1975; latest cited 2010), so each is available as prior art. Because the asserted novelty sits in mechanical retention/lifting sub-structures combined with a well-developed capillary-chamber art, the case is a classic KSR/MPEP 2143 combination analysis rather than a single-reference anticipation attack.

Level of ordinary skill (proposed): a person with a B.S. in mechanical/biomedical engineering (or equivalent) and 2–5 years' experience designing automated histology/IHC/ISH staining instruments and fluidic slide chambers, or a master's plus less experience, familiar with capillary-gap slide processing, slide carriers/retainers, and thermal control of slides.

2. Prior art of record — what each reference supplies

3. Claim 1 — obviousness

Claim 1 breaks into six limitations: (1.1) body with chamber + floor; (1.2) fluid dispensing cavity in the body; (1.3) substrate support mounting the substrate inverted over the floor, the substrate forming the top of the chamber; (1.4) a slide holding lever with two laterally mounted support tabs at a first end pressing the substrate toward the floor and a pivot mechanism at the opposed second end, attached to the support structure; (1.5) a sliding mechanism engaging the support structure to slide the substrate toward the dispensing cavity and underneath the tabs; (1.6) chamber/support dimensioned for laminar, capillary-driven reagent.

3.1 Mapping

• (1.1)–(1.3), (1.6): Fully met by Sakura '152 (platen + face-down slide = reaction chamber; ports; heating; capillary/drip introduction; disposable modular tray) and independently by Dako '723 (cell sealed to slide; fluid ports; capillary filling; explicit <100 µL; bubble avoidance). Millenium '195 and McLellan '642/EP 1514088 are alternate primaries for the chamber-cover-and-capillary concept.
• (1.4): Not squarely in the chamber references, but Barski '541 discloses precisely the concept of a pivoting (living-hinge) retainer whose resilient plates press down on slides, with the pivot attached to the carrier and the slides held in a stack/space. A POSITA adapting Barski's clip to a single slide over a chamber obtains the claimed "two laterally mounted support tabs … opposing forces directed toward the floor … pivot mechanism."
• (1.5): Barski '541 (cover plate slidably mounted on a middle plate) and Dako '723's discussed WO 99/34190 (slide slid inward into a cartridge, reagent wicked into the gap) both disclose sliding the substrate toward the reagent-introduction end.

3.2 Motivation to combine (KSR / MPEP 2143)

1. Same field of endeavor and same problem. Sakura, Dako, BioGenex, Ventana, Leica, and Erie all address automated processing of a tissue-bearing slide in a confined, low-volume, capillary reagent layer. The Dako background itself frames the art's recognized objectives: (a) even spreading without bubbles, (b) <100 µL reagent, (c) evaporation prevention, (d) compatibility with automated fluid transfer, (e) tissue protection. The '937 specification restates these same objectives — evidence that the problem was known.
2. Predictable result of combining known elements. Placing a slidably/retained slide inverted over a machined platen to form a capillary chamber was a known technique (Sakura '152; Dako '723 background describing the 1988 Unger capillary workstation). Adding a pivoting retaining clip (Barski '541) to hold the slide in place, and a sliding track to load the slide, are conventional mechanical engineering choices whose combined effect (slide held flat, no air gaps, reagent drawn by capillary action) is exactly what each reference independently sought.
3. Design incentives. Barski's stated purposes — minimizing contamination, avoiding user handling, and holding slides securely in position — are the same incentives that motivate a slide-retention lever in an instrument where a slide must seal against a chamber.
4. "Laminar flow" and "capillary forces" are inherent/result-effective. In a chamber of ~40–150 µm depth filled with a low-volume liquid, the flow regime is inherently laminar (low Reynolds number), and once the two surfaces are wetted the fill is by capillary pressure. Dako '723 discusses exactly this spread-and-fill behavior; a POSITA would recognize the recited flow characteristics as the natural result of the claimed thin-gap geometry — which, under MPEP 2144.04 / In re Koulischer, does not impart patentability absent an unexpected result.

Combination A (claim 1): Sakura '152 + Barski '541 + Dako '723 (or McLellan '642 for the capillary cover). A secondary formulation uses Millenium '195 as the chamber primary with the same secondaries.

4. Claim 19 — obviousness

Claim 19 is the method counterpart: couple sample to substrate → mount inverted over the chamber floor so the substrate forms the chamber top → slide longitudinally toward the dispensing cavity to enclose the sample → provide two opposing forces with two laterally disposed tabs, toward the floor → dispense reagent for laminar-flow reaction.

• The method of introducing and exchanging reagent in a slide chamber, with capillary filling, is taught by Dako '723 (and its "moving the slide inward" cartridge discussion) and by Sakura '152 ("reagents delivered into the reaction chamber while the slide is in position").
• The sliding-to-enclose step reads directly on Sakura '152 (slide positioned on the tray/platen) and on Barski '541's slidably mounted cover plate.
• The two opposing tab forces step reads on Barski '541's resilient, bias-inducing retaining members.

Combination B (claim 19): Dako '723 (or Sakura '152) + Barski '541. Motivation is the same as in § 3.2, reinforced by the express automation incentives in both Dako ('723: "automated fluid transfer") and Sakura ('152: disposable, walk-away processing).

Dependent claims: 20–22 (capillary) → Dako '723; 23 (heating) → Genomic Solutions '910 / Fuji '279 / Sakura '152; 24–25 (15–200 µL / ≤80 µL) → Dako '723 (<100 µL) + routine optimization; 26 (rotate a portion of the support structure) → Barski '541 pivoting plates; 27–32 (raise substrate via pressure/mechanical/pivoting/non-reactive liquid; 0.5–1 mm) → see § 6.

5. Claim 33 — obviousness

Claim 33 is the assembly variant reciting (a) body/chamber/floor, (b) dispensing cavity, (c) inverted substrate support forming the chamber top, (d) a sliding mechanism with a slide clip slidably engaging the support structure to slide the substrate longitudinally toward the cavity, and (e) a lifting mechanism to raise/lower the substrate so reagent flows into the chamber.

• (a)–(c): Sakura '152 / Dako '723 (as above).
• (d): Barski '541 (sliding cover plate + retaining clip) or Sakura '152's tray loading.
• (e): The strongest page-listed support for pressure-raising is US 4,041,995 A (gas-pressure actuation). More squarely, US 2004/0076552 A1 (Thorne & Grubner) discloses an elevating mechanism that raises the slide to form the analytical cavity — an almost literal read on "lifting mechanism … such that when the substrate is raised … reagent flows into the chamber." (Flagged in § 6: not on the page's citation list.)

Combination C (claim 33): Sakura '152 (or Dako '723) + Barski '541 + Thorne '552 / Eastman Kodak '995. Rationale: an instrument designer seeking to (i) load a slide horizontally and (ii) ensure full reagent wetting across the entire tissue would predictably add a lift/actuation stage to the chamber, as Thorne already teaches that raising a slide against a chamber rim creates the analytical cavity, and as the '937 background itself concedes that "liquid cover slip" and evacuated-gap approaches were known.

6. Weak points, honesty caveats, and flags

Limitations I could not map cleanly to the page-listed art (these carry the nonobviousness weight):

1. "Two laterally mounted support tabs" on a single pivoting lever (claims 1, 19). Barski '541 gets close in function and structure (pivoting, biasing retainer securing slides), but I did not locate a page-listed reference that literally shows two tabs on one lever arm pivoting about a hinge attached to the slide-support structure and co-acting with a sliding track that passes the slide underneath the tabs. A combination can be articulated, but a POSITA/PTO might view this multi-feature sub-assembly as more than a simple substitution. This is the most defensible limitation of claim 1.
2. "Lifting mechanism configured to raise the substrate relative to the chamber" (claim 33) + its species in claims 28–32 (pressure source, piezoelectric actuator, pivoting mechanism, non-reactive liquid, 0.5–1 mm). The page-listed art does not squarely disclose this. The best page-listed hook is Eastman Kodak '995 (gas pressure); the strongest overall reference is US 2004/0076552 A1 (Thorne) — found in my broader search, NOT on the page's citation list. Its elevating mechanism is highly material to claim 33 and should be verified against the full specification before relying on it.
3. "Bubble gate" (claim 8) and "protective/non-stick coating" (claim 15) are design-choice-level features absent from the listed art; expect to rely on Ventana WO 2010/077975 (sealing) plus routine optimization (MPEP 2144.04).

Flags / contradictions:

• ⚠️ Kalra US 2010/0209298 A1 is same-inventor/same-assignee art. It discloses a "MicroChamber" whose cover may be a microscope slide, with cover-handling, sealing, and independent heating/cooling assemblies. Because it published 2010‑08‑19 — more than one year before the 2013‑10‑04 priority — it appears to fall outside the AIA § 102(b)(1)(A)/(B) grace period, so it may qualify as § 102(a)(1) prior art notwithstanding the common inventorship/ownership (the § 102(b)(2)(C) common-ownership exception applies only to § 102(a)(2) art). If confirmed, this reference is a serious § 102/§ 103 obstacle in its own right and should be the first reference checked in a validity opinion. (Verify against the actual AIA effective-filing-date determination and any § 102(b)(2) analysis; I cannot confirm the full prosecution file here.)
• ⚠️ The claims as printed contain OCR artifacts ("with fain two opposing forces," "a sick of the slick 8"). I interpreted these literally as "two opposing forces" and "a side of the slide." Formal claim construction should confirm.
• The examiner allowed the case over the listed art — the prosecution history (Non-Final 2019‑07‑23; Final Rejection 2020‑02‑04; grant 2020‑12‑29, per the page's Legal Events) will show which limitations the examiner treated as distinguishing, which is the fastest way to pressure-test the combinations above.
• Secondary considerations: the '937 specification asserts advantages (no coverslip, faster reaction, reduced evaporation). But the Dako '723 background already recites these same objectives and the capillary workstation of Unger (1988) as prior art, so these advantages are largely expected, not unexpected — a weak nexus for nonobviousness.

7. Bottom line

• Claims 1 and 19 are vulnerable to § 103 over Sakura '152 (or Dako '723) + Barski '541 (+ McLellan '642 / Erie '093), with the "laminar/capillary" limitations met as inherent results of the thin-gap geometry the art already taught. The strongest nonobviousness argument the patentee has is the specific two-tab pivoting lever + sliding-underneath retention architecture.
• Claim 33 is vulnerable over [Sakura '152 or Dako '723] + Barski '541 + Thorne US 2004/0076552 A1 (or Eastman Kodak '995) — but the lifting-mechanism limitation makes claim 33 the claim most dependent on art outside the page's citation list.
• Dependent claims 2, 4–7, 14, 16, 20–25 largely fall with their independent claims (all map to Sakura '152 / Dako '723 / Dako's <100 µL disclosure); claims 3, 8, 15, 17–18, 30, 32 would require additional art or routine-optimization reasoning (Biotrove '565 for etched/micromachined floors; Ventana '975 for sealing/bubbles).

If you'd like, I can (a) pull the full text of US 2004/0076552 A1 and US 2010/0209298 A1 to confirm the elevating-mechanism and common-ownership points, or (b) pull the 15/026,925 file wrapper (office actions/reasons for allowance) to identify the exact limitation the examiner relied on.