Patch-Clamp Workflow Control for Manual-Automatic Step Switching

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing patch-clamp methods lack a balance between throughput and dynamic interaction, with manual methods being inefficient and automatic methods lacking user flexibility.

Innovation Solution

A semi-automatic patch-clamp apparatus with a computerized controller that allows a mix of manual and automatic process steps, enabling flexible interaction during experiments while maintaining high throughput.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If manual patch-clamp methods are used, then user flexibility and dynamic interaction are maintained, but throughput is insufficient for industrial testing

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveuser flexibilityVSAvoidthroughput

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patch-clamp procedure is divided into discrete process steps that can be individually assigned to either manual or automatic execution. The controller allows users to define specific steps as manual (for flexibility) or automatic (for throughput), enabling a hybrid approach that balances both requirements simultaneously.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system dynamically transitions between manual and automatic processing modes during a single patch-clamp procedure. The controller can switch between modes based on the assigned execution type of each process step, providing adaptability while maintaining high throughput where applicable.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #15Dynamics

2Productivity

If fully automatic patch-clamp methods are used, then high throughput is achieved, but user interaction and dynamic amendment capability are lost

Engineering Contradiction:

ImprovethroughputVSAvoiddynamic interaction

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

By segmenting the experimental procedure into controllable process steps, the system allows selective automation. Users can assign steps requiring dynamic interaction to manual execution while automating routine steps, thereby maintaining throughput without sacrificing necessary user interaction.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The controller acts as an intermediary between manual user input and automatic manipulator execution. It coordinates the hybrid workflow by receiving user instructions for manual steps and automatically executing assigned steps, bridging the gap between manual flexibility and automatic efficiency.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

3Adaptability or versatility

If manual patch-clamp methods are used, then dynamic amendment of experiments is possible, but operator error and time consumption increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvedynamic amendment capabilityVSAvoidtime consumption

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The procedure is pre-defined with process steps assigned to manual or automatic execution before the experiment begins. This preliminary configuration reduces operator error by establishing a structured workflow, while still allowing dynamic amendments during execution through the controller's flexible step assignment capability.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The controller provides feedback and coordination between manual and automatic steps, allowing users to monitor progress and make dynamic amendments while the system manages the overall workflow. This reduces operator burden and time consumption compared to fully manual methods.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #23Feedback

4Productivity

If fully automatic machines are used, then high throughput screening is achieved, but device complexity and cost increase

Engineering Contradiction:

ImprovethroughputVSAvoidmachine complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

ProductivityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The controller serves multiple functions: it manages automatic manipulator operations, coordinates manual process steps, provides user interface for step assignment, and enables dynamic amendments. This multi-functionality consolidates capabilities that would otherwise require separate complex systems, reducing overall device complexity while maintaining throughput.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Data Source

PatentEP4460695B1Semi-automated patch-clamp apparatus and a method for carrying out a patch-clamp procedure

Publication Date: 2025.12.24 SOPHION BIOSCIENCE AS

Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3~4

AI summary

A semi-automated patch-clamp apparatus (100), comprising a patch-clamp plate manipulator configured to receive a patch-clamp plate (1) comprising a plurality of patch-clamp sites (10), and a computerised controller configured to define a patch-clamp procedure. To allow an efficient patch-clamp procedure and interaction with a user during the procedure, the controller is configured to define the patch-clamp procedure with manual process steps assigned to manual execution by a user and with automatic process steps for automatic execution by the manipulator. The controller provides instructions for the user to carry out the manual process steps, and commands for the manipulator for automatic execution of the automatic process steps, and the controller is configured to control execution of the patch-clamp procedure by dispatching the commands to the manipulator for execution of the automatic process steps and by dispatching the instructions to the user for manual execution of the manual process steps.