3D Sensor Interface for Handheld Devices

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Conventional handheld electronic device interfaces are inefficient, as they primarily rely on the thumb for operation, underutilize the fine motor skills of all fingers, and are not adaptable to different hand morphologies or sizes, leading to difficulties in navigation, data entry, and increased risk of accidental interactions.

Innovation Solution

A user interface that utilizes sensors on the outer surfaces of devices to detect and track contact patches made by all five fingers and the base of the thumb, converting these into control signals, allowing for natural hand movements to operate the device without predetermined active spots, thus accommodating various hand morphologies and sizes.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Loss of information

If conventional thumb-based interface controls are placed on the front of the device, then the controls are easy to identify, but they are not easy to reach when operating the device in-hand

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecontrol visibilityVSAvoidcontrol accessibility
Core Design Contradiction:
Loss of informationVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The patent extends the interface from the traditional 2D front surface to the 3D surface of the entire device, including sides and back. This allows controls to be distributed across multiple surfaces, making them accessible to fingers while maintaining visibility on the front display.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #17Another dimension (Dimensionality change)

Solution Approach 2:

The interface is segmented into multiple functional zones distributed across different surfaces of the device. Each surface (front, sides, back) can contain specific controls or sensor regions, allowing optimized placement for both visibility and accessibility.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

2Device complexity

If fixed location controls are used on the device, then the interface structure is simple, but it does not accommodate different hand sizes and morphologies

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveinterface structureVSAvoidhand morphology accommodation
Core Design Contradiction:
Device complexityVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The interface transitions from static fixed controls to dynamic sensor regions that can adapt their active areas based on detected hand morphology. The system adjusts control zones and sensitivity parameters in real-time to match the user's hand characteristics.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system changes operational parameters such as sensor sensitivity, active region boundaries, and control mapping based on detected hand size and morphology. This allows the same physical device to adapt to different users without hardware changes.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Productivity

If all fingers are used for operation, then the fine motor skills of the hand are fully utilized, but the interface must accommodate variable finger positions and contact points

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveoperational efficiencyVSAvoidinterface tracking system
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The entire surface of the device becomes a multi-functional sensor region that can detect and interpret inputs from any finger. This universal sensing approach replaces specialized buttons with a flexible system that handles multiple input types across the surface.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Solution Approach 2:

The system continuously monitors finger contact positions, pressure, and duration, using this feedback to dynamically adjust control interpretation. This allows accurate differentiation between intentional inputs and accidental touches while supporting diverse finger movements.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

4Adaptability or versatility

If sensors cover the entire outer surface for finger detection, then all fingers can be utilized for control, but the manufacturing complexity and cost increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvefinger utilizationVSAvoidsensor integration
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSEase of manufacture

Solution Approach 1:

Instead of uniform sensor coverage, the system implements sensor regions with varying densities and sensitivities tailored to specific functional zones. High-precision sensors are placed where fine control is needed, while coarser sensing suffices for other areas.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

Data Source

PatentEP3472689B1Accommodative user interface for handheld electronic devices
Publication Date: 2022.09.28 HELKE MICHAEL
  • EP3472689B1 patent drawingFigure 1A
  • EP3472689B1 patent drawingFigure 1B
  • EP3472689B1 patent drawingFigure 2A

AI summary

A tactile user interface for handheld electronic devices that accommodates the human hand irrespective of morphology, size or laterality thus enabling any user to conveniently operate such devices with all five fingers which comprises an outer surface, one or more continuous sensor regions on said outer surface, wherein the regions are configured with one or more sensors to detect multiple simultaneous contact patches made by one or more fingers and/or the base of the thumb of a hand, a processor connected to the one or more sensors, wherein the processor identifies a particular contact patch based on the relative location of the particular contact patch with respect to the other contact patches wherein the processor is configured to control an electronic device by identifying a sign consisting of the combined distinctive features of one or more contact patches and associating the sign with a signal for controlling the electronic device or to input data and by transmitting said signal to the device.