Exoskeleton Auto-Poles and Segmented Chair for STS

Solution Overview

Problem

Current exoskeletons for mobility assistance, particularly for elderly and handicapped individuals, face challenges in providing safe, comfortable, and efficient sit-to-stand (STS) and gait capabilities, often requiring large actuators, occupying user hands with poles, and lacking advanced AI/ML control for optimal performance.

Innovation Solution

A four-legged exoskeleton system with integrated auto-poles and a robotic chair, utilizing AI/ML and Reinforcement Learning (RL) for optimized control, allowing for independent STS and gait motions with reduced weight, improved safety, and hands-free operation, featuring a 4-bar linkage mechanism and direct drive rotary actuators for efficient motion.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Force

If traditional exoskeletons use large actuators to provide sufficient force for STS and gait motions, then the force capability is improved, but the device weight increases significantly

Engineering Contradiction:
Core Design Contradiction:
ForceVSWeight of moving object

Solution Approach 1:

The exoskeleton system is divided into separate functional modules: a robotic chair for STS motion and a lightweight exoskeleton for gait motion. This segmentation allows each component to be optimized independently, with the chair providing the heavy-duty actuators needed for STS while the exoskeleton remains lightweight for wearable comfort during walking.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The STS function is extracted from the exoskeleton and implemented in a separate robotic chair system. This extraction removes the need for large, heavy actuators from the wearable exoskeleton, allowing it to remain lightweight while still providing STS capability through the integrated chair.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #2Taking out (Extraction)

2Reliability

If integrated poles are added to provide stability and safety during gait, then the reliability is improved, but the device complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The poles are merged with the exoskeleton structure itself, transforming them from separate handheld canes into integrated components. The poles are attached to the exoskeleton frame and can be automatically deployed or adjusted, combining the support function with the existing structural elements rather than adding completely separate systems.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #5Merging (Combining)

Solution Approach 2:

The integrated poles are designed to be automatically controlled by the system, potentially deploying or adjusting their support levels based on the user's gait phase or detected stability needs, rather than requiring manual operation by the user.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

3Ease of operation

If advanced AI/ML control systems are implemented to optimize motion performance, then the ease of operation is improved, but the device complexity and computational requirements increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The control system continuously receives feedback from sensors monitoring the user's motion state, exoskeleton position, and gait parameters. This feedback loop allows the AI/ML algorithms to dynamically adjust control parameters in real-time, optimizing assistance levels and motion trajectories based on actual user needs rather than pre-programmed sequences.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The system dynamically changes control parameters such as assistance torque, joint stiffness, and motion speed based on real-time sensor data and AI/ML processing. These parameter adjustments allow the exoskeleton to adapt to different users, tasks, and environmental conditions without requiring complex mechanical reconfiguration.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

4Adaptability or versatility

If the exoskeleton is designed to provide both STS and gait capabilities in a single integrated system, then the versatility is improved, but the weight and complexity increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSWeight of moving object

Solution Approach 1:

The system is segmented into two distinct but integrated components: a robotic chair that handles the heavy STS function with large actuators, and a lightweight wearable exoskeleton that handles gait assistance. This segmentation allows each component to be optimized for its specific function while working together as a unified system, avoiding the need to overload the wearable portion with STS-capable actuators.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Data Source

PatentUS20240033158A1Lower extremity exoskeleton with integrated poles and sit to stand chair
Publication Date: 2024.02.01
  • US20240033158A1 patent drawing
  • US20240033158A1 patent drawing
  • US20240033158A1 patent drawing

AI summary

A four leg, lower extremity, robotic exoskeleton system is provided for medically assistive motion in gait, sit to stand (STS) and step climbing activities. The system has four articulated robotic legs, including two exoskeleton legs and two auto-pole legs, which are connected to a torso frame, controlled by a motion controller and a user interfaces, and that interacts with an assistive stationary robotic chair, or a wheelchair, for storage, dressing, STS and rest. The STS motion, in the stationary chair and the wheelchair, may be done with a single axis linear actuator, which maintains a back seat tip parallel to the ground for safety and comfort. Links of the exoskeleton and auto-pole legs are actuated by a linear or rotary actuators with their synchronized motion controlled by the motion controller, for safety, comfort and cost performance optimization depending on the medical needs.