Fall Protection Logic Circuit for Electronic Devices

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing protection devices for electronic apparatuses fail to timely activate safety measures during short, intermittent free-fall conditions, leading to potential damage due to incomplete recognition of critical motion states, such as when a device slips from a user's grip and experiences multiple brief falls.

Innovation Solution

A protection device incorporating a MEMS inertial sensor, processing module, and counter-based logic circuits that generate an interrupt signal based on free-fall and roll detection, allowing for incremental counting during critical motion states and decrementing during interruptions, ensuring timely activation of safety configurations.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If a threshold time interval is used to filter false alarms, then non-dangerous situations are correctly identified, but short critical falls are missed

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveaccuracy of fall detectionVSAvoidresponse time to critical fall
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system dynamically adjusts the evaluation criteria based on the accumulated counter value. Instead of using a fixed time threshold, the system adapts its sensitivity by incrementing a counter during critical conditions and decrementing it during interruptions. This allows the system to maintain reliability for short falls by accumulating evidence over multiple interruptions rather than discarding them with a fixed threshold.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs preliminary accumulation of critical condition evidence through the counter before triggering the safety mechanism. By incrementing the counter during each detection of critical motion and only resetting it after a sustained period of normal conditions, the system prepares in advance for potential short falls, ensuring that even brief critical events are captured through accumulated counter values.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

2Speed

If the safety mechanism is activated immediately upon detection, then response time is minimized, but false alarms increase due to normal motion

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveresponse speedVSAvoidfalse alarm rate
Core Design Contradiction:
SpeedVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system uses feedback through the counter mechanism to modulate the activation decision. Each detection of critical motion increments the counter, providing positive feedback that builds toward activation. Conversely, interruptions decrement the counter, providing negative feedback that prevents false alarms. This feedback loop allows rapid response to genuine falls while filtering out normal motion through the accumulated evidence requirement.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The system changes the activation parameter from a simple binary detection to a cumulative counter-based threshold. By transforming the detection criterion from immediate activation to accumulated counter reaching a threshold, the system maintains fast response to genuine falls while requiring sustained critical conditions rather than transient normal motion, thus reducing false alarms.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Ease of operation

If the counter is reset immediately upon interruption, then normal motion is correctly identified, but short critical falls are not recognized

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecorrect identification of normal motionVSAvoidrecognition of incomplete falls
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary accumulation of critical condition evidence through the counter before requiring a sustained normal period for reset. By incrementing the counter during each critical detection and only decrementing it during interruptions, the system ensures that short falls are captured through accumulated values even if interrupted, while still allowing correct identification of normal motion when the counter reaches zero after sufficient normal period.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system dynamically controls the counter reset behavior based on the current count value and interruption duration. Instead of immediate reset, the counter decrements gradually during interruptions, allowing the system to distinguish between brief normal motions (insufficient to reset) and sustained normal conditions (sufficient to reset). This dynamic behavior enables correct identification of normal motion while maintaining recognition of short critical falls through accumulated counter evidence.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Applied Scientific Principles

This section explains which scientific principles are used to turn an abstract innovation direction into a practical engineering solution.

Function Achieved in This Case

Enhances the recognition of potential fall dangers by neglecting short interruptions and maintaining the safety configuration until a predetermined wait threshold is reached, reducing the risk of damage from incomplete or interrupted falls.

Implementation Method 1

a free-fall condition is promptly recognized by the inertial sensor because the effect of the gravitational force normally detected is substantially zero

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectGravitational force: Gravitation

Data Source

PatentEP1933316B1Device and method for protecting an electronic appliance in critical motion conditions, in particular in case of fall
Publication Date: 2013.05.01 STMICROELECTRONICS SRL
  • EP1933316B1 patent drawingFigure 1a~3
  • EP1933316B1 patent drawingFigure 2~7
  • EP1933316B1 patent drawingFigure 4~5

AI summary

A device for protecting an electronic apparatus includes: a motion-detection device (7, 8, 9), for supplying at least one alert signal (SFF, SR) in response to pre-determined conditions of motion of the protection device; a counter (18); a first logic circuit (19; 219), for incrementing the counter (18) in the presence of a first value ("1") of the alert signal (SFF, SR), in a first operating condition; and a second logic circuit (20), for generating a protection signal (INT) on the basis of a count value (C) of the counter (18). In addition, the first logic circuit (19; 219) is configured for decrementing the counter in the presence of a second value ("0") of the alert signal (SFF, SR), in the first operating condition.