Medical Instrument Control Layout With Opposed Actuation

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing medical instruments require complex mechanisms with multiple buttons and cables for activating and deactivating functions, leading to increased space requirements, manufacturing costs, and potential damage risks.

Innovation Solution

A medical instrument with a control device comprising movable parts that activate or deactivate functions using a single control section, simplifying the mechanism and reducing the need for additional buttons and cables, and utilizing a single-sided printed circuit board to reduce complexity and cost.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If multiple buttons and cables are used for activating and deactivating functions, then the control functionality is comprehensive, but the device complexity and manufacturing cost increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecontrol functionalityVSAvoidmechanism complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent combines multiple control functions into a single control element that can activate and deactivate different functions through different movement directions or positions. This merging approach reduces the number of separate buttons and cables needed, thereby simplifying the overall device complexity while maintaining comprehensive control functionality.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #5Merging (Combining)

Solution Approach 2:

The control element is designed to perform multiple functions - it can activate different medical instrument functions through different operational modes or positions. This multi-functionality allows a single control mechanism to replace what would traditionally require multiple separate controls, reducing device complexity while maintaining versatility.

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

2Adaptability or versatility

If multiple buttons and cables are used for activating and deactivating functions, then the control functionality is comprehensive, but the manufacturing cost increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecontrol functionalityVSAvoidmanufacturing cost
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSEase of manufacture

Solution Approach 1:

By merging multiple control functions into a single control element, the patent reduces the number of components that need to be manufactured, assembled, and tested. This directly lowers manufacturing costs while maintaining the ability to control multiple functions, as fewer parts are required overall.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #5Merging (Combining)

Solution Approach 2:

The patent extracts and eliminates unnecessary cables and separate control buttons, keeping only the essential control element. This reduction in components simplifies the manufacturing process and reduces material costs, while the extracted control element retains comprehensive control capability through its multi-functional design.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #2Taking out (Extraction)

3Adaptability or versatility

If multiple cables are used for control connections, then the control functionality is comprehensive, but the risk of damaging moving parts increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecontrol functionalityVSAvoiddamage risk
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent removes unnecessary cables from the system, keeping only the essential control connections. This extraction of redundant cables reduces the number of potential failure points and minimizes the risk of cable damage to moving parts, while the remaining control element maintains comprehensive control functionality through its integrated design.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #2Taking out (Extraction)

4Device complexity

If a single control section is used, then the device complexity is reduced, but the control precision may be compromised

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvemechanism complexityVSAvoidcontrol precision
Core Design Contradiction:
Device complexityVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The control element is designed with dynamic capabilities, allowing it to be moved in different directions or positioned in multiple states. This dynamic design enables a single control element to provide precise control over multiple functions, maintaining control precision while reducing device complexity compared to multiple separate static controls.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Data Source

PatentEP3616637B1Medical instrument
Publication Date: 2026.03.25 ERBE ELEKTROMEDIZIN GMBH
  • EP3616637B1 patent drawingFigure 1~2
  • EP3616637B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

According to the invention, a medical instrument (10) is provided which has a device for activating or deactivating a function of the medical instrument. The device has a first part (41) and a second part (48), wherein the second part (48) is arranged and configured to be moved into an operative position relative to the first part (41) in order to activate or deactivate at least one function of the medical instrument (10), and wherein the first part (41) is arranged and configured to be moved into an operative position relative to the second part (48) in order to activate or deactivate the at least one function of the medical instrument (10).The medical instrument (10) preferably has a second control element (16) for moving the second part (48) into the operating position, which provides an operating section, and preferably has a first control element (15) for moving the first part (41) into the operating position, which provides a further operating section. The first control element (15) is preferably movable in a direction opposite to that in which the second control element (16) can be moved to activate the function. Thus, the function can be activated, for example, by moving one control element (15) from back to front, i.e., in a distal direction, and by moving another control element (16) in the opposite direction, from front to back, i.e., in a proximal direction.A redirection of the force from an actuating element (15, 16) to actuate the first part or the second part in the opposite direction is therefore not absolutely necessary.