Modular Attachment Interface to Prevent Accidental Detachment

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing attachment systems are complex, costly, and difficult to use, particularly in orthopedic and medical devices, due to the need for component-specific interfaces and a high risk of accidental detachment.

Innovation Solution

An interchangeable attachment device with modular interfaces that can securely attach different components, such as cables and straps, using a locking/unlocking mechanism and elastic features, allowing for easy adaptation and intuitive use.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If component-specific attachment interfaces are used to securely attach different components, then attachment reliability is improved, but device complexity and manufacturing cost increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveattachment reliabilityVSAvoidinterface complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies universality by designing a single attachment interface that can securely attach multiple different components (cables, straps, etc.) through a standardized receiving portion that accepts various protruding portions. This eliminates the need for component-specific interfaces while maintaining secure attachment across different component types.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Solution Approach 2:

The attachment device is segmented into modular components: a body with a receiving portion, and interchangeable attachment members with protruding portions. This segmentation allows different attachment members to be swapped while using the same base interface, reducing overall system complexity while maintaining reliability.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

2Reliability

If component-specific attachment interfaces are provided for different components, then attachment reliability is improved, but manufacturing cost increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveattachment reliabilityVSAvoidmanufacturing cost

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSEase of manufacture

Solution Approach 1:

By providing a universal receiving portion that can attach multiple component types, the manufacturer produces only one base interface design rather than multiple component-specific interfaces. This reduces tooling costs, simplifies production processes, and lowers overall manufacturing expenses while maintaining secure attachment.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Solution Approach 2:

The patent merges the functionality of multiple component-specific interfaces into a single universal receiving portion. This consolidation reduces the total number of unique parts that need to be manufactured, inventoried, and assembled, thereby reducing manufacturing complexity and cost.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #5Merging (Combining)

3Adaptability or versatility

If multiple component-specific attachment interfaces are provided, then adaptability to different components is improved, but device complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvecomponent compatibilityVSAvoidinterface variety

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The universal receiving portion is designed to accommodate various protruding portion geometries through a standardized interface. This allows the same base component to work with different attachment members (cables, straps, etc.), providing high adaptability without increasing the variety of base interfaces needed.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Solution Approach 2:

The standardized receiving portion acts as an intermediary between different component types and the attachment device body. It provides a common interface standard that mediates between diverse attachment members, enabling compatibility without requiring multiple specialized interfaces.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

4Reliability

If complex attachment interfaces with matching requirements are used, then attachment reliability is improved, but ease of operation decreases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improveattachment reliabilityVSAvoidattachment ease

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

Instead of requiring the user to match complex interface geometries, the design inverts the approach: the receiving portion is designed to passively accept various protruding portions through a standardized interface. This simplifies the user's task to merely inserting the attachment member into the receiving portion, greatly improving ease of operation while maintaining reliability through the standardized locking mechanism.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #13The other way round (Inversion)

Data Source

PatentEP3927207B1Interchangeable attachment device

Publication Date: 2023.10.11 OSSUR ICELAND EHF

Figure 1
Figure 2~3
Figure 4

AI summary

An interchangeable attachment device (100) comprises a first attachment interface (102) arranged to support a first component, and a second attachment interface (104) supporting at least one second component (106, 108). The first and second attachment interfaces (102, 104) define cooperating attachment portions (124, 122) arranged for securing an end portion of the first attachment interface (102) to an end portion of the second attachment interface (104) to form an attachment junction (112).