Spinal Support Segmentation for Hyperflexion Limiting

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing spinal protective devices for extreme sports are complex, costly, and prone to failure due to reliance on multiple interconnected parts, which compromises their effectiveness in limiting spinal movement during hyperflexion and hyperextension.

Innovation Solution

A spinal protective device with support members abutted in series, featuring tension assemblies spaced from fulcrum contact areas to provide strength and limit movement, allowing for a simpler, more cost-effective construction that resists bending moments and allows free movement within acceptable ranges.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If a complex arrangement of supporting elements connected by hinges or other complex formed parts is used, then the device can limit spinal movement, but the device becomes costly and difficult to manufacture and assemble

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvespinal protection effectivenessVSAvoidconstruction complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The support structure is divided into a series of discrete support members (first support member, second support member, third support member) that are abutted together in series along the spine. Each support member includes fulcrum contact areas that allow controlled relative pivotal movement while maintaining spinal protection through simple tension assemblies rather than complex hinges.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The invention extracts the essential protective function from complex mechanical hinges and replaces it with a simplified system consisting of abutted support members with fulcrum contact areas and tension assemblies. This removes unnecessary complexity while retaining the core functionality of limiting spinal movement in hyperflexion andhyperextension directions.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #2Taking out (Extraction)

2Strength

If multiple individual parts are used to assemble the device, then the device can provide spinal support, but the potential for failure increases and effective protection decreases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvespinal support strengthVSAvoiddevice reliability
Core Design Contradiction:
StrengthVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

Adjacent support members are merged through direct abutment with fulcrum contact areas, eliminating the need for separate hinge connections. The tension assemblies connect the support members in a unified manner, creating a more reliable structure where the strength relies on the integrated tension assemblies rather than the cooperation of many individual hinge parts.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #5Merging (Combining)

3Ease of manufacture

If support members are abutted with tension assemblies spaced from fulcrum contact areas, then the construction is simpler and stronger, but the device must effectively limit movement in bothhyperflexion andhyperextension directions

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveassembly easeVSAvoidfunctional complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of manufactureVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The support members are designed with specific local features: forward fulcrum contact areas forhyperflexion movement about a forward lateral axis, and rearward fulcrum contact areas forhyperextension movement about a rearward lateral axis. The tension assemblies are positioned at specific locations spaced from these fulcrum contact areas to provide appropriate tension control for each direction of movement, allowing simple construction to achieve complex functional requirements.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

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

The device offers enhanced strength and reduced potential for failure, while being easier to assemble and more cost-effective, providing effective protection against spinal injuries by limiting hyperflexion and hyperextension movements without restricting desirable mobility.

Implementation Method 1

a rear tension assembly arranged to be connected under tension between the support members at a location spaced rearwardly from the forward fulcrum contact areas so as to be arranged to limit relative movement between the support members in thehyperflexion direction

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectTension: Tension

Implementation Method 2

each adjacent pair of support members further comprising a respective pair of forward fulcrum contact areas where the support members abut one another for relative pivotal movement in ahyperflexion direction about a forward lateral axis

Methodology Applied
Scientific EffectPivotal movement: Hinge

Data Source

PatentEP2643065B1Spinal protective device
Publication Date: 2016.03.02 REIMER MILTON D
  • EP2643065B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP2643065B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP2643065B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

A spinal protective device includes a plurality of support members abutted in series with one another along a spine of a user. Each adjacent pair of support members has a respective pair of forward fulcrum contact areas where the support members abut one another for relative pivotal movement in a hyperflexion direction and a respective pair of rearward fulcrum contact areas where the support members abut one another for relative pivotal movement in a hyperextension direction. A rear tension assembly connected between the support members limits relative movement in the hyperflexion direction and a front tension assembly connected between the support members limits relative movement between the support members in the hyperextension direction. Straps about the torso secure the support members along the spine of the user.