[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] rotary ADS joint question
A quick search for Canadian and US patents is not showing anything new. Is
the Exosuit joint covered under prior art, or do you have a new application
pending? Any chance of getting a look? I'm just looking for information -
I'm happy to sign a NDA or non-compete if you're worried about me.
-Sean
On Sunday 31 October 2010 15:16:23 you wrote:
> Hi, Sean
> I'm shaking my head at myself - my previous email comments refer to my
> original 1984 patent CA 1171601, not so much the 1992 CA 1209632 which was
> the subject of your query - I should have looked more closely at the
> numbers. That original 1984 'principle' patent is the one from which my
> later 1992 patent was derived as was Humphrey's 2002 patent. The latter
> two depend exclusively on the 1984 patent for the rotary joint itself -
> but don't claim any functional part of the 1984 patent since it is, by
> definition, prior art.(BTW, for the record, my original 1984 patent was
> applied for in 1982 - years before Humphrey came to work for me at
> Can-Dive Services Ltd. and later at Hard Suits.) Both the 1992 and the
> 2002 patents claim only the very specific mods to the 1984 patent, but any
> layman looking at these patents would likely assume it was for the whole
> 'joint'.
>
> After all this boring background, the answer to your question is'yes' you
> are correct in assuming that the minor 'flex' was not considered in
> designing the limbs envelope of movement. ----- Original Message -----
> From: Sean T. Stevenson
> To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 11:37 PM
> Subject: Re: [PSUBS-MAILIST] rotary ADS joint question
>
>
> Thanks for the reply, and sorry for bringing up a touchy subject. I
> think you answered my actual question, but just to be sure - My
> understanding is that the flex was never considered when designing the
> joint range of motion, and the observed effect is mentioned in the patent
> out of interest only. Thus, the required joint ranges of motion (human
> kinetic model) are accommodated solely by (theoretically) axially rigid
> joints?
>
> -Sean
>
>
> On 30/10/2010 10:24 PM, Phil Nuytten wrote:
> Hi, Sean:
> I can understand your confusion since the language in this particular
> patent is not as clear as it should be . . the degree of axial movement
> cited - a couple of degrees - is the allowable tilt of the oil reservoir
> piston without binding. It has nothing to do with the 'anti-tilt' bearing
> described in Humphrey's subsequent patent CA 2485908. The anti-tilt
> mechanism was developed by my company, (Hard Suits Inc.) around the same
> time as my CA 1209632 patent - that patent describes the basic principle
> of the rotary joint but purposely omitted the 'anti-tilt' feature and an
> addition feature which was in use at that time called the 'fail-safe'
> ring. Although the Humprey patent appears to cover an entire rotary joint
> - it does not. The joint shown in the Humphrey is from my original patent,
> but with the addition of the 'anti-tilt' feature and the 'fail-safe' ring.
> There are only two claims in the Humphrey patent - the 'anti-tilt and the
> 'fail-safe' - the rest is prior art (my prior art). The short version is
> that my original patent lapsed and the owners of the company (which was
> sold and re-named several times after it was acquired from me and the
> other shareholders by a hostile take-over bid from a Texas company in
> 1996) very much wanted to continue to claim 'exclusive patented
> technology' even though that was no longer the case. Humphrey was my
> employee from 1985 to late 2001 and, unbeknownst to me, cut a deal with
> Oceanworks (the most recent descendant of the original Hard Suits Inc.) to
> 'patent' these two features in his name - but assigned to Oceanworks,(the
> two features that were not in my original patent.) He is no longer in my
> employ.
> The few degrees of axial movement possible in the oil make-up section
> amount to about 15 degrees in a five bearing limb - significant - but
> nothing like the 90 degrees of normal movement - it is made possible by
> 'rocking' the piston when the reservoir is partially depleted - not
> usually used and not claimed in either patent.
>
> This pretty sketchy, but I can't go into further detail - except to
> say that I am currently the sole owner of Hard Suits Inc.
>
>
> Original Message -----
> From: Sean T. Stevenson
> To: personal_submersibles@psubs.org
> Sent: Saturday, October 30, 2010 12:31 PM
> Subject: [PSUBS-MAILIST] rotary ADS joint question
>
>
> Perhaps best directed at Phil, but posted to the list in case anyone
> is interested:
>
> I was looking at some of the old ADS suit joint patents, and I
> noticed that the old Nuytten patent (CA 1296032) describes a degree of
> freedom in axial alignment of 1.5 - 3 degrees per joint. By inspection,
> it appears that this is the result of the movement of lower member 2 in
> this patent, although I could be mistaken. In any case, this permissible
> misalignment is touted as a design advantage in the patent, although it is
> not clear whether this allowable flex is by design intent, or merely an
> unintended consequence of the assembly. In the subsequent Humphrey patent
> (CA 2485908), this degree of freedom is characterized as undesirable, and
> indeed the joint described in this patent specifically attempts to
> eliminate it and establish axial rigidity, in an attempt to prevent any
> bending load on the joint from causing seal leakage. Intuitively this
> makes some sense, although the Nuytten patent describes a cumulative
> flexing ability of 18 degrees over a seven-joint conduit; this is not
> insignificant. I presume that this difference would need to be
> accommodated by adjusting the wedge angles and/or rotary limits of each
> joint such that the necessary range of motion of the operator is not
> impacted. I'm not entirely sure what I'm asking here - other than to get
> some idea of whether flex is an important design objective, or whether it
> is simply the result of holding looser assembly tolerances than a design
> using fully rigid joints which relies upon joint rotation exclusively?
>
> -Sean
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
The personal submersibles mailing list complies with the US Federal
CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. Your email address appears in our database
because either you, or someone you know, requested you receive messages
from our organization.
If you want to be removed from this mailing list simply click on the
link below or send a blank email message to:
removeme-personal_submersibles@psubs.org
Removal of your email address from this mailing list occurs by an
automated process and should be complete within five minutes of
our server receiving your request.
PSUBS.ORG
PO Box 53
Weare, NH 03281
603-529-1100
************************************************************************
************************************************************************
************************************************************************