IP Library Granted Patent US 12,678,301
Granted Patent B2
US 12,678,301 · App. 16/069,837 · Granted Jul 14, 2026

Method and system for designing a biomechanical interface contacting a biological body segment

Inventors: Hugh M. Herr (Somerville, MA); Kevin Mattheus Moerman (Lexington, MA); David Moinina Sengeh (Somerville, MA)
Assignee: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
A61F2/5046A61F2/60A61F2/78A61F2/80G06F30/20G06F30/23A61F2002/5049A61F2002/505A61F2002/607
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,678,301
App. No.
16/069,837
Filed
Jul 12, 2018
Granted
Jul 14, 2026
Kind
B2
Art Unit
2186
USPC
703/7
Abstract

A method and associated system for designing a biomechanical interface of a device contacting a biological body segment of a subject includes forming a quantitative model of the biological body segment from subject specific data, conducting a biophysical analysis, such as a finite element analysis, to thereby establish a relationship, such as a functional relationship, between the quantitative model and at least one feature of the biomechanical interface contacting the biological body segment, and applying the relationship to the at least one feature of the biomechanical interface contacting the biological body segment to thereby obtain an interface design for the mechanical interface of the device. The subject-specific data can include geometry of the biological body segment and the at least one feature can be associated with physiological benefit of the biological body segment.

Claims (74)

1 . A method for computer design and manufacture of a biomechanical interface of a wearable device interfacing an external surface of a biological body segment of a subject, comprising:

with a computer:

forming a quantitative model of the biological body segment from subject-specific data, the subject-specific data including geometry of the biological body segment;

conducting a biophysical analysis using the quantitative model of the biological body segment, the biophysical analysis including simulation of a response to a donning condition, the simulation including:

forming a single combined model using a finite element analysis (FEA) representation of the quantitative model of the biological body segment and an interface design, wherein the interface design is derived from and meshed with the quantitative model in order to simulate interaction between the quantitative model of the biological body segment and the interface design, the combined model comprising shared nodes, each of the shared nodes representing a portion of both the biological body segment model and the interface design,

morphing the combined model in response to application of a fitting pressure, the morphing including adjusting an equilibrium shape of the interface design,

assigning mechanical properties of the interface design to the morphed combined model, the assigning mechanical properties being generation dependent in the following way:

c

=

{

c

soft

1000

γ

=

1

c

true

γ

=

2

wherein γ is a generation index, c soft denotes the c parameter for soft tissue, and c true denotes a physically realistic c parameter, and

decreasing the fitting pressure applied to the morphed combined model, the combined model responsively undergoing a relaxation phase, wherein following the relaxation phase, both the quantitative model of the biological body segment and the interface design components of the combined model are in a pre-stressed state to simulate the response to the donning condition, and

exporting a final interface design for manufacture by a computer-controlled fabricator, the final interface design based on the morphed combined model.

2 . The method of claim 1 , wherein the biophysical analysis includes at least one member selected from the group of numerical methods consisting of finite element analysis, finite difference methods, finite volume methods, isogeometric analysis, boundary element methods, and meshfree methods.

3 . The method of claim 1 , further including optimizing at least one feature of the biomechanical interface for a physiological benefit of the biological body segment in the biomechanical interface by the biophysical analysis.

4 . The method of claim 1 , further including fabricating the biomechanical interface.

5 . The method of claim 1 , wherein the forming the quantitative model includes at least one non-invasive imaging method selected from the group consisting of magnetic resonance, x-ray, ultrasound, optical methods, tomography, thermography, and elastography, to form a non-invasive image.

6 . The method of claim 5 , including imaging tissue of the biological body segment.

7 . The method of claim 5 , wherein forming the quantitative model further includes employing the non-invasive imaging method to form an external tissue geometry and an internal tissue geometry of the biological body segment.

8 . The method of claim 5 , wherein forming the quantitative model includes employing the non-invasive imaging method to form an external tissue geometry and further includes statistical shape modeling to form an inferred internal geometry of the biological body segment.

9 . The method of claim 1 , wherein forming the quantitative model further includes performing a biomechanical material property analysis of the biological body segment.

10 . The method of claim 9 , wherein the biomechanical material property analysis includes a contact method.

11 . The method of claim 10 , wherein the contact method includes at least one method selected from the group consisting of indentation analysis, pressurization analysis, and vibration analysis.

12 . The method of claim 9 , wherein the biomechanical material property analysis includes a non-contact method.

13 . The method of claim 12 , wherein the non-contact method includes at least one method selected from the group consisting of ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging.

14 . The method of claim 13 , wherein the non-contact method includes magnetic resonance elastography.

15 . The method of claim 13 , wherein the non-contact method includes ultrasound elastography.

16 . The method of claim 9 , wherein the biomechanical material property analysis includes analysis of at least one biomechanical property selected from the group consisting of impedance, damping, stiffness, the shear and bulk modulus (or any other stiffness or compliance tensor component), and other elastic, hyperelastic, viscoelastic, and poroelastic properties or constitutive parameters of the tissues.

17 . The method of claim 16 , wherein the at least one biomechanical property is mapped against the external tissue geometry.

18 . A system for designing and manufacturing a biomechanical interface of a wearable device interfacing an external surface of a biological body segment of a subject, the system comprising:

a computer comprising:

a modeler that generates a quantitative model of the biological body segment from subject-specific data, the subject-specific data including geometry of the biological body segment;

an analyzer that conducts a biophysical analysis using the quantitative model of the biological body segment, the biophysical analysis including simulation of a response to a donning condition, the simulation including:

forming a single combined model using a finite element analysis FEA) representation of the quantitative model of the biological body segment and an interface design, wherein the interface design is derived from and meshed with the quantitative model, in order to simulate interaction between the quantitative model of the biological body segment and the interface design, the combined model comprising shared nodes, each of the shared nodes representing a portion of both the biological body segment model and the interface design such that the biological body segment model and the interface design are always tied together,

morphing the combined model in response to a fitting pressure, the morphing including adjusting an equilibrium shape of the interface design,

assigning mechanical properties of the interface design to the morphed combined model, the assigning mechanical properties being generation dependent in the following way:

c

=

{

c

soft

1000

γ

=

1

c

true

γ

=

2

wherein γ is a generation index, c soft denotes the c parameter for soft tissue, and c true denotes a physically realistic c parameter, and

decreasing the fitting pressure applied to the morphed combined model, the combined model responsively undergoing a relaxation phase, wherein following the relaxation phase, both the quantitative model of the biological body segment and the interface design components of the combined model are in a pre-stressed state to simulate the response to the donning condition, and

an exporter that exports a final interface design for manufacture by a computer-controlled fabricator, the final interface design based on the morphed combined model.

19 . The method of claim 1 , wherein the biomechanical interface includes a liner and a socket, and wherein the final interface design is for the socket or the liner and socket.

20 . The method of claim 1 , wherein the biomechanical interface includes a liner and a socket, and wherein the donning condition includes liner donning induced pre-loads and socket donning induced pre-loads.

21 . The method of claim 1 , wherein conducting the biophysical analysis further comprises simulation of a response to a functional loading condition, the functional loading condition applied generally to the combined model along a length direction of the body segment to evaluate tissue loading expected during a functional use of the biomechanical interface.

22 . The method of claim 21 , wherein the method further comprises adjusting at least one feature of the biomechanical interface interfacing the biological body segment based on the response of the combined model to the functional loading condition to thereby obtain the final interface design for the biomechanical interface, the at least one feature associated with a physiological benefit of the biological body segment.

23 . The system of claim 18 , wherein conducting the biophysical analysis further comprises simulation of a response to a functional loading condition, the functional loading condition applied generally to the combined model along a length direction of the body segment to evaluate tissue loading expected during a functional use of the biomechanical interface.

24 . The system of claim 23 , wherein the system further comprises an evaluator that adjusts at least one feature of the biomechanical interface interfacing the biological body segment based on the response of the combined model to the functional loading condition to thereby obtain the final interface design for the biomechanical interface of the device, the at least one feature associated with a physiological benefit of the biological body segment.

25 . The method of claim 1 , wherein the morphing the combined model in response to application of a fitting pressure is performed before the assigning mechanical properties of the interface design to the morphed combined model.

26 . The method of claim 25 , wherein the assigning mechanical properties of the interface design to the morphed combined model is performed before the decreasing the fitting pressure applied to the morphed combined model.

27 . The method of claim 26 , wherein conducting the biophysical analysis further comprises simulation of a response to a functional loading condition, the functional loading condition applied generally to the combined model along a length direction of the body segment to evaluate tissue loading expected during a functional use of the biomechanical interface, wherein the decreasing the fitting pressure applied to the morphed combined model is performed before the simulation of a response to a functional loading condition.

28 . The method of claim 1 , further comprising applying a fitting pressure to the combined model when the interface design lacks mechanical strength such that the interface design is freely carried along with motion of the quantitative model of the biological body segment without developing stresses.

Assignments (1)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Aug 29, 2018
From: HERR, HUGH M.; MOERMAN, KEVIN MATTHEUS; SENGEH, DAVID MOININA
To: MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Reel/Frame 046740/0667 →
Continuity (3)
Provisional Application 62377128 · Aug 19, 2016
Provisional Application 62278158 · Jan 13, 2016
Related Publication 20190021880A1 · Jan 24, 2019
References Cited (84)
US 4735754A · Buckner · 1988 [cited by applicant]
US 5033291A · Podoloff et al. · 1991 [cited by applicant]
US 5746772A · Jacobs · 1998 [cited by applicant]
US 5993400A · Rincoe et al. · 1999 [cited by applicant]
US 6585774B2 · Dean et al. · 2003 [cited by applicant]
US 6804571B2 · Fullen et al. · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 7377944B2 · Janusson et al. · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 8005651B2 · Summit et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 8323353B1 · Alley et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 8423167B2 · Sanders et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 8523951B2 · Kania · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 8551184B1 · Herr · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 8613716B2 · Summit et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 10806605B2 · Herr et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 11883307B2 · Herr et al. · 2024 [cited by applicant]
US 20020032485A1 · Flam et al. · 2002 [cited by applicant]
US 20030216815A1 · Christensen · 2003 [cited by applicant]
US 20040064195A1 · Herr · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 20040068331A1 · Cronquist · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 20040260402A1 · Baldini et al. · 2004 [cited by applicant]
US 20050119777A1 · Arbogast et al. · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20060161051A1 · Terrill-Grisoni et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20070162153A1 · Barnes et al. · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20100161076A1 · Parllari · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20100262054A1 · Summit et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20100268135A1 · Summit et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20110082578A1 · Stanhope et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20120173001A1 · Caspers · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120271433A1 · Galea et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20130166256A1 · Wirx-Speetjens et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130282141A1 · Herr · 2013 [cited by examiner]
US 20140149082A1 · Sanders · 2014 [cited by examiner]
US 20160058519A1 · Herr · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 20160174945A1 · Oh · 2016 [cited by examiner]
US 20170290685A1 · Montez et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20170360578A1 · Shin · 2017 [cited by examiner]
US 20180235779A1 · Dudding · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20200138518A1 · Lang · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20210022891A1 · Herr et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
EP 2124764A1 · 2009 [cited by applicant]
EP 2196173A2 · 2010 [cited by applicant]
WO WO03009787A2 · 2003 [cited by applicant]
WO WO2004016158A2 · 2004 [cited by applicant]
WO 2006092600A1 · 2006 [cited by applicant]
WO 2013142343A1 · 2013 [cited by applicant]
Lacroix D., Ramírez Patiño J.F. Finite element analysis of donning procedure of a prosthetic transfemoral socket. Ann. Biomed. Eng. 2011;39:2972-2983. doi: 10.1007/s10439-011-0389-z.—DOI—PubMed (Year: 2011). [cited by examiner]
Surapureddy, R., Schönning, A., Stagon, S., & Kassab, A. (2016). Predicting pressure distribution between transfemoral prosthetic socket and residual limb using finite element analysis. International Journal of Experime… [cited by examiner]
Zhang, Ming, Arthur FT Mak, and V. C. Roberts. “Finite element modelling of a residual lower-limb in a prosthetic socket: a survey of the development in the first decade.” Medical Engineering & Physics 20.5 (1998): 360-… [cited by examiner]
Silver-Thorn, Barbara, and Dudley S. Childress. “Generic, geometric finite element analysis of the transtibial residual limb and prosthetic socket.” Journal of rehabilitation research and development (1997). (Year: 1997… [cited by examiner]
Jia, Xiaohong, Ming Zhang, and Winson CC Lee. “Load transfer mechanics between trans-tibial prosthetic socket and residual limb—dynamic effects.” Journal of biomechanics 37.9 (2004): 1371-1377. (Year: 2004). [cited by examiner]
Morotti, Roberto. “Development of a Virtual Testing Laboratory for Lower Limb Prosthesis.” (2014). (Year: 2014). [cited by examiner]
Zhang, Ming, et al. “Development of a non-linear finite element modelling of the below-knee prosthetic socket interface.” Medical engineering & physics 17.8 (1995): 559-566. (Year: 1995). [cited by examiner]
Xu, Dong Hao. The Study of Bone Remodelling in an Osseointegrated Percutaneous Trans-Femoral Implant. University of Surrey (United Kingdom), 2007. (Year: 2007). [cited by examiner]
Notification of Transmittal of the International Search Report and the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, or the Declaration, entitield “ Method and System for Designing a Biomechanical Interface … [cited by applicant]
Herr; “Exoskeletons and orthoses: classification, design challenges and future directions.” Journal of neuroengineering and rehabilitation 6, No. 21 (Jun. 2009): pp. 1-9. [cited by applicant]
Morotti; “Development of a Virtual Testing Laboratory for Lower Limb Prosthesis;” Thesis, Universita degli Studi di Padova, 133 pages, (2014). [cited by applicant]
International Preliminary Report on Patentability, PCT/US2017/013154, “Method and System for Designing a Biomechanical Interface Contacting a Biological Body Segment,”, date of mailing Jul. 26, 2018. [cited by applicant]
Charalambides, et al.; “A Novel All-Elastomer MEMS Tactile Sensor for High Dynamic Range Shear and Normal Force Sensing,” J. Micromech. Microeng. 25(9): (9 pages) (Aug. 2015). [cited by applicant]
Dagdeviren, et al.; “Conformal Piezoelectric Systems for Clinical and Experimental Characterization of Soft Tissue Biomechanics,” Nature Materials, 14, pp. 728-736 (Jul. 2015). [cited by applicant]
Invitation to Pay Additional Fees from International Application No. PCT/US2017/013154, “Method And System For Designing A Biomechanical Interface Contacting a Biological Body Segment,” mailed Apr. 19, 2017. [cited by applicant]
Zheng, et al., State-of-the-Art Methods for Geometric and Biomechanical Assessments of Residual Limbs: A Review, Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development vol. 38 No. 5, 24 pages (2001). [cited by applicant]
Gabbiadini S., “Knowledge-Based Design of Lower Limb Prosthesis,” Ph.D. Thesis, Industrial Engineering. University of Padova, Italy, See http://paduaresearch.cab.unipd.it/3771/, 181 pages (2011). [cited by applicant]
Faustini, M.C., et al., “An Experimental and Theoretical Framework for Manufacturing Prosthetic Sockets for Transtibial Amputees,” Neural Systems and Rehabilitation Engineering, IEEE Transactions on , vol. 14, No. 3, pp… [cited by applicant]
Silver-Thorn, M.B, et al., “A review of prosthetic interface stress investigations,” J Rehabil Res Dev ;33(3) :pp253-66 (1996). [cited by applicant]
Gao, F.,et al., “Finite Element Analysis Based Design Optimization for Prosthetic Socket,” Annual Meeting of the American Society of Biomechanics, 2 pages (2009). [cited by applicant]
Marreiros, S., “Skin Strain Field Analysis of the Human Ankle Joint,” MS Thesis, University of Lisbon, 93 pages (2010). [cited by applicant]
Liu, G. R., et al., “Smoothed Finite Element Methods,” Chapter 3, CRC Press, pp. 31-82 (2010). [cited by applicant]
Colombo, G., et al. “A New Design Paradigm for the Development of Custom-Fit Soft Sockets for Lower Limb Prostheses,” Computers in Industry 61, No. 6: 513-523 (2010). [cited by applicant]
Rosen, J., et al., “Modeling the Human Body/Seat System in a Vibration Environment,” Journal of Biomechanical Eengineering 125, No. 2: 223-231 (2003). [cited by applicant]
Tonuk, E., et al., “Nonlinear Viscoelastic Material Property Estimation of Lower Extremity Residual Limb Tissues,” Journal of Biomechanical Engineering 126, No. 2: 289-300 (2004). [cited by applicant]
Kerem Usu, “Identification of Soft Tissue Mechanical Material Model and Corresponding Parameters From In Vivo Experimental Data by Using Inverse Finite Element Method,” PhD. Diss., Middle East Technical University (2008… [cited by applicant]
Moes, C., “Advanced Human Body Modelling to Support Designing Products for Physical Interaction,” TU Delft, Delft University of Technology (2004). [cited by applicant]
Goh, J. C. H., et al., “Development of an Integrated CAD-FEA Process for Below-Knee Prosthetic Sockets.” Clinical Biomechanics 20, No. 6: 623-629 (2005). [cited by applicant]
Rogers, B., et al. “Case Report: Variably Compliant Transtibial Prosthetic Socket Fabricated Using Solid Freeform Fabrication.” JPO: Journal of Prosthetics and Orthotics 20, No. 1: 1-7 (2008). [cited by applicant]
Vannah, et al.; “Indentor Tests and Finite Element Modeling of Bulk Muscular Tissue In Vivo,” J. Rehab. Res. Dev., 33(3): 239-252 (1996). [cited by applicant]
Rogers, B., et al., “Clinical Evaluation of Prosthetic Sockets Manufactured by Selective Laser Sintering”, Proc. 12th Solid Freeform Fabrication Symp., pp. 505-512, 2001. [cited by applicant]
Kevin M. Moerman et al., “Automated and Data-driven Computational Design of Patient-Specific Biomechanical Interfaces” (Year: 2016). [cited by applicant]
Lee, W.C., Zhang, M. Mak, A. F. (2005) “Regional differences in pain threshold and tolerance of the transtibial residual limb: including the effects of age and interface material,” Archives of Physical Medicine and Reha… [cited by applicant]
David M. Sengeh et al.; “Multi-material 3-D viscoelastic model of a transtibial residuum from in-vivo indentation and MRI data”; Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials 59 (2016) 379-392 (Year: 2016). [cited by applicant]
Ch Itresh Nayak, Customized Design and Development of Transtibial Prosthetic Socket for Improved Comfort Using Reverse u Engineering & Additive Manufacturing, Thesis submitted as a partial fulfillment of the requirement… [cited by applicant]
Erdal Ozbay et al., Structured Deep Learning Supported with Point Cloud for 3D Human Pose Estimation, ISMSIT 2017 1st International Symposium on Multidisciplinary Studies and Innovative Technologies;2017, 6 pp. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 16/969,142, entitled “Quantitative Design and Manufacturing Framework for a Biomechanical Interface Contacting a Biological Body Segment”, mailed on Jul. 22, 2024, 51 pp. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 16/969,142, entitled “Quantitative Design and Manufacturing Framework for a Biomechanical Interface Contacting a Biological Body Segment”, mailed on Dec. 14, 2023, 57 pp. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Non-Final Office Action for U.S. Appl. No. 16/969,142, entitled “Quantitative Design and Manufacturing Framework for a Biomechanical Interface Contacting a Biological Body Segment”, mailed on Jan. 28, 2025, 58 pp. [cited by applicant]