Download - The Biogenic Eye
THE BIOGENIC EYE
Mike DeSalvio, Michael Nguyen,Khine Win, Kevin Ip, John Chi
Who Patients suffering from non-preventable blindness in
one eyeNot designed for completely blindMust currently retain the original eye to prevent muscle
atrophy for attachmentScreened for compatibility with blood thinners
In 2002 roughly 161 million visually impaired world wide. (W.H.O.)Of this 124 million had low visionAnd 37 million are blindChildhood blindness in 2002 reached 3.9%47% caused by cataracts
Michael N
What Bionic prosthetic camera mounted within
a silicon based plastic casing Contains an internal reservoir with a
lacrimating compound for lubrication Signal Processor Radio antenna Muscular attachments
Michael N
Where Mounted within the eye socket of the
affected individual Corresponding hardware is “installed”
near the occipital lobe near brain stem Utilizing current patent WO/1999/045870
Delivery reservoir modification Negotiate a non-exclusive licensing agreement with Johns
Hopkins University for the current technology
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=1999045870John
Why Only 3.9% of children are born blind or
developed blindness. Permanent loss of sight
Most adults loose sight because of Cataracts (48%) and Glaucoma (12%)
Macular degeneration, corneal opacity, and diabetes <10%
John
Why Provide a prosthetic alternative to
clinical blindness to improve quality of life.
Allow for more mobilityAble to driveDepth perceptionNight vision (not like night vision goggles)
Kevin
When Total development time is 5 years
Engineering timeIn vivo testing
By using an existing patent, development time is significantly shorter~1- 2 years
Kevin
How The device works by transmitting a
visual image from a camera into a processor and through the optic nerve.
Khine
Quality Function Deployment
QFD AnalysisX's (How's)
Y's (What's)
Joining optic nerve and
surgical implant
Low and High lux & resolution for better
viewing in color
High quality
Polymer and
lactimating
resevoir
Muscular attachme
nt and freedom
of moveme
ntIris color
options
prescription lens
ready
Pendulum
Charging 0 0 Total
Function 5 H H H H 180Performance 4 H M H H L H 160Comfort 3 M H L L L 45Practicality 2 L L M M H H H 70Style 1 L H H 19 0Total 83 68 69 91 30 31 102 0 0 474Relative Weight (Priority) 17.51% 14.35% 14.56% 19.20% 6.33% 6.54% 21.52% 0.00% 0.00%
Mike D
Analysis Highest preference was performance
and lowest preference was style Ability to see in darker atmospheres
significantly outweighed alternatives Iris color was the least concerned
benefit, correlating to the customer preference
Mike D
Expanded QFD See Document…
Mike D
Questions