Transcript The Biogenic Eye

Mike DeSalvio, Michael Nguyen,
Khine Win, Kevin Ip, John Chi
Who

Patients suffering from non-preventable
blindness in one eye
 Not designed for completely blind
 Must currently retain the original eye to prevent
muscle atrophy for attachment
 Screened for compatibility with blood thinners

In 2002 roughly 161 million visually impaired
world wide. (W.H.O.)




Of this 124 million had low vision
And 37 million are blind
Childhood 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
John
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/wo.jsp?WO=1999045870
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 mobility

 Able to drive
 Depth perception
 Night vision (not like night vision goggles)
Kevin
When

Total development time is 5 years
 Engineering time
 In 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
Function
Performance
Comfort
Practicality
Style
Total
Relative Weight
(Priority)
Mike D
5
4
3
2
1
H
H
H
M
M
L
L
83
17.51%
H
H
L
M
L
H
H
M
68
69
H
H
91
30
14.35% 14.56% 19.20%
6.33%
31
102
0
0
6.54% 21.52%
0.00%
0.00%
Total
0
H
H
L
H
L
L
H
H
Pendulum Charging
prescription lens ready
Iris color options
Muscular attachment and
freedom of movement
High quality Polymer and
lactimating resevoir
Y's (What's)
Low and High lux &
resolution for better viewing
in color
Joining optic nerve and
surgical implant
X's (How's)
0
QFD Analysis
180
160
45
70
19
0
474
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