Surgery – Sexual appliance
Reexamination Certificate
2000-05-19
2001-08-21
Winakur, Eric F. (Department: 3736)
Surgery
Sexual appliance
C600S041000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06277062
ABSTRACT:
TECHNICAL FIELD
The present invention relates to a non-invasive penile erection device using a vacuum tube and a diaphragm that seals against a constrictor ring placed at the base of the male genital to provide a comfortable customized fit at greater vacuum pressures to produce a more natural erection.
BACKGROUND PRIOR ART
A variety of non-invasive, vacuum type penile inflation devices are available. These inflation devices use external vacuum pressure to replace the body's natural ability to inflate the male genital or penis with blood. The devices typically utilize cylindrically shaped vacuum tube for receiving the penis, a diaphragm for sealing the open end of the vacuum tube around the penis and a pump for evacuating or removing air from the vacuum tube. When air is removed from inside the tube, the decrease in pressure causes blood to enter and inflate the male genital. a constrictor ring is typically placed around the male genital after it is inflated to maintain the inflated state of the penis when the vacuum tube is removed. Examples of such devices are shown in U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,64441,638 to Perry, 4,753,227 to Yanuck, Jr., 4,856,498 to Osbon, 5,125,890 to Merrill, and 5,344,389 to Walsdorf, the contents of which are incorporated by reference.
One shortcoming of conventional penile inflation devices is that the diaphragm does not form a sufficiently air tight seal to produce a desired amount of vacuum pressure inside the tube. Even when gel lubricants are applied to the diaphragm and male genital to improve the seal, air tends to leak between the diaphragm and the male genital. This air leakage reduces the amount of vacuum pressure attained inside the tube and the amount of inflation and stiffness of the male genital. Conventional penile inflation devices achieve about 14 to 16 inches of mercury of vacuum pressure, while a fully inflated, usable erection often requires about 17 to 22 inches of mercury of vacuum pressure.
An additional shortcoming with the prior art is that the inflation devices do not inflate and maintain the penis in an erect and usable position. Conventional constrictor rings are designed to fit on and secure to the substantially flat shaft portion of the penis. The rings are not intended to fit around the increasingly larger diametered base of the penis located adjacent the groin of the individual, especially when inflated. The increasingly wider base creates a slope that causes the constrictor ring to slide off the base and onto the shaft of the penis. Conventional constrictor ribs are also not designed to allow the root or “oz” of the penis, which extends inwardly of the groin of the individual, to be drawn into the constrictor ring. When the vacuum tube is removed, only that portion of the shaft of the penis downstream of the constrictor ring remains inflated. The base and root of the penis remain or return to flaccid state and the penis does not achieve and maintain a natural erect position.
A still further problem with the prior art is that the flaccid base and root portions of the penis upstream of the constrictor ring create a “joint” about which the inflated shaft portion of the penis may bend. The inflated portion of the penis must be manipulated by hand during use, which can be especially difficult for paraplegic and quadriplegic individuals or their partner.
A further problem of the prior art is that conventional constrictor rings used in various inflation devices are painful due to their narrow width and generally “rubber band” like shape. The edges of the constrictor ring dig into the skin of the individual and cause substantial pain.
A still further problem with conventional designs is that it is difficult to position the constrictor ring on the base or root of the male genital after it is place on the penis. The user must grip the edges of the narrow rubber band shaped constrictor ring to adjust the constrictor ring and attempt to work it onto the base after its initial placement on the shaft of the penis. This can be quite difficult when the edges of the constrictor ring are digging into the skin.
A still further problem of conventional designs is that the lubricants used to help form the seal between the diaphragm and the male genital are messy. Lubricant invariably spreads all over the inflation device, the hands and body of the individual, and the surroundings.
A still further problem of the prior art is that the diaphragm and constrictor ring so not fit all individuals with equal comfort and equal results. Different individuals require differently sized constrictor rings and diaphragms. A trial and error approach to obtaining a correctly sized constrictor ring and diaphragm can be inconvenient and embarrassing given the nature of the product involved.
A still further problem with the prior art assemblies is that the manufacturing costs can be excessive. The cost and umber of components making up the penile erection device should be kept to a minimum. The erection device should also cooperate with existing vacuum tube and pump designs when possible to avoid expensive and time consuming manufacturing modifications.
A still further problem with the prior art assemblies is that the open end or rim of the tube digs into the groin area of an individual when vacuum pressure is applied inside the tube. The individual's skin is pinched between the rim of the tube and their hip bone. This is especially painful when vacuum pressures near 15 inches of mercury and up are achieved.
A still further problem with the prior art assemblies is that the diaphragm seal is not always secured to the tube in the same location. Individuals do not always seat the outer end of the diaphragm in its proper location against the lip of the tube. The outer end of the diaphragm may be pulled too far back over the lip of the tube, or one side of the seal may be pulled over the lip too far. These inconsistencies in placement result in inconsistencies in the stretching of the diaphragm seal, which in turn results in inconsistencies in the operation of the diaphragm seal, such as the shape of the diaphragm seal when flexed during use and the size and shape of the inner end of the diaphragm seal.
A still further problem with the prior art assemblies is that they are cumbersome to operate. The individual must hold the tube firmly against his groin with one hand while repeatedly squeezing the hand pump with the other. The need for lubricants only adds to the mess and difficulty in using these devices.
A still further problem with the prior art assemblies is that the inner edge of a conventional diaphragm seal has a round or circular cross sectional shape. This round shape only permits a small surface area of the inner end to engage the penis. Any pressure applied by the diaphragm seal to the penis to aid in the enlargement of the penis is applied over this relatively small surface area. It is believed that the application of pressure in this manner may restrict arterial blood flow to the penis, thereby reducing the effectiveness of the device.
A still further problem with the prior art assemblies is that the diaphragm seal is designed to be removed after the penis has been enlarged. The bulky, outwardly projecting, cone-like shape of the diaphragm would be noticeable impediment to the individual and his partner if it were left in place during sexual activity.
A still further problem with the prior art assemblies is that the rubber band can be difficult and painful to remove after use. Like a ring stuck on a swollen finger, the rubber band pinches into the sides of the penis. There are frequently no handles for griping conventional rubber band designs for removal. Typical methods for removing the rubber bands and constrictor rings are painful because the penis remains enlarged when the rubber band or constrictor ring is removed.
A still further problem with the prior art assemblies is that the material used to make conventional vacuum tubes can be cracked or otherwise damaged during storage and handling. The risk of harming an individual could arise if a damag
Vollrath Andrew J.
Vollrath Ji Ji Secong
Wu Gwo Bao
Astorino Michael C
Sokol Law Office
Vollrath Andrew J.
Winakur Eric F.
LandOfFree
Non-invasive penile erection device does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Non-invasive penile erection device, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Non-invasive penile erection device will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2483112