The present disclosure relates to hand operated cutting tools. More particularly, the present disclosure relates to hand operated cutting tools with a variable pivot system.
This section is intended to provide a background or context to the disclosure recited in the claims. The description herein may include concepts that could be pursued, but are not necessarily ones that have been previously conceived or pursued. Therefore, unless otherwise indicated herein, what is described in this section is not prior art to the description and claims in this application and is not admitted to be prior art by inclusion in this section.
It is generally known to provide a hand operated cutting tool for use in pruning or trimming branches and the like, such as a lopper having a pair of pivoting members such as handles that actuate cutting jaws that cooperate to capture and sever a branch between the jaws. Such known loppers typically include a pair of handles pivotally movable between an open and closed position for actuating the cutting jaws between a full open and closed position. The known loppers may also include devices intended to increase the available leverage provided by the handles, including levers and/or gears that transmit and increase a force from the handles to the jaws.
As a lopper cuts through an object (e.g. a roughly cylindrical sample of a wood material), the force required to cut increases up to a maximum, at a location approximately sixty percent through the sample, then decreases at a generally similar rate until approximately ninety to ninety-five percent through the sample where the force required to complete the cutting operation rapidly decreases. Typical cutting tools such as a lopper are sized such that with the tool fully opened, the average human holds the handles with arms abducted and elbows facing outward, and move with a transverse flexion of the arms until the tool is fully closed. There is a reduction in the transverse flexion strength as the arms are abducted and elbows straightened, which tends to result in a changing force available from the user where the force required to cut the object is increasing.
In comparison to a two-hand operated cutting tool such as a lopper, one-hand operated cutting tools are typically controlled via a single hand of an operator. For example, pruners and scissors are typically held in a palm of an operator. However, like the two-hand operated cutting tools, the one-hand operated cutting tools typically include a pair of handles that can be actuated to move a pair of cutting members to cut through an object of the tool.
One embodiment relates to a hand operated cutting tool. The hand operated cutting tool includes a first handle coupled to a first cutting member, the first handle having a first set of projections. The hand operated cutting tool also includes a second handle coupled to a second cutting member, the second handle having a second set of projections. The handles are movable between a full open position and a full closed position, wherein during a first region of travel the first and second sets of projections are at least partly engaged, and wherein during a second region of travel the first and second sets of projections are disengaged. According to one embodiment, the first region of travel defines approximately two-thirds of a cutting stroke while the second region of travel defines approximately one-third of the cutting stroke. According to another embodiment, the first and second sets of projections are structured as gear projections such that their engagement/disengagement provides a variable mechanical advantage to an operator of the tool with the engagement corresponding to a relatively greater mechanical advantage than the disengagement.
Another embodiment relates to a hand operated cutting tool. The hand operated cutting tool includes a first cutting member; a first handle including a second cutting member, wherein the second cutting member includes a first set of projections and is coupled to the first cutting member; and a second handle including a lever, wherein the lever includes a second set of projections and is coupled to the first cutting member. The first and second handles are movable between a full open position and a full closed position, wherein during a first region of travel proximate the full open position the first and second set of projections are disengaged, and during a second region of travel proximate the full closed position the first and second set of projections are at least partly engaged. Accordingly, in one embodiment, a relatively greater mechanical advantage from the at least partial engagement of the first and second sets of projections is provided in the first region of travel relative to the second region of travel.
Still another embodiment relates to a hand operated cutting tool. The hand operated cutting tool includes a first cutting member including a first pivot point and a second pivot point; a second cutting member coupled to the first cutting member at the second pivot point, wherein the second cutting member includes a first set of gear projections; and a lever coupled to the first cutting member at the first pivot point, wherein the lever includes a second set of gear projections. The first and second cutting members are movable between a full open position and a full close position that defines a cutting stroke, wherein the first and second set of gear projections are disengaged during a first region of the cutting stroke and at least partly engaged during a second region of the cutting stroke. According to one embodiment, the hand operated cutting tool is structured as a two-hand operated cutting tool, such as a lopper.
Yet another embodiment relates to a method of operating a hand operated cutting tool. The method includes providing a first cutting member including a first pivot point and a second pivot point; providing a second cutting member coupled to the first cutting member at the second pivot point, wherein the second cutting member includes a first set of projections; and providing a lever coupled to the first cutting member at the first pivot point, wherein the lever includes a second set of projections. According to one embodiment, during a cutting stroke, the first and second cutting members are movable between a full open position and a full close position. During a first region of travel proximate the full open position of the cutting stroke, the first and second set of projections are disengaged, and during a second region of travel of the cutting stroke proximate the full closed position, the first and second set of projections are at least partly engaged. The engagement and disengagement of the first and second set of projections provides a variable mechanical advantage to the cutting tool. As a result, an additional mechanical advantage is provided during a region of highest resistance of the object-to-be cut by the tool, which may aid use and appeal to users of the cutting tool.
Another embodiment relates to a method of minimizing an effort to cut through an object using a hand operated cutting tool. The method includes receiving human force data as a function of handle spacing for a hand operated cutting tool; receiving cut-through force data as a function of handle angle for the hand operated cutting tool; dividing the received human force data by the received cut-through force data to obtain a human ability factor curve; generating a mechanical advantage curve for the hand operated cutting tool; setting the mechanical advantage curve to peak at approximately a peak of the human ability factor curve; and determining a pitch circle based on the set mechanical advantage curve. According to one embodiment, the determined pitch circle is then provided in a geared portion of a variable pivot mechanism for the hand operated cutting tool.
One embodiment relates to a hand operated cutting tool. The hand operated cutting tool includes a first handle coupled to a first cutting member, wherein the first handle has a first set of projections. The hand operated cutting tool also includes a second handle coupled to a second cutting member, wherein the second handle has a second set of projections. The handles are movable between a full open position and a full closed position, wherein during a first region of travel proximate the full open position the first and second gear projections are at least partly engaged, and wherein during a second region of travel proximate the full closed position the first and second gear projections are disengaged.
Another embodiment relates to a hand operated cutting tool. The hand operated cutting tool includes a first handle having a pivot pin, a cam follower, and a first gear projection; a first cutting member having a bore, wherein the bore is structured to receive the pivot pin to couple the first handle to the first cutting member; and a second handle having a second cutting member and an elongated member, wherein the elongated member has a cam surface and a second gear projection. The handles are movable between a full open position and a full closed position during a cutting stroke, wherein during a first region of travel proximate the full open position of the cutting stroke the first and second gear projections are at least partly engaged, and wherein during a second region of travel proximate the full closed position of the cutting stroke the cam follower and the cam surface are engaged while the first and second gear projections are disengaged.
Still another embodiment relates to a method of operating a hand operating cutting tool. The method includes providing a first cutting member; providing a second cutting member coupled to the first cutting member; providing a first handle coupled to the first cutting member, the first handle having a first set of projections; and providing a second handle coupled to the second cutting member, the second handle having a second set of projections. According to one embodiment, during a cutting stroke, the first and second handles are movable between a full open position and a full close position. During a first region of travel proximate the full open position of the cutting stroke, the first and second set of projections are at least partly engaged, and during a second region of travel proximate the full close position of the cutting stroke, the first and second set of projections are disengaged.
Yet another embodiment a method of minimizing an effort to cut through an object using a one-hand operated cutting tool. The method includes receiving human force data as a function of handle spacing for a hand operated cutting tool; receiving cut-through force data as a function of handle angle for the hand operated cutting tool; dividing the received human force data by the received cut-through force data to obtain a human ability factor curve; generating a mechanical advantage curve for the hand operated cutting tool; setting the mechanical advantage curve to peak at approximately a peak of the human ability factor curve; and determining a pitch circle based on the set mechanical advantage curve. According to one embodiment, the determined pitch circle is then provided in a geared portion of a variable pivot mechanism for the one-hand operated cutting tool, wherein the geared portion corresponds to approximately two-thirds of a cutting stroke for the one-hand operated cutting tool.
Referring to
According to an exemplary embodiment for a two-hand operated cutting tool, a lever (e.g. link, arm, etc.) is pivotally coupled to a first cutting member of the cutting tool and to one of the handles. As the lever travels from a fully open to a fully closed position, the lever experiences an approximately curvilinear line travel from the slide portion to the geared portion and vice versa. From the standpoint of the force required to cut through an object, typically, the object's resistance and, therefore, the force required to cut through the object varies based on the position of the handles (e.g., the angle between the handles). At large angles (i.e., a more fully open handle position), the resistance is minimal. But, at approximately sixty-degrees, a maximum resistance is generally encountered in the cutting stroke through the maximum-sized object for which the tool is designed. In comparison, from the standpoint of human force characteristics, the maximum produced human force typically decreases with increasing distance between the handles of the cutting tool.
Because the first region of the cutting stroke corresponds to a “least resistance” encountered in cutting the object (e.g., relatively low force required), the slide portion of the variable pivot system is engaged. Accordingly, the slide portion of the variable pivot system has a relatively lower mechanical advantage in comparison to the geared portion because the slide portion has no mechanism for mechanical advantage (i.e., the geared portion utilizes meshable gears to increase mechanical advantage but the slide portion has no such mechanism). Rather, the mechanical advantage in the slide portion is provided by the length of the handles and a single pivot mechanism. However, during the second region (i.e., approximately the final two-thirds) of the cutting stroke, where greater resistance is encountered in cutting the object, the geared portion of the variable pivot system is engaged to provide an increased mechanical advantage. Because the geared portion is not engaged throughout the entire cutting stroke (i.e., only in the second region corresponding to about the final two-thirds of the cutting stroke), the pitch of the gears may be increased (i.e., beyond a pitch commonly associated with a cutting tool having a geared leverage mechanism operating throughout the entire cutting stroke). According to an exemplary embodiment, the gear teeth of the geared portion are at least partially elliptical such that a variable mechanical advantage is provided during the final two-thirds of the cutting stroke. Because of the increased gear pitch available through the use of a combined slide and gear arrangement, a greater amount of mechanical advantage may be provided during the final two-thirds of the cutting stroke where a maximum force is required to cut through an object. As such, the human force required to cut through an object may be overall minimized.
Although the various features of the disclosure are shown and described above by way of example with reference to a two-hand operated cutting tool (e.g., a lopper), the variable pivot system may be used with a wide variety of cutting devices including, but not limited to a primarily one-hand operated cutting tool. All such variations are intended to be within the scope of this disclosure. Accordingly, referring to
Similar to the variable pivot system of the two-hand operated cutting tool, the variable pivot system of a one-hand operated cutting tool substantially controls the opening and closing of one of the cutting members and includes a geared portion and a slide portion that are actuated at different times through the progression of a cutting stroke of the tool. Within a first region of the cutting stroke (approximately two-thirds), the interaction between the handles and cutting members is provided by a geared portion of the variable pivot system. After the first region of the cutting stroke, the variable pivot system transitions to a second region for the remaining approximate one-third of the cutting stroke (i.e., the slide portion). As such, during the final one-third of the cutting stroke, the variable pivot system provides a leverage profile defined by the slide portion.
As compared to a two-hand operated cutting tool, the configuration of the variable pivot system for a one-hand operated cutting is substantially reversed. Based on empirical data, as hand-grip spacing decreases (e.g., the distance between the handles of a one-hand operated cutting tool while the tool is in the palm/hand of a user) from a maximum distance for the tool to a minimum distance, the available force a user can exert increases. In comparison, as the distance decreases from a maximum distance between the handles of a two-hand operated cutting tool to a minimum distance, the available force a user can exert generally decreases. Because the available force a user can exert is relatively lower at larger hand-grip distances, a mechanism (e.g., geared portion) provides an increased mechanical advantage during the first region of the cutting stroke for a one-hand operated cutting tool. By not providing the geared mechanism throughout the cutting stroke, the pitch circles of the meshable gears may be increased (i.e., beyond a pitch commonly associated with a cutting tool having a geared leverage mechanism operating throughout the entire cutting stroke). Accordingly, the variable pivot system of the one-hand operated cutting tool works to reduce the effort required to cut through an object by providing an additional mechanical advantage to the user when the user is typically at their weakest.
Thus, an advantage of the present disclosure is that a lower effort requirement is generated by the variable pivot system, while staying within traditional constraints of two-hand (as well as one-hand) operated cutting tools. For example, traditional constraints include human and physical limitations that restrict the maximum handle angle opening, geometric and cut-capacity limitations that restrict the distance the cutting members (e.g., blades) can open, etc. The present disclosure does not merely lengthen the handles, but rather utilizes human force characteristics to substantially stay within traditional constraints to reduce the effort required to cut through an object using a two-hand (and one-hand) operated cutting tool.
Although specific examples are shown and described throughout this disclosure, the embodiments illustrated in the figures are shown by way of example, and any of a wide variety of other cutting member configurations, lever devices, pivot systems, and cutting device types (e.g. snips, pruners, shears, etc.) will be readily apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art after reviewing this disclosure. All such variations of cutting tools that use the variable leverage system are intended to be within the scope of the disclosure. Moreover, as referred to herein, the object of a cutting tool can include a wide variety of objects, such as branches, twigs, weeds, small trees, etc.
Referring more particularly now to
According to an exemplary embodiment, the first cutting member 20 is pivotally coupled to the second cutting member 18 at the second aperture 28a and the second aperture 28b of the second cutting member 18. The first cutting member 20 is also pivotally coupled to the lever 16 at the first aperture 26a and the first aperture 26b of the lever 16. First and second apertures 26a, 26b, 28a, and 28b are shown to include pivot connections utilizing, for example, bolts, pins, lugs, studs, etc. According to an exemplary embodiment, a first bolt rotatably couples the first cutting member 20 to the second cutting member 18 at the second apertures 28a and 28b, and a second bolt rotatably couples the first cutting member 20 to the lever 16 at the first apertures 26a and 26b. In operation, the second cutting member 18 rotates about the second apertures 28a and 28b, and the lever 16 rotates about the first apertures 26a and 26b.
As described in greater detail below, rotation of the lever 16 about the first apertures 26a and 26b is constrained during the slide portion of the variable pivot mechanism 50 via a travel stop 24 and a locking projection 42 (shown as a cam follower 42) to cam surface 52 interaction (see
The lopper 10 is shown to further include a variable pivot system 50. The variable pivot system 50 includes a first set of projections 30 coupled to the second cutting member 18 and a second set of projections 32 coupled to the lever 16. The projections 30, 32 are structured to be engaged with one another during the second region (i.e., approximately the final two-thirds) of the cutting stroke. According to an exemplary embodiment, the first and second sets of projections 30, 32 include mesh-able gears formed by interacting gear teeth. According to an exemplary embodiment, the gear teeth provided as gear projections 30, 32 are configured to have at least a partially elliptical pitch. As used herein, the phrase “elliptical pitch” refers to a line joining two rotating axes (i.e., the line/arc defining the intersection of gears 30, 32) that is elliptically shaped. In comparison, a “circular pitch” refers to a line joining two rotating axes (i.e., the line/arc defining the intersection of gears 30, 32) that is circularly shaped. As such, according to an alternate embodiment, the gear teeth provided as gear projections 30, 32 are configured to not have a partially elliptical pitch (e.g., circular).
Because the gear projections 30, 32 are engaged during only the final two-thirds of the cutting stroke, the at least partially elliptical pitch of each gear projection 30, 32 may be increased to allow for a greater mechanical advantage. By definition, a gear ratio is the mechanical advantage one gear provides over the other gear. Typically, geared loppers are configured to permit the handles to open to approximately 160 degrees, which usually corresponds to a blade (i.e., cutting device) opening of about 70 degrees (i.e., a gear ratio of 16:7). According to the present disclosure, because of the variable pivot system 50, the first 20 degrees of the handles closing corresponds to the slide portion (i.e., the first region) that closes the blade 20 degrees (i.e., a ratio of 1:1). However, the handles closing the remaining 140 degrees corresponds to the blade closing the remaining 50 degrees in the second region (i.e., a gear ratio of 14:5; a 23% increase in mechanical advantage over 16:7). The increase in mechanical advantage is because when two gears have ratios greater than 1:1 (as is the case here), they act as two levers of different lengths—an input of more angular motion distance into one gear (more rotations) provides more torque out of the other gear due to it traveling a relatively smaller amount of rotations or angular displacement than it previously had to in order to output that same amount of torque (e.g., the difference between the larger gear ratio of 14:5 to the smaller gear ratio of 16:7). So here, as the gear ratio is increased from increasing the gear pitch due to the structure of the variable pivot system 50, the result is an increase in mechanical advantage for the two-hand operated cutting tool (and the one-hand operated cutting tool, as described below). As such, the two-hand operated cutting tool with variable pivot system 50 typically provides an increase in mechanical advantage over traditional variable leverage geared loppers.
Referring collectively now to the two-hand operated cutting tool in
Referring next to
From the full closed position, as the handles 12 are pulled apart toward the full open position and the variable pivot system is about to transition from the geared portion to the slide portion (i.e., the opening stroke), the travel stop 24 engages with the first cutting member 20 to substantially prevent the lever 16 (and, in turn, the handle 12 coupled to the lever 16) from rotating (i.e., counterclockwise) about the first apertures 26a and 26b. The travel stop 24 allows the user to pull open and slide or translate the lever away (i.e., the slide portion of the variable pivot system 50) from the second cutting member 18 by preventing the lever 16 from rotating about the first apertures 26a and 26b. While the travel stop 24 prevents the lever from rotating about the first aperture 26 during the slide portion of the opening stroke, the cam follower 42 maintains the path of travel of the cam follower 42 (and, consequently, the lever 16) along a curvilinear path 56 (see
As the cam follower 42 travels along the curvilinear path 56 (i.e., during the slide portion of the opening and cutting strokes), the cam follower 42 interacts with a cam surface 52 of the guide member 60. This interaction restricts the cam follower 42 (and, lever 16) from straying from the curvilinear path 56. At or near the end point 58 during the cutting stroke, the cam follower 42 disengages with the cam surface 52 to permit the geared portions 30, 32 to engage. Because of the restriction of travel of the cam follower 42 to the curvilinear path 56, a consistent engagement and disengagement between the geared projections 30, 32 occurs.
According to an exemplary embodiment, the travel stop 24 includes a vertically extended (i.e., perpendicular to the lever 16) member coupled to the lever 16 that contacts the first cutting member 20 during the slide portion of the opening stroke to substantially restrict the lever 16 from rotating about the first apertures 26a and 26b. According to alternate embodiments, the travel stop 24 can include an integral extension from lever 16, a bent piece of metal welded to the lever 16, a roller coupled to the lever 16, a bent piece of metal otherwise coupled to the lever 16, and/or a protruding bolt, lug, pin, etc. In comparison, the cam follower 42 (i.e., locking projection) can include a vertically extended (i.e., perpendicular to the lever 16) member protruding in the opposite direction to that of the travel stop 24. The cam follower 42 prevents the geared projections 30, 32 from not engaging during the geared portion of the variable pivot mechanism 50 because the cam follower 42 travels along a consistent curvilinear path 56 during the slide portion of the variable pivot mechanism 50. In some embodiments, the cam follower 42 can include a protruding bolt, roller, lug, pin, bent piece of metal, welded piece of metal, an integral piece of material with the lever, etc.
Referring more particularly to
Referring to
Referring to
Referring now to
Referring more particularly to
Referring more particularly to the variable pivot system 150 of the hand pruner 100, the variable pivot system 150 includes a cam surface 175 coupled to the second handle 112 and a cam follower 165 coupled to the first handle 110. The cam surface 175 is shown to be included as an integral piece on the elongated member 190 of the second handle 112. In one embodiment, the cam follower 165 is the top most projection of the first set of projections 160 (i.e., closest to the handle 112). According to another embodiment, the cam follower 165 may be structured as any type of component (e.g., a roller, etc.) that engages with the cam surface 175 during a second region of the cutting stroke (described below). According to an exemplary embodiment, the first handle 110 includes a first set of projections 160 and the second handle 112 includes a second set of projections 170. As shown in
The first handle 110 is shown to also include a pivot pin 250 (
According to one embodiment, the second handle 112 includes a locking device 260. The locking device 260 may be structured as a separate component relative to the second handle 112. In other embodiments, the locking device 260 is an integral component of the second handle 112. The locking device 260 is shown to include a locking projection 262 (
As shown in
Referring collectively now to the one-hand operated cutting tool in
The arrangement between the gear projections 160 and 170 converts the rotational force applied by the user into a rectilinear force as the handles 110 and 112 are squeezed closer together during the first region of the cutting stroke. However, during the slide portion of the cutting stroke, translation of the first handle 110 along a portion of the path 200 defined by only the cam surface to cam follower interaction (no partial engagement of the projections) provides for a pure rectilinear force (no rotational element other than that relative to the aperture 140). Based on empirical data, for a hand pruner of a given handle length, the average human strength capability increases with decreasing handle angle (i.e., as the handles move closer together, the user is able to exert more force to cut through an object). Accordingly, the average user is weakest when the handles are in the full open position. By implementing a variable pivot system, the human strength characteristics can be accounted for by providing a relatively greater amount of mechanical advantage where it is most beneficial to a typical user (i.e., the beginning of the cutting stroke; the first region). As such, the first region corresponds to the geared portion and the second region corresponds to the slide portion of the variable pivot mechanism. During the slide portion, the mechanical advantage is limited to the length of the handles of the hand pruner. However, during the geared portion, additional mechanical advantage is provided by the interacting gears in the geared portion (hence, a relatively greater mechanical advantage than just from the length of the handles). Moreover, because the geared portion is limited to the first two-thirds of the cutting stroke, the pitch of the gears may be increased without affecting the practicality of the hand pruner. For example, practical considerations relating to the tool can include the size of the tool. If the geared portion was provided throughout the entire cutting stroke and the pitch of the gears increased, then the whole tool would likely need to increase to accommodate the larger gears. However, because the geared portion does not correspond to the entire cutting stroke, the gear pitch can increase (corresponding to greater mechanical advantage) while staying within practical considerations relating to the hand pruner. As described above, increasing the gear pitch increases the gear ratio, which increases the mechanical advantage (i.e., a relatively greater angular displacement in gear 32 via the handle results in more torque output due to a relatively smaller angular displacement of the gear 30 for the two-hand operated cutting tool).
Referring next to
Referring to
As mentioned above, from the full close position, the gear projections 160 and 170 are engaged during the first region of the cutting stroke. The first handle 110 rotates about the rotation axis 180 while moving upward toward the second handle 112. Now, as the first region transitions to the second region of the cutting stroke, the cam surface 175 and cam follower 165 are engaged as are the first locking projection 205 and the second locking projection 210. In addition, the first and second rotation stops 220 and 225 are also engaged. The interaction between the first and second rotation stops 220 and 225 substantially prevents the handle 110 from rotating any further clockwise about the rotation axis 180. The interaction between the cam surface 175 and the cam follower 165 constrain the movement of the handle 110 along the path 200. The interaction between the locking projections 205 and 210 prevent the handle 110 from rotating counterclockwise during the slide portion of the cutting stroke (i.e., the second region) and constrain the handle 110 to translational movement toward the handle 112.
Referring to
Referring next to
First, human force data as a function of handle spacing is received (1101). The human force data represents an average maximum force a human can deliver comfortably at various handle spacings. According to one embodiment, the human force data is measured data acquired from a plurality of people. For example, a person may squeeze the handles together (an open position to a close position) at a specific handle angle and the force is measured when the person says or otherwise indicates that this is the force they are comfortable applying albeit they may able to be exert a greater force. In other examples, a true maximum force may be used at step 1101. All such variations are intended to fall within the spirit and scope of the present disclosure. In still other embodiments, the human force data is simulated, estimated, or any generated using any other type of mechanism (e.g., computer modeling software). Second, the cut through force data as a function of handle angle is received (1102). The cut through force data corresponds to a force required to cut through a maximum sized object for the tool at various handle angles. Like the human force data, the cut-through force data may be measured, estimated, simulated, etc. Third, the received human force data is divided by the received cut through force data for a given handle length (1103). By keeping the handle length constant, the division has the same units. Fourth, a mechanical advantage curve is generated (1104). As described below, the mechanical advantage curve may be generated based on one or more constraints (e.g., maximum slope changes in a geared portion of a variable pivot system) and with any type of generation mechanism (e.g., computer simulation software). Fifth, the mechanical advantage curve is set to peak at approximately the same location as the peak of step 1103 (1105). In one embodiment, approximately corresponds with a plus-or-minus ten degree handle angle (e.g., the peak of the mechanical advantage curve may be set to the peak of step 1103 if the peak of the mechanical advantage curve is within a ten degree handle angle of the peak of step 1103). In other embodiments, approximately may correspond with a different handle angle degree than ten degrees (e.g., plus-or-minus five degrees). Based on the set mechanical advantage curve, a pitch circle for the geared portion is determined (1106). According to one embodiment, after determination, the pitch circle is implemented with the two-hand operated cutting tool to reduce the effort required to cut through an object (1107). Method 1100 is more fully described in the following paragraphs with reference to
Referring to
As shown, in regard to a two-hand operated cutting tool, as the user's hands become closer, the force that a user can deliver to the handles of a two-hand operated cutting tool typically decreases (curve 1201). In comparison, in regard to a one-hand operated cutting tool, as the grip spacing decreases, the force that a user can deliver typically increases (curve 1202). Thus, force delivery characteristics for a one-hand operated cutting tool and a two-hand operated cutting tool are nearly direct opposites of each other. This is shown by the nearly oppositely sloped curves 1201, 1202 in
Referring now to
Still referring to
Referring to
In this embodiment, the slide portion of the variable pivot mechanism corresponds with a handle angle of approximately 140 degrees to 115 degrees, where approximately refers to plus-or-minus ten degrees. Comparatively, the geared portion corresponds with a handle angle of approximately 115 degrees to 0 degrees. In other embodiments, based on the constraints of the cutting tool, the approximate handle angles for each portion—geared and slide—may vary (e.g., the geared portion may correspond with a handle angle of approximately 115 degrees to 5 degrees). For example, a twelve inch lopper may have a full open handle angle of approximately ninety degrees. In this example, the slide portion may correspond with 90 degrees to 60 degrees and the geared portion corresponds with 60 degrees to 0 degrees, where approximately is plus-or-minus 5 degrees. As mentioned above, according to one embodiment, the geared portion may correspond with two-thirds of a cutting stroke while the slide portion corresponds with one-third of the cutting stroke. While the exact handle angle delineations may differ based on the application, it should be understood that method 1100 with the graphs shown and described herein are still substantially applicable to those applications. In turn, all such variations are intended to fall within the spirit and scope of the present disclosure.
As shown in
The determined pitch circles are then implemented in, for example, the lopper of
Referring next to
First, human force data as a function of handle spacing is received (1501). The human force data represents an average maximum force a human can deliver comfortably at various handle spacings. According to one embodiment, the human force data is measured data acquired from a plurality of people. For example, a person may squeeze the handles together (an open position to a close position) at a specific handle angle and the force is measured when the person says or otherwise indicates that this is the force they are comfortable applying albeit they may able to be exert a greater force. In other examples, a true maximum force may be used at step 1501. All such variations are intended to fall within the spirit and scope of the present disclosure. In still other embodiments, the human force data is simulated, estimated, or any generated using any other type of mechanism (e.g., computer modeling software). Second, the cut through force data as a function of handle angle is received (1502). The cut through force data corresponds to a force required to cut through a maximum sized object for the tool at various handle angles. Like the human force data, the cut-through force data may be measured, estimated, simulated, etc. Third, the received human force data is divided by the received cut through force data for a given handle length (1503). By keeping the handle length constant, the division has the same units. Fourth, a mechanical advantage curve is generated (1504). As described below, the mechanical advantage curve may be generated based on one or more constraints (e.g., maximum slope changes in a geared portion of a variable pivot system) and with any type of generation mechanism (e.g., computer simulation software). Fifth, the mechanical advantage curve is set to peak at approximately the same location as the peak of step 1503 (1505). In one embodiment, approximately corresponds with a plus-or-minus three degree handle angle (e.g., the peak of the mechanical advantage curve may be set to the peak of step 1503 if the peak of the mechanical advantage curve is within a three degree handle angle of the peak of step 1503). Relative to the two-hand operated cutting tool, in general, the one-hand operated cutting tool has a relative smaller full open separating angle between the handle. As such, the “approximate” designation is smaller. In one embodiment, full open corresponds with a handle angle (e.g., angle 280) of approximately 30 degrees. In this embodiment, the first region of travel corresponds with a handle angle of approximately 30 degrees to 5 degrees and the second region of travel corresponds with a handle angle of approximately 5 degrees to a full close position (e.g., 0 degrees). It should be understood, however, in other embodiments, approximately may correspond with a different handle angle degree than 3 degrees (e.g., plus-or-minus one degrees). Based on the set mechanical advantage curve, a pitch circle for the geared portion is determined (1506). According to one embodiment, after determination, the pitch circle is implemented with the one-hand operated cutting tool to reduce the effort required to cut through an object (1507).
As mentioned above in regard to
Referring to
Still referring to
Referring next to
As shown in
The determined pitch circles are then implemented in, for example, the hand pruner of
It is important to note that the construction and arrangement of the elements of the hand operated cutting tool, shown as a lopper and a pruner, with a variable pivot system shown schematically in the embodiments is illustrative only. Although only a few embodiments have been described in detail in this disclosure, those skilled in the art who review this disclosure will readily appreciate that many modifications are possible without materially departing from the novel teachings and advantages of the subject matter recited.
Accordingly, all such modifications are intended to be included within the scope of the present disclosure. Other substitutions, modifications, changes and omissions may be made in the design, operating conditions and arrangement of the preferred and other exemplary embodiments without departing from the spirit of the present disclosure. For example, the shape and position of the guide member plate may be varied as necessary to accommodate changes in the dimensions, shape and geometry of the other components of the cutting tool. Also, the type and positions of the locking devices (e.g., travel stop and cam follower) may further be varied to accommodate changes in other components of the cutting tool. Furthermore, the handles extending from the first cutting member and the lever may be of any suitable size and shape to correspond to the specific type of cutting devices and type of cutting tool (e.g. loppers, shears, pruners, trimmers, etc.). Moreover, for example, the type and positions of locking projections for the one-hand operated cutting tool may be varied to accommodate changes in other components of the cutting tool.
The order or sequence of any process or method steps may be varied or re-sequenced according to alternative embodiments. In the claims, any means-plus-function clause is intended to cover the structures described herein as performing the recited function and not only structural equivalents but also equivalent structures. Other substitutions, modifications, changes and omissions may be made in the design, operating configuration and arrangement of the preferred and other exemplary embodiments without departing from the spirit of the present disclosure as expressed in the appended claims.
The present application is a divisional of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/538,130 entitled “A CUTTING TOOL WITH A VARIABLE PIVOT SYSTEM,” filed Nov. 11, 2014, which claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/906,754 entitled “CUTTING TOOL WITH A VARIABLE PIVOT SYSTEM,” filed Nov. 20, 2013. Both of these applications are incorporated herein by reference in their entireties.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
46960 | Wallis et al. | Mar 1865 | A |
65745 | Heath | Jun 1867 | A |
103873 | Grover | Jun 1870 | A |
107577 | Will | Sep 1870 | A |
148566 | Kennedy | Mar 1874 | A |
157610 | King | Dec 1874 | A |
246399 | Layman | Aug 1881 | A |
303067 | Stokes | Aug 1884 | A |
328288 | Chase | Oct 1885 | A |
351339 | Pullman | Oct 1886 | A |
397698 | Cooper | Feb 1889 | A |
433914 | Stokes et al. | Aug 1890 | A |
444635 | Helwig | Jan 1891 | A |
460705 | Hansen | Oct 1891 | A |
476459 | Hamann et al. | Jun 1892 | A |
508022 | Kamphaus | Nov 1893 | A |
512086 | Ashcraft | Jan 1894 | A |
542435 | Blumer | Jul 1895 | A |
547101 | Williams | Oct 1895 | A |
563458 | Dillenbach | Jul 1896 | A |
573548 | Sours | Dec 1896 | A |
633588 | Helwig | Sep 1899 | A |
640257 | Baer | Jan 1900 | A |
694829 | Candlish | Mar 1902 | A |
766298 | Voellner et al. | Aug 1904 | A |
767344 | Jackson | Aug 1904 | A |
823367 | Ryan | Jun 1906 | A |
823816 | Spragg | Jun 1906 | A |
860815 | Loock | Jul 1907 | A |
863111 | Smohl | Aug 1907 | A |
883457 | Geis | Mar 1908 | A |
906950 | Smith | Dec 1908 | A |
1065753 | Whitney | Jun 1913 | A |
1066675 | Stowell | Jul 1913 | A |
1105191 | Flora et al. | Jul 1914 | A |
1168125 | Stowell | Jan 1916 | A |
1181072 | Gibson | Apr 1916 | A |
1201991 | Thurston | Oct 1916 | A |
1284351 | Jagielo | Nov 1918 | A |
1304917 | Stauffer | May 1919 | A |
1368077 | Underwood | Feb 1921 | A |
1395758 | Maszczyk | Nov 1921 | A |
1429792 | Stiriss | Sep 1922 | A |
1430705 | Wagenbach | Oct 1922 | A |
1455297 | Lyons et al. | May 1923 | A |
1469467 | Wagenbach | Oct 1923 | A |
1502191 | Helwig | Jul 1924 | A |
1576882 | Voleske | Mar 1926 | A |
1689648 | Voleske | Oct 1928 | A |
1712800 | Mottinger et al. | May 1929 | A |
1715898 | Carri | Jun 1929 | A |
1760627 | Bernard | May 1930 | A |
1836967 | Helwig | Dec 1931 | A |
1897532 | Pilcher | Feb 1933 | A |
1915404 | Clifton | Jun 1933 | A |
1978557 | Turner et al. | Oct 1934 | A |
2084633 | Erickson | Jun 1937 | A |
2437432 | Martines | Mar 1948 | A |
2500461 | Lazzarini | Mar 1950 | A |
2500462 | Lazzarini | Mar 1950 | A |
2660783 | Davis et al. | Dec 1953 | A |
2939211 | Daniels | Jun 1960 | A |
3210844 | Tontscheff | Oct 1965 | A |
3230756 | Pearson | Jan 1966 | A |
3486227 | Somervell | Dec 1969 | A |
3885309 | Lund | May 1975 | A |
4050153 | Flisch | Sep 1977 | A |
4130938 | Uhlmann | Dec 1978 | A |
4178682 | Sadauskas | Dec 1979 | A |
4277887 | Rady | Jul 1981 | A |
4378636 | Wick | Apr 1983 | A |
4599795 | Yokoyama | Jul 1986 | A |
4677748 | Kobayashi | Jul 1987 | A |
4779342 | Kobayashi | Oct 1988 | A |
5060381 | Taberlet | Oct 1991 | A |
5168629 | Willard | Dec 1992 | A |
5184404 | Chen | Feb 1993 | A |
5325592 | Linden et al. | Jul 1994 | A |
5341573 | Linden et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5426857 | Linden | Jun 1995 | A |
D368634 | Frazer | Apr 1996 | S |
5544416 | Lin | Aug 1996 | A |
5570510 | Linden | Nov 1996 | A |
5689888 | Linden | Nov 1997 | A |
6105257 | Rutkowski et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
D434286 | Lin | Nov 2000 | S |
6161291 | DiMatteo et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
D437751 | Lin | Feb 2001 | S |
6345446 | Huang | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6393703 | Wu | May 2002 | B1 |
6789324 | Linden et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6829829 | Huang | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6935031 | Huang | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6938346 | Huang | Sep 2005 | B1 |
6966115 | Deville | Nov 2005 | B2 |
7347125 | Juieng | Mar 2008 | B1 |
7530172 | Wu | May 2009 | B1 |
D620771 | Goetz et al. | Aug 2010 | S |
D621234 | Goetz et al. | Aug 2010 | S |
D634994 | Huang | Mar 2011 | S |
D634995 | Huang | Mar 2011 | S |
D638674 | Huang | May 2011 | S |
D638675 | Huang | May 2011 | S |
D638676 | Huang | May 2011 | S |
7946039 | Erbrick | May 2011 | B2 |
7966735 | Hayes | Jun 2011 | B1 |
D649420 | Cunningham | Nov 2011 | S |
8046924 | Block et al. | Nov 2011 | B2 |
D652277 | Cunningham | Jan 2012 | S |
8136252 | Linden et al. | Mar 2012 | B2 |
8166659 | Huang | May 2012 | B2 |
8220164 | Linden et al. | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8225513 | Huang | Jul 2012 | B2 |
8266804 | Huang | Sep 2012 | B2 |
8327549 | Huang | Dec 2012 | B2 |
D677539 | Roberts | Mar 2013 | S |
D678022 | Roberts | Mar 2013 | S |
D679559 | Masalin | Apr 2013 | S |
D684027 | Roberts | Jun 2013 | S |
D684828 | Masalin | Jun 2013 | S |
D693192 | Masalin et al. | Nov 2013 | S |
8584368 | Huang | Nov 2013 | B2 |
D700029 | Roberts | Feb 2014 | S |
D700030 | Roberts | Feb 2014 | S |
D700493 | Roberts | Mar 2014 | S |
8661691 | Huang | Mar 2014 | B2 |
D702516 | Liu | Apr 2014 | S |
8826545 | Goetz et al. | Sep 2014 | B2 |
8978255 | Wu | Mar 2015 | B2 |
9003667 | Huang | Apr 2015 | B2 |
9345200 | Cunningham | May 2016 | B2 |
9426945 | Hsu | Aug 2016 | B2 |
20010000833 | Chen | May 2001 | A1 |
20030014868 | Cech et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030093906 | Huang | May 2003 | A1 |
20040194320 | Hsieh | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20060026845 | Lin | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20090047065 | Cheng | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20100162575 | Lin | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100223794 | Block et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100269357 | Shan | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20110154668 | Liu et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20120311872 | Wang | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20140053413 | Huang | Feb 2014 | A1 |
20140317937 | Descombes | Oct 2014 | A1 |
20160120132 | Hsu | May 2016 | A1 |
20160158946 | Matsushita | Jun 2016 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2002358825 | Oct 2003 | AU |
559786 | Sep 1932 | DE |
804766 | Apr 1951 | DE |
29822421 | Mar 1999 | DE |
20 2014 103 611 | Dec 2014 | DE |
20 2014 103 612 | Jan 2015 | DE |
1 625 784 | Feb 2006 | EP |
486693 | Apr 1918 | FR |
488129 | Sep 1918 | FR |
926212 | Sep 1947 | FR |
943745 | Mar 1949 | FR |
1162295 | Sep 1958 | FR |
2837126 | Sep 2003 | FR |
0 340 872 | Jan 1931 | GB |
0 452 010 | Aug 1936 | GB |
2168889 | Jun 2001 | RU |
2454315 | Jun 2012 | RU |
201112942 | Apr 2011 | TW |
WO 03080298 | Oct 2003 | WO |
WO-2006066728 | Jun 2006 | WO |
WO-2006072309 | Jul 2006 | WO |
WO 2009002908 | Dec 2008 | WO |
WO-2012033540 | Mar 2012 | WO |
WO 2015077090 | May 2015 | WO |
Entry |
---|
International Preliminary Report on Patentability, PCT/US2014/065077, Fiskars Brands, Inc., 9 pages (May 24, 2016). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion on Application PCT/US2014/065077, mail date Jan. 23, 2015, 14 pages. |
English-language machine translation of TW 201112942, Ho Cheng Garden Tools Co. Ltd. (Apr. 16, 2011). |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20160227709 A1 | Aug 2016 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61906754 | Nov 2013 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 14538130 | Nov 2014 | US |
Child | 15131724 | US |