Exercise devices – User manipulated force resisting apparatus – component... – Utilizing weight resistance
Reexamination Certificate
2000-02-10
2002-09-03
Richmon, Glenn E. (Department: 3764)
Exercise devices
User manipulated force resisting apparatus, component...
Utilizing weight resistance
C482S138000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06443877
ABSTRACT:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION
This invention relates, generally, to weight resistance exercise machines; and, more specifically, to weight resistance exercise machines allowing a wide range of motion. The invention provides superior utility when used in association with physical rehabilitation and therapy programs.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Weight exercises with machines dates from the 19
th
century. Some are strictly for developing muscle strength and often limit the exercise to single muscles or muscle groups. Others permit motion only in one direction or a singular plane of motion. Virtually all current machines are designed only to enhance physical appearance; that is, to achieve a better body through muscle and strength development.
For physical rehabilitation after surgery and for most physical therapy, one needs to exercise with a wide range of motion. Such is a desirable feature for stretching and loosening muscle groups and also for providing increased joint movement and joint rotation.
Increased muscle strength is gained by increasing load resistance. For rehabilitation purposes, however, a fixed load resistance is usually desirable, rather than a load that increases during the flexure of a body part.
Exercise for a bedridden or a wheelchair confined person is difficult to achieve, since, very often, limbs and muscles are very weak from prolonged illness or recent surgery. That weakness requires the active support and bracing by another person, unless that exercise motion is limited to a vertical plane; that is, with and against gravitational force.
U.S. Pat. No. 372,272 to Murphy (Oct. 25, 1887) provides an example of early weight resistance designs, using weighted cables guided over pulleys on a pivoted frame. Although its use of weighted cables over pulleys are, after more than a century, still the dominant technique, the range of motion provided by that device is limited.
There have been alternatives to obtaining resistance with weights. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 4,620,704 to Shifferaw (Nov. 4, 1986) demonstrates a device that creates resistance with flexible rods of substantially equal cross-section over their length. This means that increased force is applied during bending deflection of these rods, as opposed to the constant force that is desirable for therapeutic exercise.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,733,229 to Berger (Mar. 31, 1998) uses a person's body weight to create resistance. Such an apparatus is not suitable for the weak or infirm, and is limited to exercising only a few muscle groups.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,721,303 to Fitzpatrick (Jan. 26, 1988) provides two independent mechanisms. While the handles can be located in four positions, they have limited adjustability with regard to both the horizontal and vertical. The range of motion provided by this device, further, is limited.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,898,381 to Gordon (Feb. 6, 1990) also provides two independent weight resistance mechanisms. These mechanisms permit relocation of the handles from top to bottom and also horizontally. The apparatus is complicated, since the vertical sliding arrangement of the handle mounting frame requires an added floating pulley and weight assembly to compensate for changes in cable path length.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,603,855 to Sebelle (Aug. 5, 1986) also uses a compensating floating weight and pulley system, albeit to adjust for varying cable length from a horizontally sliding handle support arm, as compared to Gordon's referenced vertical slide assembly.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,800,321 to Webber (Sept. 1, 1998) uses only a single weight resistance mechanism. The exit pulley positions are limited, and only in a vertical plane with regard to a person who is seated. Other exercises require access to the rear of the apparatus, and the range of motion is very limited in that case.
In our youth-oriented society, the emphasis on developing a “better” body is not surprising. The prior art, however, neglects a pronounced demographic change: increased longevity. As people get older, their exercise-related activity requirements become quite different from “bodybuilding”. For instance, they need preventative exercising, relieving of joint pains, and maintenance of flexibility, balance, and general conditioning. For this group of people, exercise is for health, not for appearance.
Another segment of an aging society are those who are physically impaired, handicapped, or bedridden. Some patients are forced to spend prolonged times in bed, requiring special care to prevent bedsores, muscle atrophy, reduced circulation, and gangrene. Very little exercise is available to those persons, other than by forceful assistance of a physical therapist. There is an obvious need for such exercise machines as may address each of those conditions; notably, since every year over 200,000 joint replacement operations are performed in the United States alone.
Some prior art does address exercise specifically for wheelchair confined persons. An example of such a device may be seen with reference to U.S. Pat. No. 4,747,595 to Mabry (May 31, 1988). That device, however, is not usable for the general aging populace, nor for persons with other impairments.
U.S. Pat. No. 5,842,961 to Davis (Dec. 1, 1998) stresses rehabilitation and therapy applications. It uses a single weight resistance mechanism with two swivel exit pulleys, one each at top and bottom. The upper pulley has partial vertical adjustment. There is relatively free and unrestricted range of motion in the vertical plane. The horizontal motion component is limited, however, since the limited vertical repositioning of the exit pulleys restricts force application in between the upper and lower exit pulley positions. Furthermore, exercise is limited to one limb at a time. A hinged security handrail can be lowered to the floor, but takes up much space. There is wheelchair access, but no provision for seated or seat extension exercising.
Generally, then, the prior art does not provide an exercise apparatus that optimizes functions and benefits to users, combining: versatility of use, ranging from recreational exercising at home to rehabilitation and therapy in clinical settings; simultaneous exercise with any two limbs or by two persons; widely adjustable positioning of force applicators, like handles, foot straps, and the like, according to the needs of the user, rather than strictly what the machine dictates; a desirable range of motion which is hemispherical, from overhead to floor, and with wide stretch horizontally; choice of exercising position, such as standing, sitting, prone, or supine on a seat extension; force application from all directions to allow rotation of body joints, like shoulder and hip, and, further, to allow linear extension or contraction or planar bending of body parts in any direction for selected muscles or muscle groups; support and bracing devices, such as rails and handholds for stabilizing and bracing for reaction forces; compact size to minimize the floor space required for the device, to permit stowage within a small volume, and to allow the device to be moved through a standard width door without disassembly; user friendly selection of force/weight settings, without requiring fidgeting to align holes for the setting pin between the specific weight plate and the lifting rod; unencumbered access to repositioning mechanisms for the force applicators (i.e. handles or footsteps) without impeding free access by placing structural members in front, by requiring unhooking and relocating force applicators, or by requiring a user to get down on his knees for access; mobility for easy transport from one room to another; easy wheelchair access; and, means to enable exercising for bed confined patients, in order to help post surgical and injury rehabilitation persons to move limbs and body, and to avoid bed sores and circulation problems caused by immobility.
It was as a result of the personal recuperation experiences from surgery by one of the inventors hereof, and in further recognition of the deficiencies of and within the prior art, that the present inventi
Bohm Fred
Hoecht Dietrich
Hughes & Kaplan
Hwang Victor
Kaplan Barry E.
Richmon Glenn E.
LandOfFree
Compact, multi-choice exercise apparatus does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Compact, multi-choice exercise apparatus, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Compact, multi-choice exercise apparatus will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2835773