Static structures (e.g. – buildings) – Barrier or major section mounted for in situ repositioning;... – Barrier of hingedly connected sections
Reexamination Certificate
2001-09-20
2003-03-18
Friedman, Carl D. (Department: 3635)
Static structures (e.g., buildings)
Barrier or major section mounted for in situ repositioning;...
Barrier of hingedly connected sections
C052S641000, C052S646000, C052S082000, C052S036100, C052S079400, C135S121000, C135S122000, C135S151000, C135S099000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06532701
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND
1. Field of Invention
This invention relates to structures and enclosures for the protective containment and protection of goods, vegetation or animals from the elements or outside predators; and for the containment of predator beings from the outside world.
2. Description of Prior Art
Many fields of human endeavor make use of physical barriers that separate, protect, and/or contain goods, vegetation, or animals. The barriers can be as basic as a fence or more complex enclosures, such as corrals or cages or actual buildings.
Prior patents for shelters and enclosures of one type or another are principally based on orthogonal 90-degree ground plans in which a square or rectangle (or groups of squares or rectangles) are marked on the ground. Then square or rectangular shelters and enclosures are constructed on this ground plan. This 90-degree way of thinking is traditional in Western society and generally considered the simplest way of approaching the issue. It is so engrained into our thinking that it has become the unconscious background assumption from which we approach most problems of designing such shelters. I will show that the use of orthogonal 90-degree ways of defining spatial enclosures is inherently more wasteful of materials than are plans based on a different geometrical premise.
There have been, over the years, a few patents issued for building and shelter systems using geometries other than the 90-degree systems. They are not widely used principally because they have been shown to be very complicated, high-tech modular systems. In short, they are costly to produce, construct, and maintain in a reliable way.
Several types of animal and plant enclosures have been proposed. For example: U.S. Pat. No. 727,541 to Hayes (1903), U.S. Pat. No. 2,051,643 to Morrison (1936), U.S. Pat. No. 4,016,833 to Ray (1977), U.S. Pat. No. 4,067,547 to Peters (1978), U.S. Pat. No. 4,068,404 to Sheldon (1978), U.S. Pat. No. 5,551,372 to Nicholls (1996), U.S. Pat. No. 6,073,587 to Hill, et al (2000), U.S. Pat. No. 6,283,136 Bi to Chen (2001), are examples of shade structures, corral fences, cages, and shelters based on an orthogonal 90-degree ground plan layout pattern and ways of fabricating enclosures. Though coninon, the orthogonal plan layout pattern remains a wasteful way to enclose an area of ground space, and is, therefore, an inefficient way to make modular clustered enclosures. The basic reason for this wastefulness is that a square requires more perimeter length to enclose a certain area than do other useful polygons.
In previous efforts to improve efficiency, patents such as U.S. Pat. No. 2,886,855 to Petter (1959), U.S. Pat. No. 3,974,600 to Pearce (1976), U.S. Pat. No. 5,448,868 to Lalvani (1995), offer interesting, though complicated, high-tech systems for the fabrication and construction of enclosures. Systems such as these, if actually produced would be extremely costly to fully develop as well as complicated and difficult to construct.
Fundamental Geometric Considerations:
It is a universally known geometric fact that, on a planar surface, a circle encloses the greatest possible area with the minimum amount of perimeter length. At the opposite end of the scale, and within the family of regular polygons, an equilateral triangle is known to enclose the least interior surface area with the greatest amount of perimeter length. Each member of the family of regular polygons falls between these polar limits.
TABLE 1
Certain Selected Polygons-Percentage of Increased Perimeter
Length Required to Enclose an Identical Interior Area.
% increase of perimeter length
Polygon
to enclose unit area
Circle
0%
Dodecagon (12-edges)
1.0%
Decagon (10-edges)
1.2%
Octagon (8-edges)
2.7%
Hexagon (6-edges)
5.0%
Pentagon (5-edges)
8.0%
Square (4-edges)
13.0%
Triangle (3-edges)
29.0%
See: Williams, Robert.
The Geometric Foundation of Natural Structure: A Sourcebook of Design.
New York: Dover. 1978. Pp. 31-41.
As can be seen from the above table, the basic geometry of the square requires 13% more perimeter length to enclose the same interior area as does the circle. The 90-degreeness of the square has an inherent inefficiency when compared to a circle and other polygons.
It is true that within the orthogonal family itself, the square is the most efficient geometric form. For example, only 16 miles of perimeter fencing is required to enclose 16 square miles of area with a square four miles on a side, while 34 miles of perimeter fencing is required to enclose 16 square miles of area with a rectangle that is 1 mile by 16 miles. From this brief discussion it can be understood that if one wishes to fence or enclose a certain area efficiently, the use of a circular ground plan would be the most efficient way to accomplish the task. The issue changes only slightly if one wishes to enclose an area with clustered multiple polygons.
When circles are clustered together, an interstitial area appears among every three clustered circles. In this instance, the circle loses some of its efficiency because of the interstitial areas. Though this wasteful condition is somewhat remedied by clustering squares or rectangles, other more efficient remedies immediately present themselves (see Table 1).
Of the family of regular polygons, only three—the triangle, the square, and the hexagon—possess the geometry necessary to cluster identical polygons together to cover a planar area without leaving open interstitial areas among them. (Williams. 1978. Op. cit. Pp. 35-6) From Table 1 it can be extrapolated that a clustering of hexagons would require less total perimeter length to cover a given area than either a clustering of squares or a clustering of triangles.
Now consider altering clusters of triangles, squares, and hexagons to become clusters of triangle prisms, square prisms (boxes), and hexagon prisms. The same relationships regarding their relative economies hold true. A clustering of hexagonal prisms would require less perimeter surface areas than either a cluster of triangle prisms or square prisms.
In prior art, some examples of enclosures with hexagonal ground plans are U.S. Pat. No. 4,546,583 to Hussar (1985), U.S. Pat. No. 4,896,165 to Koizumi (1990), and U.S. Pat. No. 5,884,437 to Olsen (1999). While these examples of show an increased efficiency in perimeter area over the orthogonal 90-degree systems of square prisms, I will show that even more efficient clustered enclosures are possible with the combined use of 12-sided dodecagons and dodecagon prisms that are modified slightly as they cluster together, to become hexagonal prisms. It is with the combined use of the geometry of both the hexagon and the dodecagon that the greatest efficiency of perimeter length to area enclosed by clustered polygons can be achieved.
The dodecagon has appeared only three times in patents relating to shelter or building constructions systems. U.S. Pat. No. 5,829,941 to Morfin & Rodolfo (1998) shows a stacked structure with a twelve-sided perimeter for an autcmated parking garage. U.S. Pat. No. 5,154,032 to Ritter (1992) makes use of the dodecagon prism as part of a module for small building blocks. U.S. Pat. No. 3,766,693 to Richards, et al. (1973) describes a shelter with two different sizes of dodecagon, one at floor level and a larger on at the top plate of the structure.
In each of these three cases the use of the dodecagon as a design factor is a random selection of a polygon. For example, each patent would work equally well with a polygon of 18 sides, at taught in U.S. Pat. No. 3,375,831 to Serbius (1968); or a polygon of ten sides at taught in U.S. Pat. No. 3,952,463 to Lane (1976); or a polygon of six sides as taught in U.S. Pat. No. 5,806,547 to Derlinga (1998); or a polygon of eight sides at taught in U.S. Pat. No. 6,009,891 to Surface, et al. (2000). The choice of polygon in each of the above patents was an arbitrary choice. Any polygon can be substituted without negatively effecting the patents.
SUMMARY
In accordance with the present invention, a shelter system ccu~rising a plurality
Amiri Nahid
Friedman Carl D.
LandOfFree
Shelter system of clustered modular enclosures does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Shelter system of clustered modular enclosures, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Shelter system of clustered modular enclosures will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3080537