Exercise devices – Gymnastic – Play area climbing or traversing arrangement
Reexamination Certificate
2001-07-12
2003-04-22
Donnelly, Jerome W. (Department: 3764)
Exercise devices
Gymnastic
Play area climbing or traversing arrangement
C482S036000, C482S037000, C482S038000
Reexamination Certificate
active
06551216
ABSTRACT:
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
This invention teaches a novel ultra-light rock-climbing wall comprising a pliable climbing-wall matrix upon which rock/gymnastic-climbing holds are mounted at variable spacings. A pliable climbing-wall matrix is defined to be sufficiently thin and supple to be folded or rolled up for storage. Examples include fabric, mesh, netting, and thin, supple solid sheets or meshes. This invention also teaches various climbing-wall structures featuring pliable climbing-wall matrices. The term “rock climbing” refers to climbing via variable, positionable climbing holds on steep or overhanging climbing surfaces or matrices—as is practiced on rock-climbing cliffs and in rock-climbing gyms. This invention also teaches the use of “safety surfaces” which are located beneath and rise up following climbing surfaces at a safe distance—to prevent falling injury and eliminate the need for safety ropes. The preferred embodiment features a mesh climbing matrix and a net safety surface both of which are stretched from ground anchors over centrally positioned support poles.
The combination of a mesh climbing matrix and rock-climbing/gymnastic holds leads to a product featuring low cost, very light weight, easy assembly, convenient storage in a small space, and challenging rock climbing. To achieve convenient storage one must utilize minimal structural elements along with fabric or net climbing/safety surfaces. Challenging climbing is guaranteed with varied rock-climbing/gymnastic holds on steep surfaces and on the underside of overhanging walls, and the safety surfaces are sufficiently compliant to safely break a fall. The smallest versions of this invention would be portable and storable in a closet space, medium-sized versions could be stored in a back yard or shed, and large versions could be used in indoor gyms or amusement parks.
Prior art rock-climbing walls utilize rigid, heavy, expensive panels with attached rock-climbing holds; this is true even for the portable versions. Prior children's climbing playgrounds do not provide for interesting climbing—in the sense that rock climbing can be very challenging, difficult, varied and gymnastic—because they feature climbing surfaces which allow only steep crawling or boring climbing on regular features such as a net or a cable. It should be obvious to anyone who has seen real rock climbing that there is a significant qualitative difference between climbing a fence or a net and climbing a rock climbing wall. The key insight here is that this qualitative difference derives from a structural difference. Namely, rock-climbing/gymnastic holds are affixed to a rock-climbing wall—in which case it is possible to space the holds so that reaching and utilizing the next hold can be difficult and interesting. In addition, it is possible to vary the shape, size, and orientation of the holds—so that both creativity and endurance are needed to complete a climbing route. Finally, in neither of the two prior art categories—(1) rock climbing walls and (2) children's “easy-climbing” playgrounds—is there a provision for “ropeless” climbing in which safety surfaces follow the climbing surfaces in such a way that long climbing routes can be safely climbed without the use of a rope.
The important point, with regard to distinguishing the current patent from prior art, is that the same word, “climbing,” is used, both in everyday language and in patent literature, to describe several distinct activities: walking or crawling up a steep incline, climbing steps, climbing a ladder or rope ladder, climbing a net or a rope, and (what is being called in the current patent) “rock climbing.” The resulting ambiguity leads to semantic confusion. The solution of this confusion is to carefully define and delineate between these distinct “climbing” activities and to show that these distinctions are based on the details of the structure or surface upon which the particular type of climbing is being done.
The patent of Baxter (1985) [U.S. Pat. No. 4,546,965] discloses a crawling surface for children to crawl up an irregular surface on the top side of two flat panels hinged together and configured in a “pup tent” shape. The important differences between Baxter and the current invention include the following. The restriction to flat panels limits the size of the apparatus in that it cannot be reduced to a size smaller than the flat panels for storage. Also, the use of flat panels as a climbing surface (referred to herein as a climbing matrix upon which holds are mounted) results in a heavy and expensive product. And, there is no integral provision for safety. Furthermore, the restriction of flat panels at two fixed inclines makes this invention unsuitable for challenging and varied climbing. Nor does Baxter teach rock-climbing holds on steep or overhanging climbing surfaces. Consequently, the invention of Baxter is really for crawling. Another patent, of Robinson et al (1999) [U.S. Pat. No. 5,941,041], discloses panels with climbing holds. This construction is not optimally light or storable, and there is no integral provision for safety surfaces.
An example of a playground maze apparatus is disclosed by Showers (1993) [U.S. Pat. No. 5,226,864]. This is essentially a playhouse comprising many cubicles stacked above and beside one another. There are net restraints on the outside of the maze to prevent children from falling to the ground, but these are not high enough to allow climbing. Even if they were high enough to allow climbing, the climbing would be uncomfortable to the fingers and boring, as is the case when we climb a wire fence. Clearly, there is no intent to use the net restraints for climbing. Nor is there any provision for rock-climbing holds which follow a potentially long route on what is referred to as a “climbing surface” in the current patent. Any climbing a child could do would be limited to simply pulling herself through a hole from one cubicle to another, and this does make for interesting, challenging climbing, except perhaps for toddlers. Showers teaches a net on the outer wall of this maze which might be scaled if the mesh were not too fine or sharp, but again such a practice should not be confused with real climbing in which a substantial portion of one's weight is supported by one's fingers and in which the climbs are made interesting by the variety, the spareness, and the difficulty of the rock-climbing holds. Also, there is no real provision for climbing on the outside of the maze, and, if a child were to attempt to scale the outside of the maze, he would be injured since there is no provision for safety surfaces to break a long fall. Furthermore, the “safety surfaces” defined in the specifications of the current patent are designed to catch a vertical fall by yielding while at the same time slowing the fall. The “wall restraints” of Showers do not perform that “safety net” function.
Another example of a playground maze apparatus is disclosed by Petersheim (1995) [U.S. Pat. No. 5,405,304]. In this case netting is strung at a steep angle to allow an infant to crawl/climb from one compartment to another. This netting is intended only for steep crawling; it does not incorporate rock-climbing holds as will be defined later in the specifications of the current patent. Also, the structure is limited in height, or it would be unsafe—in that children could fall from the top of the net to the ground. For these reasons, the structure as shown could not provide for challenging and interesting rock climbing. In addition, the infrastructure is heavy, and could not be easily dissembled.
The patent of Katz (2000) [U.S. Pat. No. 6,095,950] discloses a structure comprising three support poles and attached plates with projections for climbing. This is not nearly as lightweight and portable as the current invention because the attached plates and the associated infrastructure are inherently heavy and not foldable to a small storage space. And, the disassembly would be much more difficult.
T
Donnelly Jerome W.
Rennex Brian G.
LandOfFree
Ultra-light rock-climbing wall does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.
If you have personal experience with Ultra-light rock-climbing wall, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Ultra-light rock-climbing wall will most certainly appreciate the feedback.
Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-3055330