1. Field of the Invention
The current invention relates to a special collapsible, foldable, containment structure that has certain advantages in the areas of handling of loose materials, removal of debris and temporary, lightweight shelter of personnel, animals or equipment
2. Description of Prior Art
There are a number of special and important uses for a basic containment structure of triangular cross-section that is collapsible to a reduced profile for storage and transportation. For applications where the collapsible containment structure is used for containment of loose material, obvious uses are in industrial portage, construction cleanup and yard debris collection and removal. Examples of early box-like structures of triangular cross-section were U.S. Pat. Nos. 443,397 by Mack, 1,1933,643 by Tanner and 2,349,589 by Harrington. These were not quite in the patent class of the current invention. The structures were specifically of thin materials like cardboard, had fold lines to assist collapse (but none to further reduce the profile beyond flattened collapse or blanks) and had no hinges (necessary for any significant wall thickness). Class and subclasses 220/6 and 220/7 properly cover the collapsible containment structure of the current invention, but even before U.S. Pat. No. 3,759,412 by Bush and U.S. Pat. No. 3,966,072 by Gonzales, both in this class, the emphasis on rectangular, box-like collapsible containers overlooked the unique advantages of those with triangular cross section. To explain continuing needs and relevant prior art, one must reach outside the class for the current invention and consider what problems it can address. French patent 2618050(A1) by Desbrosse in 1989 specifies a box suitable for cat hygiene, but collapsibility to a profile less than the base, triangular profile, and hinges are not covered. A “Universal handling container” invention by Thomas Boyer, et. al., Jun. 11, 2002, U.S. Pat. No. 6,401,930 concentrates on electro-static discharge protection and does not afford the advantages of collapsibility cited by the current invention. A number of U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,006,928; 4,193,157; 4,318,521; 4,548,372; 4,572,559; 4,884,603; 5,498,046; 5,857,722; 5,915,768; 6,149,303; 6,450,461 and 7,744,044 all relate to shaping a floppy yard bag's entrance and sometimes the interior so it can be laid flat on the ground and yard debris swept into it. This is obviously different from the current invention where a flat side shape is a part of the containment structure itself without any insertion. Disadvantages of the cited patents are that they describe a floppy bag with the inconvenience of inserting and attaching another system into it. In damp weather the inserts tend to stick and are difficult to remove after use. Another inconvenience is that the entrance is limited by what the yard bag can accommodate: Using a wide yard broom to sweep debris into an entrance not much wider than the broom is obviously somewhat clumsy and requires many repeated movements for satisfactory filling. A “collapsible refuse collection apparatus” is described in U.S. Pat. No. 6,874,797 B2. It is made of flexible material with a framework and this differs from the current invention. To bag debris for waste pickup, a slightly stiff paper yard bag is inserted into it and it is laid down flat for sweeping into. It suffers the same restriction that other solutions do in that the area swept into is limited by the bag opening size. The said apparatus collapses, but no surface is folded more than once, unlike the current invention. Recognizing these problems may the basis of solutions with U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,104,133 and 5,529,321 where a large sheet of material like a tarpaulin is loaded with leaves or other debris and pulled away. In practice loading can be done by sweeping, but is often done by power air blowers driving the leaves onto the large surface. If done by a sizable commercial lawn care company, such a sheet may be folded and lifted by several people and then dumped into a truck bed for hauling away. When done by a smaller entity or home residents, bagging in standard yard bags for pickup by a waste management company is more appropriate, and thus the aforementioned large sheets offer no advantage. Smaller of the aforementioned sheets have been commercialized, some flexible and some with stiffness. In either case, personnel must frequently crouch or bend downward to close the bundle then rise and transfer it to an upright debris container. This is tiresome and limits efficient cleanup. The yard debris cleanup and handling is very similar to removal of construction debris or handling of loose materials in industrial sites. The omission of foldable, collapsible containers with triangular cross-sections and substantially rigid walls requiring hinges has continued through 2010 and is typified by U.S. Pat. No. 7,823,739 B2 by Sadkin, whose invention is in the same class and subclass as the current invention.
Following Hurricane Katrina and the New Orleans disaster, plans were proposed by empathetic and entrepreneurial parties to accelerate movement of large populations into temporary housing faster than FEMA trailers could be provided. Tent cities were the unsatisfactory default alternative. Temporary shelter based on ship/railway shipping containers was proposed, but the incompleteness and non-collapsibility for transport carriers was a problem. The conclusion of such hurricane relief proposal studies is the need for a temporary receptacle or basic structure, better than a tent but less than a static building structure that could be collapsed, transported and easily erected for attachment of other personal-need equipment. The US patent class for “receptacle” allows such uses but overlaps other classes better explored through application terms than formal patent class terms. Application terms relating to temporary shelter, but less than static building components, were sought in the current patent search. Tents have been described in such patents as that by T. M. Wan (U.S. Pat. No. 5,411,046) but do not have the stiff surface wall segments to which utilities could be attached and they have an extra framework to contend with. U.S. Pat. No. 3,971,185 granted to J. H. Hendrich titled “Method of erecting a foldable building module” includes a foldable A-frame structure which, however does not include flooring (a 3rd side in the current invention) and collapses, but does not fold to a dimension less than one side of the roof. H. E. Walmer describes a dollhouse in U.S. Pat. No. 4,021,960. This structure is too complex and does not collapse to a small profile, thus transportability and simplicity for a scale-up is problematic. T. Dunn's U.S. Pat. No. 4,195,593 describes a dog house. It has extra framework in addition to wall structure and is sizable in profile when collapsed. It does not have the advantages of the current invention. G. A. Binkert was awarded U.S. Pat. No. 4,576,116 for a “Collapsible house for cats”. This falls into an insufficient category like tents, having even less advantages when scaled up. Japan patent 5209436(A) awarded to Nakatani specifies some degree of collapse using hinges, but does not fold to a small profile or have triangular cross section. U.S. Pat. No. 5,444,944 describes a “Low cost collapsible enclosure” which again basically has four erect walls with straightforward hinging, unlike the current invention. Its cost and complexity certainly exceed a simple a temporary shelter setup. J. Sung describes a “collapsible/foldable container” in U.S. Pat. No. 5,492,269. Its shape approaches octagonal at the entrance and because of numerous facets would not provide basic stability needed by light structure walled housing even if scaled up. The purpose of a “Collapsible shipping container” by R. J. Lickton in U.S. Pat. No. 6,039,243 appears to be a two-wheeled cart of triangular cross section that can be operated by one person. It is collapsible, but its profile is limited by not being smaller than one side, when opened. A patent search for emergency housing revealed that W. Koneke, in U.S. Pat. No. 5,752,470 proposed a “Collapsible structure” or small free-standing structure which generally assumed a rectangular shape after setup. His concept, on a larger scale, could be used for emergency housing. However, his invention is different from the tri-sided shape being described in the current invention and thus does not have its rigidity and resistance to deformation upon external pressure. It also does not reduce the area of the collapsed structure to less than that of one side of the expanded structure; in some cases it is greater. A patent search in “temporary housing” revealed U.S. Pat. No. 6,148,835 entitled “Temporary housing frame” by S. D. Rhee. However, his patent only concerned the house frame, which in some cases appeared to be collapsible. Still, a solution for collapse of the entire structure was not presented, as it is in the current invention. A “Collapsible container” by B. D. Blaszak in U.S. Pat. No. 6,698,382 B1 describes a structure which has three rectangular sides as does the current invention. However, it does not collapse to a profile width less than that of one side. Also, some folding is required in his finished structure and multiple layers upon folding sides with ends tucked inward requires unique hinging not described in his patent. Unless the wall thickness is very small (such as in a cardboard box), full collapse of the container is dysfunctional without further invention. U.S. Pat. No. 7,552,563 B2 issued to Becker has a remarkably folded structure for large enough housing and is classified by the USPTO as Static Building 52. It differs from the current invention in that his structure is geometrically more complex, has more sides, must finally be fixed with means involving glue, nails, staples, tabs, etc., and has hinges which actuate rotationally in only one direction. Disadvantages for fast, temporary setup and tear down are the additional time and effort to deal with more complex folds, need to add and remove fastening means or deal with troublesome tabs and more fragility to external forces than the temporary, three-sided structure of the current invention. A U.S. Pat. No. 7,647,731 B2 titled “Prefabricated modular building” by inventor Muir describes a three-walled structure with separate room, appearing to be a semi-outdoor environment component. There the emphasis is on trusses for erect walls, does not have the advantage of simplicity and would require exterior cladding, unlike the current invention. Finally U.S. Pat. No. 7,631,460 B2 issued to Napier called “Transportable building” specifies a significant structure for housing that, although transportable to a site, is meant to be a static, complex building. The cost of such a structure in fabrication, transportation, erection and finishing would exceed the budget for of quick, simple emergency housing applications addressed by the current invention.
One object of the current invention is a containment structure with a shape that has advantages for certain uses, examples to follow. Another object is the structural folding for collapse in a way that gives a uniquely small profile. A third object is utility from hinging methods uniquely affixed so as to accommodate the extra folds and keep structural segments connected. Specifically the advantages are: 1. Compact storage and transportability; every surface facet folds one or more times for a smaller profile, a degree unusual in collapsible containers. For example, on the smaller scale, a yard pickup container could be folded compactly and placed inside a narrower container for storage. Practically all pieces of the containment structure remain connected when collapsed. On the larger scale, a truck trailer bed could haul a stack of collapsed structures of width that, unfolded, would be oversized loads. 2. Wall stiffness requires some thickness, and for the benefits of increased folding with finite thickness, an unusual combination of hinging is provided to accommodate the requirements caused by the triangular cross-section. The current invention describes examples of at least three types of such hinging: ordinary bonded strip hinging, guided elastic strap hinging, and rotatable hinging for end segment(s). 3. The tri-sided shape of the structure itself affords benefits such as resistance to deformation and distortion by external forces. Other gains depend on use. For example, on the smaller scale, its shape contributes to reducing exhaustion in yard or construction site debris cleanup. As shown in
a: Fold line groups (3 and 4) in surfaces of collapsible containment structure; side surfaces are depicted as transparent for internal visibility.
b: Continuous hinging strips seen on surface 1b and side 2y for groups 3 and 4 fold lines and three edges (corners) of side surfaces.
a to 4d: Progressive views through open end for successive stages of simultaneous collapse about group 3 fold lines and group 2 side edges.
e: Detail of underside of surface 2z as shown in
f: Alternate detail for underside of surface 2z as shown in
a to 5d: Progressive views from side of collapsible containment structure showing folding process including end surface 1b.
a to 7b: Two-step process illustrating advantages of collapsible containment structure's shape for debris cleanup; 7a—sweeping into containment structure, 7b—flipping over and pouring from containment structure into container 13 of smaller diameter. (Preferably length 2e is slightly less than length 2d; fold lines are not shown.)
A solid geometry description of the opened structure is shown in
a depicts fold lines in the each of the material surfaces for the collapsible structure. Orientation is the same as in
Although
b illustrates attached, flexible strips that allow hinging about certain fold lines and surface edges. Obviously, for thin malleable material like cardboard, a fold line can simply be a crease in the material which compresses its thickness along a line. For thicker, stiffer materials, this is insufficient. A preferred method is use of continuous strips bonded to the inside or outside of a surface at a fold line. In
a shows an end view of the structure, looking through the open end with side surface 2z (in
e depicts the undersurface (for the orientation in
a-5d depicts a succession of side views toward the 2y side as the containment structure is collapsed. It shows how the end surface 1b folds outward at fold lines 4(o) and inward at fold lines 4(i). Six special hinges 6 near the end-edge of side surfaces are located close to group 3 fold lines and connect on either side of inward folds 4(i) on surface 1b. This allows partial separation of end surface 1b from the adjacent edges of side surfaces 2x, 2y, 2z without being completely disconnected. This is necessary because (as shown in
The current invention provides a unique combination of simple structures and folding means. It avails itself to several receptacle functions in ways that reduce storage and transport problems, task labor, expense, time and exhaustion. The invention's relatively rigid wall segments with triangular and rectangular geometries provide unique advantages. However they also require a varied combination of hinging devices to accommodate folding and collapse to an unusually small profile while yet maintaining connection. Surprising and difficult fold dynamics that occurred in the prototype were remedied and the results became a part of this application.
The flexible strip hinging for several fold lines were presented in examples as bonded to a side or end surface wall over a fold line, either externally or internally. As explained, this strip could be replaced by a series of small hinges in a line, each closing in a direction perpendicular that line, and serve the same purpose. Also a flexible hinge strip could be replaced by a “living hinge”, a thinner molded part of the connecting wall segments. Depending on use, weather stripping or available similar means at fold lines and the junctions of side and end walls may be affixed to avoid air, moisture, gas or liquid penetration. For example a gasket-like function could be attained by placing such stripping on the interior very near the adjacent edges of side and end walls. If on the interior of both side and end walls, compression of the two malleable strips could occur. Due to elasticity of such stripping, required hinging should not present a problem. An overall, close fitting bag-like covering could also be slipped on, as an option for weatherproofing.
The current invention has not heretofore specified all appropriate receptacle contents, living or inert; it has presented examples to show utility. It has not specified a particular second end surface (top 1t in
The current invention does not specify particular material, but rather pertains to mechanics and fold structure dynamics. However, available materials for the side and end walls of the structure do exist. Examples are walls of lightweight solid wood, coated balsa, polymer foam panels bonded to thin sheets of durable plastic; metal, fiberglass or carbon honeycomb clad with solid sheeting, etc. Any durable material is usable, but the lighter materials with porous or structured voids are more portable. It is essential that the thickness of cladding or inner contents of the wall be of sufficient strength to support screws or adhesion for any attachments that are desired in the receptacle.
Examples given illustrate advantages of the current invention but do not limit it. Reasonable extensions of specifications presented also fall within the scope of the current invention. The scope should be determined by appended claims and legal equivalents, rather than by examples given.