Not Applicable
Not Applicable
1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to tessellating pattern blocks that can be linked to create a variety interesting surface patterns.
2. Prior Art—Two Dimensional Tessellations
A variety of two dimensional tessellating pattern puzzles are known. The simplest examples are traditional jigsaw puzzles, which feature irregularly shaped pieces with graphics. The puzzle pieces tessellate (fit together to fill space) and create continuous patterns when the pieces are correctly assembled. While these puzzles are enjoyable, they tend to stifle creativity; there is only one way to put them together. Concerning one particular edge of one particular puzzle piece, it can only properly abut to one other edge of one other puzzle piece.
Other known tessellating puzzles, whose pieces have more regular geometric shapes, offer more opportunities for creative expression. Although there is still generally one “solution,” pieces of some of these puzzles can be assembled to tessellate in a variety of ways, each of which produces a continuous graphic pattern. However, these pieces with regular geometric shapes are most often still limited in the manner that they can abut with one another. For example, one edge often properly abuts to a fraction of all other edges. Furthermore, although they are interesting, these tessellation puzzles still cannot match the concrete “realness” of a three-dimensional building block. They literally lack a fundamental dimension. A two dimensional tessellation simply does not have the richness and complexity of three dimensional reality.
The reason that makers of two dimensional tessellation puzzles have not made three dimensional puzzles is simply that creating an three dimensional tessellation is very difficult.
Three Dimensional Tessellations
In fact, many common brick-shaped construction blocks do tessellate. Furthermore, they connect releasably. However, these blocks' tessellations are usually limited by the fact that each face can connect most often to one other face. Additionally, most often only two faces of these blocks can form any connection at all. Furthermore, these blocks do not have interesting surface patterns that form continuous patterns with adjacent blocks. If they did have surface patterns, those patterns would always connect to adjacent blocks in the same manner, due to the restrictive nature of their connections.
Some three dimensional tessellation puzzles with surface patterns are known. Whitehurst (U.S. Pat. No. 5,407,201—Apr. 19, 1995) describes a three-dimensional puzzle with individual pieces featuring overlapping “indicia.” These indicia span the edges of juxtaposed pieces. However, since the juxtaposed pieces of Whitehurst's puzzle form only discrete images at their borders, no surprising and interesting patterns can emerge. One can, for example, juxtapose the left and right halves of a pig, but one is still stuck with pigs; it is not possible to arrange the puzzle so something new and unexpected appears. Another shortcoming of Whitehurst's puzzles is that the pieces have no means of connection. They must be supported by a special tray that helps the overall puzzle maintain structural integrity.
Rachovsky (U.S. Pat. No. 6,196,544—Mar. 6, 2001) describes a three-dimensional puzzle whose pieces can be used to create a variety of continuous patterns. Rachovsky's puzzle pieces are identically shaped “z-polycube” pieces featuring different surface patterns. When Rachovsky's puzzle pieces are juxtaposed, banded patterns emerge. By rearranging a plurality of puzzle pieces, one can create a variety of structures with a variety of surface patterns.
Although Rachovsky's puzzle does enable a player to create something new, it has several key disadvantages. First, Rachovsky's puzzle pieces do not securely connect to one another to produce structures with integrity; they must be stacked, nested, or nestled. Second, Rachovsky's puzzle is too difficult and unintuitive to be broadly appealing to the public. His z-shaped puzzle pieces are tricky to manipulate, and his blocks' non-identical surface patterns make play very challenging. A third disadvantage of Rachovsky's puzzle is that his individual puzzle pieces are not inviting in themselves. They are simply not fun looking.
Tessellating Polyhedra with “Six Face Symmetry”
Several U.S. Patents (U.S. Pat. No. 5,098,328, by Bierens—Mar. 24, 1992; U.S. Pat. No. 6,439,571, by Wilson—Aug. 27, 2002; and U.S. Pat. No. D359,315, by Tacey—Jun. 13, 1995) describe cube blocks with “six face symmetry.” All of these cubes' faces are identical, allowing any face on one of these cubes to connect with any face on another identical block. Accordingly, these cubes are generally intended to be used as a set of identical blocks which connect together to build structures. These characteristics make these cubes much more intuitive and simpler to use than the “z-polycubes” described by Rachovsky. However, these prior art cubes with “six face symmetry”, as well as other symmetric polyhedral blocks, have several salient disadvantages.
A first disadvantage of known construction polyhedra is that none of their designs can be easily manufactured using injection molding processes. All of them require the manufacture and assembly of many individual pieces. For example, Bierens' patent (referenced above) suggests a method by which his cubes might be manufactured as six separate pieces, which must then be assembled before use. Hollister describes a somewhat similar plan for a tetrahedral building block with symmetrical faces in his U.S. Pat. No. 6,152,797 (Nov. 28, 2000). Hollister's patent showed how his tetrahedron block might be manufactured as four separate triangular faces, plus four separate insertable connectors—eight pieces in all.
A second disadvantage of known “facially symmetric” polyhedra is that, when they are assembled, no new and interesting continuous surface patterns emerge. They are not a pattern puzzle so much as a structural medium. They lack the intriguing bands that are produced by Rachovsky's “z-polycubes,” for example.
A third disadvantage of the known “facially symmetric” cubes is that their individual appearances are purely functional, not fun. They are geometric structures whose purpose is apparent, but who are not inviting or entertaining in and of themselves.
Accordingly, my invention has several objects and advantages. A first object of my invention is to provide a puzzle piece that can tessellate in three dimensions. This ability to tessellate (i.e. fill space) means that my pattern cubes can be used to build a wide variety of open and closed structures, extending in any direction.
A second object of my invention is to provide a pattern cube, any face of which can connect to any face of an identical pattern cube. This ability to connect from any face, to any face, makes my pattern cubes easy to use. One does not have to search for a compatible face, because they are all compatible.
A third object of my invention is to provide a secure but releasable snap connection between mated cubes. This connection allows a plurality of my cubes to be assembled into a secure structure that can be lifted, moved, and displayed.
A fourth object of my invention is to provide pattern cubes with banded surface patterns that, upon connection of my cubes, form continuous banded patterns that extend across the borders between adjacent cubes. This ability ensures that every visible face of a connected cube will be part of an interesting and continuous band pattern. Thus there is essentially “no wrong answer” during play.
A fifth object of my invention is to provide pattern cubes that can produce either of two distinct types of cross-border patterns upon connection. Specifically, either linear or right-angle band patterns form across the borders between adjacent cubes. Which pattern emerges depends upon which cube faces are connected. This variation allows a “player” to control the types of patterns that emerge when connections are made, thus controlling the overall pattern of the structure that is being built. Someone building a “meta-cube” of eight individual pattern cubes could, for example, create a structure with either six or twelve continuous surface bands. In fact, one use of my pattern blocks is as a puzzle. The object of the puzzle is to build an eight cube structure that has one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, or twelve continuous bands. One, five, and twelve are very difficult. Four and six are easiest.
A sixth object of my invention is to provide a construction cube whose connectors resemble an adjacent nose and mouth. This resemblance allows an entire face of one of my cubes to be styled as a bandit's visage. When colored black, the two surface bands on each face resemble a bandit's mask. The additions of eyes peering through one of the bands, and dimples to accentuate the “smile,” complete the bandit's visage. Every face of my pattern cubes appears to be an identical bandit, and my cubes connect as two bandits bite one another's nose. In this way, even a single one of my cubes is entertaining. The fact that they bite noses to connect makes them even more fun.
A seventh object of my invention is to provide a pattern block that is simple and economical to manufacture. Production quantities of my blocks have been successfully molded as two pieces of plastic, using a straight-pull injection mold. Their two plastic parts were quite easily assembled.
Further objects and advantages of my invention will become apparent from a consideration of the drawings and ensuing description.
In accordance with the present invention my pattern cube comprises first and second sets of three contiguous faces. The first set of three contiguous faces has third order rotational symmetry about a common corner. Each face of this first set comprises two bands, each band beginning at the midpoint of an edge of the face that ends at the common corner, and each band paralleling a surface diagonal that emanates from the common corner of the face. Each face of this first set further comprises a male connector fin and a female connector slot, both adjacent to and paralleling the previously mentioned diagonal. The male connector fin and female connector slot are essentially 180 degree rotations of one another about the diagonal. The second set of three contiguous faces is an enantiomer of the first set.
A preferred embodiment of my pattern cubes consists of two sets of contiguous, identical, square faces. Each set of faces has 3rd order rotational symmetry about a common corner, and each set is an enantiomer (mirror image, but non-identical) of the other set.
Due to the symmetry of my pattern cubes, a careful description of one cube face can be used to understand the entire cube. To that end, the features of face 22 will be described here in detail.
[Note: since all faces on my pattern cubes are identical, identical features on different faces are indicated with the same number but different suffixes. For example, on face 22 there is male fin 36A, while on face 23 there is an identical male fin 36B.]
Although it is not apparent from the figures, in my preferred embodiment bands 30A and 28A are painted black.
The relationship between the contours of male fin 36A and female slot 38A can be better understood through
An even more complete picture of this relationship is shown in
The perspective of
Finally, it can be understood from
In the previous section, the features of face 22 were described in detail. Now the features of the entire cube of six faces will be summarized in reference to face 22.
Face 22 is one member of the set 18 of three contiguous faces. This set 18 has third order rotational symmetry about its common corner 20. Therefore, each face 22, 24, and 26 of the set 18 is identical. Furthermore, the second set 19 of contiguous faces, comprising contiguous faces 23, 25, and 27 is an enantiomer (mirror image, but not identical) of set 18. Although set 18 and set 19 are mirror images but not identical objects, each individual face 23, 25, and 27 is identical to each face 22, 24, and 26. It is the orientations of the faces in each set that lend the sets their non-identicality.
My pattern cubes function as snap-together, pattern-creating building blocks.
Two of my cubes may be snapped together in exactly three geometrically distinct configurations. One of these configurations was just described in the preceding paragraph.
A second type of connection is shown if
By comparing
When multiple cubes are joined together, interesting banded patterns emerge.
One aspect of my preferred embodiment that cannot be entirely understood from these figures is that the all bands 30A-F and 28A-F are painted black, while all other cube features are white. This contrast accentuates the banded patterns to an extent that is not clearly shown in
Another important feature of my cubes' connections is that their bands may be made to form right angle or linear configurations.
My pattern blocks may be an open-ended creative medium, an avenue for geometric exploration, or a puzzle. One particularly interesting puzzle involves creating structures of eight cubes with given numbers of “continuous” surface bands. The structure of cubes in
A player can create an eight cube structure with exactly 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, or 12 continuous bands. Eight cube structures with ten or eleven continuous bands are impossible.
This alternative embodiment operates in exactly the same manner as the preferred embodiment, except for the fact that it utilizes a friction fit connection, rather than a snap-fit connection.
One of these second alternative embodiments can connect to another such cube by nose-biting. When the nose-biting connection is made, large teeth 64L and 64R (shown in
As
As
As
From the description above, a number of advantages of my pattern cubes become evident:
(a) My pattern cubes can be snapped together, via any face, to tessellate (fill space) in three dimensions. This allows a great variety of open and closed structures to be built in any direction.
(b) My pattern cubes connect with a secure but releasable snap fit. Structures created with my pattern cubes can be moved—even tossed—while maintaining structural integrity.
(c) No matter which faces are connected, connecting my pattern cubes reveals interesting, continuous surface patterns. In a sense, there is no “wrong answer” when one builds with my cubes.
(d) My pattern cubes can be used as an intriguing and challenging puzzle. The two types of continuous patterns that emerge between cubes (right angle and linear) can be used judiciously to arrive at a “solution.” One can, for example, build an eight cube structure with exactly one continuous band circumnavigating its surface.
(e) My pattern cubes are economical to manufacture. They may be injection molded as two pieces of plastic, using a straight pull mold. Those two pieces of plastic can be easily and permanently assembled with a press-fit.
(f) My pattern cubes are fun. Each of their identical faces looks like the face of a bandit. Individual cubes connect as two bandits bite one anothers' nose.
While the above description contains many specificities, these should not be construed as limitations on the scope of the invention, but rather as an exemplification of one preferred embodiment thereof. Many other variations are possible. For example,
Accordingly, the scope of the invention should be determined not by the embodiments illustrated, but by the appended claims and their legal equivalents.
This application claims the benefit of provisional patent application Ser. No. 61/011,032, filed 2008 Jan. 14 by the present inventor.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
2493435 | Arehambault | Jan 1950 | A |
3655201 | Nichols | Apr 1972 | A |
3788645 | Nelson | Jan 1974 | A |
5000713 | Cheng | Mar 1991 | A |
5098328 | Beerens | Mar 1992 | A |
5407201 | Whitehurst | Apr 1995 | A |
D359315 | Tacey | Jun 1995 | S |
5617691 | Yamamoto | Apr 1997 | A |
6086444 | Glickman | Jul 2000 | A |
6152797 | David | Nov 2000 | A |
6196544 | Rachovsky | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6439571 | Wilson | Aug 2002 | B1 |
20080280523 | Bishop | Nov 2008 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61011032 | Jan 2008 | US |