1A Field of the Invention
This invention is in the field of passive traction devices for the relief and/or prevention of trouble arising from muscular and skeletal distortions induced by tension, forced overextension injury, repetitive strain, situational pressures or other causes to the spinal and back musculature and vertebrae. No external power source (traction motor, vibrational motor, or therapeutic assistant massage) is involved, and the device's operation depends upon the force of gravity upon the body of the user, not gravitational force upon any portion of either the device or accompanying elements.
1B Description of the Related Art
It is a known problem that pain in one's back, shoulder and limbs is sometimes caused by the fact that standing erect causes, over time, shortening of the distances between adjacent vertebra with concurrent squeezing of disks between adjacent vertebra and the resultant compression of nerve endings that cause pain sensation. Additionally, and much more commonly, such pains arise from psychologically-induced muscular tensing (‘stress’); from over-extension of some muscles or ligaments and the consequent, reactive and protective tightening; or from repetitive motions and mechanical loads creating muscular tension in the limbs, shoulders, back, and spine. All of the above can be summarized as ‘postural or mechanical limb, shoulder, back, or spine pain’.
It is also known that the medical industry has been able to do little to reduce the amount of suffering from postural or mechanical limb, shoulder, back, or spine pain. The body's instinctive, reactive and protective response—to tighten the muscles around a point of pain—can create a vicious feedback cycle that continues to affect the area even after the initial stimulus or cause has been removed or neutralized. Additionally, most people cannot stop their daily activities, or change the elements of their work, home, or social environment(s) that may be creating the stress(es) most responsible for creation of tension in the muscles of their limbs, shoulder, back or spine. Accordingly, most people at some period of their life experience postural or mechanical limb, shoulder, back, or spine pain, and seek assistance from a myriad of remedies for the same.
At present, the main medical remedies consist of drugs, external physical therapy, rest, or (in severe cases) surgery. Drugs prescribed as a remedy may be highly addictive, leaving the patient with a residual problem once such pain has been alleviated; also, there are concerns over dosages and side effects (if they are ingested and/or injected for distribution through internal circulatory means), or difficulties in direct application (if applied as a patch, ointment, or gel) to an area of the body that even affected contortionists may have trouble touching. Those drugs that are muscle relaxants can also impair normal functioning, limit or prevent driving, or the use of potentially-hazardous machinery, and cause the sufferer problems with engaging in normal activities which present any potential hazard, for hours at a time.
Surgery, and external physical therapy, requires trained, expert, clinicians and as such is expensive and dependent upon the availability of such people. Furthermore, treatment and recovery time can be extensive.
Finally, the average person with postural or mechanical limb, shoulder, back, or spine pain often simply cannot afford to rest for the time recommended to fully heal.
Mechanical devices using power sources for providing traction or motion to the limbs, and thus the back or which work by lifting the user's legs, or body, are beyond the field of this invention. While the public domain (consider comedic medical skits) certainly includes the use of passive external weights attached to the limbs via pulleys to provide traction to or through the limbs, these are also beyond the field of this invention.
Purely passive, self-contained, traction devices are both on the market and in the patent literature. Among those currently on the market are the “Lumbar Extender Back Stretcher” (findable by Google search or at Amazon.com; the Health Mark Back Wave II; the True Spineworx Back Realignment Device; and the Stretch Mate Orthopedic Back Stretcher from TVTimedirect. The first two of these are symmetrical along the long axis, while the True Spineworx lacks any side support and has an inner ‘dip’ along the curve that follows the long axis; these are distinctive elements differentiating them from the present invention. There is also the “Trueback”, based on the invention described by Vincent, R. et al., U.S. Pat. No. 5,925,003 (hereinafter Vincent).
All of the above prior art is specifically cited in the accompanying IDS and is not claimed.
1C Differentiation from the Closest Prior Art
Of all the identified and disclosed prior art, only the latter two mentioned (StretchMate and TrueBack) have not already been differentiated above. Both the StretchMate and TrueBack incorporate a significant flaw that reflects an engineering, mechanical viewpoint and overlooks a crucial biological reality, and a blind spot as to the nature of the solution needed.
These two devices, as manufactured items, each contain linear edges and rectangular elements (cf. Vincent, Col. 2, lines 8-11: “a multiplicity of spaced generally rectangular protuberances with each rectangular protuberance being elongated in a direction perpendicular to the axis of elongation of the frame”).
Each of these devices focuses on the longitudinal treatment of postural or mechanical limb, shoulder, back, or spine pain—that is, they focus on how the user's back and spine are stretched along their length. But there is a different amount of ‘overhang’, or unsupported portion of the width of the user's body, along the length of the body; and the corresponding difference in the connective tensions and cantilever stresses that will be experienced as a consequence will interact with the longitudinal stretching. While it is true that, at the scale of treatment, gravity is a planar force, its interaction with the human body placed on top of a device that only partially supports the length and width of the user's body, is not planar in nature. Because people's bodies are both curved, and internally differentiated. Bone and muscle respond differently and are connected, not merely layered, in the body.
The effect on any unsupported portion will be a complex curvature due to the muscular and connective-tissue frictions from the closest supported portions of the body. Placing a significant fraction of one's body over a rectangular element or linear edge, or too sharp a curve (one approximating a linear edge), and extending a further portion of the body (or limb) beyond the linear edge, creates a cantilever weighting and downward stress line at that linear edge. (FIG. 7) When the drop of the unsupported portion of the body is sufficient to pressure the supported portion of the body against the flat surface, the effect will pinch flesh, circulatory vessels, muscle tissue, and nerves along that linear edge. Vincent, in fact, specifically teaches incorporating rectangular protuberances for just that purpose (Vincent, Col. 3, lines 14-16: “The protuberances 29 are designed to put pressure on muscles and nerve endings adjacent the spinal column”).
One of the major problems with the prior art is the presence of just such linear edges, ridges, blocks, and other elements that dig into the user's tissues and create a source of discomfort, pain, or counter-acting harm for the user. What is needed is something that makes use of the human body's layering and connectivity to provide more effective, yet gentle, therapeutic stretching of the affected portions.
Another major problem has been the use of uniform or mirror longitudinal curvatures, reflecting the perception that the same amount of pressure will work equally well along, all portions of a person's back—even though the stresses, and muscular and skeletal connections, vary between the top cervical and bottom lumbar vertebrae.
Vincent—though it teaches that the first problem is a feature, not a bug—partially addressed this second problem: “a device wherein the curvature of the rows of protuberances along the axis of elongation of the device varies from one end to the other” (Vincent, Col. 2, lines 43-45.) Vincent embeds a partial solution to the problem its inventors identified: “It has been found that exerting pressure on selected regions of the tissues adjacent the spinal column while leaving other areas untensioned allows achievement of enhanced therapeutic results.” (Vincent, Col. 3, lines 27-31). But Vincent teaches that pressure must be either present (as it is at each protuberance) or absent (as it is in each recess).
Additionally, the prior art including Vincent has failed to note that the human back is differentially shaped in the second dimension (width)—that is, the direction perpendicular to the axis of elongation and of the spine—and the human body is curved there, also. In fact, the focus of the prior art has remained exclusively on the single, longitudinal axis.
Vincent specifically teaches that adjustment for pressure intensity must be both linearly parallel with the spine (the elongated direction of the device), and intermittent with the pressure ridges. (Vincent, FIG. 5, elements [55] and [57]; Col. 3, lines 61-64: “When the infills 51 and 57 are inserted into the device 10 in the manner described, the upper walls 71 and 73 provide support for soft tissues laterally disposed with respect to the spinal” (Spelling and lack of period in issued patent) Vincent's narrow, uni-dimensional focus can also be seen in that invention's instruction that, “the user lies down lengthways on the device 10 with the spinal column aligned between the rows 25 and 27.” (Vincent, Col. 4, lines 31-33.) This invention does not consider, does not attempt to serve, and even worsens, stresses and strains along the lateral dimension—for it incorporates a 90° linear edge on each side (FIG. 1). Its rectangular cross-section (seen from the top on each side) does virtually nothing positive to open up the shoulders or relieve stresses across the width of the back; it does not attempt to address any need for a lateral stretch.
The present invention addresses the problems, issues, and dimension that the prior at and Vincent neither consider or teaches away from. First, it lacks perpendicular elements and linear ridges that dig into a user's back and likely are a source of pain and/or discomfort for the user; and secondly, it does not require the temporary use of ‘infills’ described in Vincent for the too-sharp rectangular elements. Finally, it addresses concerns and necessities of lateral connectivity and stresses, and provides means to avoid sharp linear element effects that can compromise a truly effective, two-dimensional stretch along and across the body, both the portion supported by the device and the portion(s) not supported by the device.
USPTO Backgrounds
USPTO Backgrounds