US20230032644A1

US20230032644A1 - Jigfinity, the Jigsaw Logic Puzzle

Info

Publication number: US20230032644A1
Application number: US17/390,934
Authority: US
Inventors: Mark Andrew Higginson
Original assignee: Individual
Current assignee: Individual
Priority date: 2021-07-31
Filing date: 2021-07-31
Publication date: 2023-02-02

Abstract

A deductive reasoning puzzle implementing a polyform set of jigsaw-styled puzzle pieces, to be arranged via matching according to constraints set forth in given schematic cards. Best solved through a systematic process of elimination. Serves educational, developmental, and entertainment purposes.

Description

INVENTION TYPE

“Puzzles” as a form of entertainment, cognitive testing, or mental exercise refers, in the broadest sense, to any challenge requiring the exertion of mental faculties. The classification of the types of puzzles in existence are therefore as extensive as the breadth of human cognitive function itself. To name only a few of the more prominent categories as mere examples, popular types of puzzles may be linguistic in nature (such as crosswords or Jumbles), require deductive reasoning (such as Sudoku or Perplexors), or consist of a visual-spatial task, such as the classic jigsaw puzzle.
The invention herein described consists of a deductive reasoning challenge which employs physical manipulatives that are to be arranged spatially via a sequential process of elimination and according to given constraints communicated on schematic cards. Deductive reasoning puzzles employing physical manipulatives are popular in both the art of puzzle-making as well as among their consuming enthusiasts. Examples of this type of puzzle include Rush Hour and River Crossing as marketed by the company Thinkfun.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

An additional piece of information pertinent to the present invention is the concept of “polyforms” in puzzle design. A polyform is a set of shapes which together represent all of the possible permutations or combinations of a finite number of geometric features given certain design constraints. An example of a classic polyform puzzle is that of Tetris, which combines 4 squares adjacent to each other either horizontally or vertically, but not diagonally unless there is a horizontal or vertical square connecting the diagonal squares. These combinations are presented to the player of the puzzle who then must organize them in the most spatially economical way he or she is capable of, avoiding empty spaces between the puzzle pieces, while seeking to completely “fill” rows within a given playing field with squares from one side to the other.

UTILITY OF INVENTION

While it is sufficient to state the long accepted educational and cultural entertainment value and benefits of puzzles in general as fulfilling the requirement of usefulness for invention patentability, additional context is noteworthy. At the time of initial patent application for the present invention, year 2020, a global pandemic has led to dramatic economic fluctuations worldwide, some predictable and some unexpected. One such trend includes a notable increase in puzzle sales in general, presumably correlating with an increase in consumers seeking home-based entertainment in consequence of a general increase in consumer time off work and therefore increased leisure opportunity limited in scope due to physical distancing practices enacted to fight the pandemic. A considerable population exists for whom puzzles satisfy this given need.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF INVENTION

The core concept of the present invention will be described in the claims section of this application for the purpose of clarifying precisely what is being patented, but the drawings and technical descriptions will contain embellishments and features which are extraneous to the core concept. They are nonetheless included in the description and figures for the sake of demonstrating the production possibilities and marketability of the puzzle invention itself, as well as to help the reader conceptualize the invention.
Puzzle Components:

- 1. Ten puzzle piece manipulatives comprising a jigsaw polyform set (see FIGS. 1 and 2 ).
- 2. A base for the puzzle which acts as a working space for attempting solutions (see FIG. 3 ), and a cover for storage purposes (see FIG. 4 ).
- 3. A set of schematics which serve as deductive reasoning challenges for the player/user of the puzzle to “solve” (see FIG. 5 ).

Puzzle Goal or Objective:
Arrange the 10 polyform puzzle pieces in a way that connects them in an unbroken circle according to the constraints set forth in the various schematic cards.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

FIG. 1 : Top-view perspective of the 10 polyform puzzle pieces. 1 designates a circle protrusion connector. 2 designates a circle intrusion connector. 3 designates a square protrusion connector. 4 designates a square intrusion connector. 5 designates the grouping of the 10 pieces in pairs in relation to the overall design as discussed further in the section under the heading “Non-Obvious Nature of Invention.”

FIG. 2 : Perspective view of nearly fully assembled puzzle. 6 refers to the puzzle's nature in general. In this representation, the form is circular. 7 highlights the center hole of an individual puzzle piece, correlating with the pegs of the base board.

FIG. 3 : Perspective view of cover/lid of product. 11 designates a hole to be placed over a like-shaped peg arising out of the base plate.

FIG. 4 : Perspective view of the base plate. 8 designates the pegs upon which the individual puzzle pieces fit. 9 designates the center of the base plate upon which challenge cards are to be placed. 10 designates the peg through which the top plate is fitted for storage purposes.

FIG. 5 : Front and back view of challenge cards. 12 represents a schematic line connecting two like colored puzzle pieces. 13 designates a hole through which the large peg on the baseplate protrudes so as to keep the challenge card seated properly. 14 represents an encoded hint (decoded via red transparent filter) revealing the color of the two pieces connected by the schematic line.

NOVELTY OF INVENTION

Heretofore, jigsaw puzzle pieces or manipulatives have been used in puzzles in only one of two distinct ways.

- 1. As components of an overall picture or 3-dimensional figure to be put together by the consumer (requiring visual discrimination and memory skills to various degrees of performance).
- 2. As pieces of a “brain teaser” in which the connecting, disconnecting, movement, etc. of the pieces appears simplistic but is rendered difficult by some complicating additional feature existing in the design of the work (requires mechanical skills and/or creative thinking to solve).

There are three related attributes of the present invention that are both novel as well as fundamental to its function and purpose. These core features are heretofore undocumented.
Given the complexity of the developmental process of the present invention, they are also presumed unprecedented. These features are as follows:

- 1. The rendering of the classic jigsaw puzzle piece into a definable polyform set.
- 2. The utilization of said polyform set as the primary components of a reasoning task that is inherently deductive in nature.
- 3. In connection with feature # 1, a color-coding system devised for said polyform set which results in “playable” deductive challenges.

Description of Play
The puzzle is played as follows: A schematic card is set in the center of the baseplate in FIG. 3 on the surface labeled 9. The hole on the card in FIG. 5 labeled 13 is placed over the protrusion on the baseplate labeled 10. Lines on the schematic, such as that labeled 12 in FIG. 5 , represent connections between two like-colored puzzle pieces, matched in color according to color groups established in label 5 of FIG. 1 . If the line on the schematic card is black or otherwise designated neutral, then the player knows that like-colored pieces go on either end of the line but does not know what specific color is to be placed in the given positions. If the line is colored, then the player knows what color is to place in the given positions but does not know the specific placement between the two pieces nor orientation thereof. The puzzle pieces are placed around the borders of the schematic with the holes in the pieces as exemplified in FIG. 2 label 7 being placed over the pegs on the baseplate as exemplified in FIG. 4 label 8. A challenge is completed successfully when the player arranges all ten pieces around the baseplate in a complete circle and according to the constraints of the schematic challenge card. See FIG. 2 label 6 for a nearly completed circular connection of the puzzle pieces (not shown as on the baseplate or around a schematic, but representing the ability for the polyform set to fully connect back on itself). Regarding FIG. 5 : the challenge schematic is represented on the front of the card whereas the solution is represented on the back of the card. “Hints” as exemplified in FIG. 5 label 14 reveal colors of additional lines beyond those “given” at the start of the puzzle through the means of text concealed behind a colored design and revealed through a color filtering “decoder.” For convenience in storing the puzzle, the cover represented in FIG. 3 has a hole labeled 11 which fits over the peg in FIG. 4 label 10 in order that the cover be secured to the base.

NON-OBVIOUS NATURE OF INVENTION

Understanding the development process of the present invention's premise is key to recognizing its non-obvious nature. Such a description will also facilitate a deeper understanding of what forms the invention may take as a product. The spatial components that constitute the invention's polyform set of manipulatives are as follows:

- A circular jigsaw protrusion (connects only to the circular intrusion; see diagram label 1)
- A circular jigsaw intrusion (connects only to the circular protrusion; see diagram label 2)
- A square jigsaw protrusion (connects only to the square intrusion; see diagram label 3)
- A square jigsaw intrusion (connects only to the square protrusion; see diagram label 4)

These four types of connections are arranged with either two protrusions, two intrusions, or a protrusion-intrusion combination put together on one manipulative, with the connectors facing opposing directions relative to one other for the purpose of connecting to other corresponding pieces in the polyform set. Thus, we achieve the following sixteen permutations: (Notations: Circular Protrusion=Cp, Circular Intrusion=Ci, Square Protrusion=Sp, Square Intrusion=Si)

- Cp/Cp, Cp/Ci, Cp/Sp, Cp/Si
- Ci/Cp, Ci/Ci, Ci/Sp, Ci/Si
- Sp/Cp, Sp/Ci, Sp/Sp, Sp/Si
- Si/Cp, Si/Ci, Si/Sp, Si/Si

In one possible version of this invention (the version displayed in the included Figures) these permutations are further reduced to combinations, i.e. we eliminate a permutation if it is the reverse of another permutation already included in the set (for example, Ci/Cp is considered the same as Cp/Ci, as one single piece combining a circular protrusion and circular intrusion can be flipped” or manipulated in space so as to represent either permutation of Ci/Cp or Cp/Ci). We then are left with the following ten combinations, which represent the pieces of the version of the puzzle as displayed in the included Figures:

- Cp/Cp, Cp/Ci, Cp/Sp, Cp/Si
- Ci/Ci, Ci/Sp, Ci/Si
- Sp/Sp, Sp/Si
- Si/Si

These ten pieces are then matched and colored in subsets of two (see diagram label 5) in order that they facilitate the creation of deductive reasoning challenges communicated via color-coded schematics (see FIG. 5 for an example of two such schematics). The process of matching and color-coding involved the following mathematical and deductive process: The geometric features of the polyform set were converted to numerical values in order that they be “workable” mathematically. A positive value was assigned to each protrusion, and its correlating intrusion was assigned a negative value equal in absolute value to its positive correlate (i.e., Cp=1, Ci=−1, Sp=2, Si=−2). The total value of a combination was then computed (combination Ci/Ci would, for example, equal a total value of −2). Pairs of individual manipulatives were then made based on pairing like absolute values. For instance, −2 (Ci/Ci) and 2 (Cp/Cp) were paired. Based on this process, the following pairs were made:

- Cp/Ci & Sp/Si
- SCi/Sp & Cp/Si
- Cp/Cp &Ci/Ci
- Cp/Sp & Ci/Si
- Sp/Sp & Si/Si

It was crucial for the purpose of schematic generation that each matched subset of two pieces be able to connect within itself in at least one configuration. One of the five paired sets did not meet this criteria, and therefore two subsets had to be reordered strategically. The specific subsets to be reordered were chosen based on analysis of the geometric features of each subset in relation to the other subsets. The chosen reordering resulted in a polyform set of ten pieces grouped in five subsets that are conceptually “parallel” or “symmetrical” in terms of geometrical features when compared to the other subsets. To demonstrate this conceptual symmetry,” the reasoning behind subset pairs is included hereafter.
The specific subset needing reordered was that of Cp/Ci matched with Sp/Si (geometrically parallel, yet not connectable within the subset). The reordering of this set with another strategically selected set resulted in the following 5 subsets (visually represented in FIG. 1 diagram 5):

- Cp/Cp & Ci/Ci
- Sp/Sp & Si/Si
- Cp/Sp & Cp/Ci
- Ci/Si & Sp/Si
- Ci/Sp & Cp/Si

The reasoning behind these pairings is as follows:

- One subset consists of all circle connectors (Cp/Cp & Ci/Ci) compared to its parallel, a subset of all square connectors (Sp/Sp & Si/Si). Both subsets contain a double protrusion manipulative and a double intrusion manipulative.
- One subset contains both kinds of protrusions on one manipulative, whereas its parallel contains both kinds of intrusions on one manipulative (Cp/Sp compared to Ci/Si). Meanwhile, the other pieces in the subsets are parallel in that one piece contains an intrusion and protrusion of circles, whereas its parallel contains an intrusion and protrusion of squares.
- The remaining subset is the “odd one out” so to speak, in that there are only 5 subsets in total and therefore it has no parallel subset. This is the most interesting subset of all in that conceptual “symmetry” is nonetheless maintained for the polyform subsets overall given that this is the only subset that has two different configurations in which it can connect within itself, and those configurations are parallel in conceptual form to one another. In one configuration, a square protrusion and square intrusion are on the terminal ends of the connected subset, and in the other configuration we see the parallel form of circle connectors on the terminal ends of the connected subset (an intrusion on one end and protrusion on the other).

Based on the inventor's experimentation, this specific grouping of the polyform manipulatives results in the most interesting and varied deductive reasoning challenges as well as the most visually appealing challenge schematics.

Claims

1. A deductive reasoning puzzle which implements physical manipulatives or the dynamic digital representation thereof, which said manipulatives consist of dual feature “connections” or pairings placed together on one piece (two ends being matchable in a way, such as color-matchable, number-matchable, geometrically-matchable or connectable, or other types of matching techniques), which said manipulatives represent all possible ten combinations or sixteen permutations of the features, in which said manipulatives are to be connected, matched, or otherwise arranged together relative to one another according to constraints provided in either visual schematics, written descriptions, or other possible representations of constraints.

2. The deductive reasoning puzzle according to claim 1 in which schematics rely upon the pairing of individual pieces into groups of two (if total set represents possible permutations) up to groups of four (if total set represents possible combinations) via any practical means, such as color-coding, number combinations, letter combinations, shape combinations, etc.

3. The deductive reasoning puzzle according to claim 1 in which pieces are to be arranged linearly or nearly linearly, or in other words, in which the pieces do not connect on the two terminal ends of the entire connected or arranged set.

4. The deductive reasoning puzzle according to claim 1 in which pieces are to be arranged or connected in a fully continuous manner, whether a circle or other shape, symmetrical or asymmetrical.