The following disclosure relates generally to stimulus-based therapeutic devices, systems, and methods. In particular, the disclosure relates to systems and methods for applying heat, vibration, electrical, and other stimulus to a patient's body for therapeutic purposes.
In 1965, Melzack and Wall described the physiologic mechanisms by which stimulation of large diameter non-pain sensory nerves could reduce the amount of unpleasant activity carried by pain nerves. This landmark observation published in Science was termed the “gate control theory” and offered a model to describe the interactions between various types of the sensory pathways in the peripheral and central nervous systems. The model described how non-painful sensory input such as mild electrical stimulation could reduce or gate the amount of nociceptive (painful) input that reached the central nervous system.
The gate-control theory stimulated research that lead to the creation of new medical devices such as transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulators (TENS). In brief, TENS works by electrically “blocking” pain impulses carried by peripheral nerves. Receptors to cold and heat are located just below the surface of the skin. Heat receptors are activated through a temperature range of about 36° C. to 45° C. and cold receptors by a temperature range about 1-20° C. below the normal skin temperature of 34° C. (Van Hees and Gybels, 1981). The stimuli are transmitted centrally by thin poly-modal C nerve fibers. Activation of heat receptors are also affected by the rate of rise of the heat stimuli (Yarnitsky, et al., 1992). Above 45° C. warm receptor discharge decreases and nociceptive response increases producing the sensations of pain and burning (Torebjork et al., 1984).
Activation of poly-modal thermal receptors causes significant pain relief in controlled experimental conditions. Kakigi and Watanabe (1996) demonstrated that warming and cooling of the skin in human volunteers could significantly reduce the amount of reported pain and somatosensory evoked potential activity induced by the noxious stimulation of a CO2 laser. The authors offered that the effects seen could be from a central inhibitory effect produced by the thermal stimulation. Similar inhibition of pain from thermal simulation was reported in a different Human experimental pain model (Ward et al., 1996). The study authors (Kakigi and Watanabe 1996 and Ward et al., 1996) proposed that the thermal analgesia was in part from a central inhibitory effect (gating) from stimulation of small thin C nerve fibers. This contrasts with TENS which produces at least part of its analgesia through gating brought on by activation of large diameter afferent nerve fibers.
A number of recent clinical studies strongly support the use of heat as an analgesic in patients who suffer from chronic pain and offer potential mechanisms by which heat produces analgesia. Abeln et al. (2000) in a randomized controlled single-blinded study examined the effect of low level topical heat in 76 subjects who suffered from low back pain. Heat treatment was statistically more effective in relieving pain and improving the quality of sleep than that produced by placebo.
Weingand et al. (2001) examined the effects in a randomized, single blinded, controlled trial of low level topical heat in a group of over 200 subjects who suffered from low back pain and compared heat to placebo heat, an oral analgesic placebo, and ibuprofen 1200 mg/day. The authors found heat treatment more effective than placebo and superior to ibuprofen treatment in relieving pain and increasing physical function as assessed by physical examination and the Roland Morris disability scale.
A separate group (Nadler at al, 2002) found similar results in a prospective single blinded randomized controlled trial of 371 subjects who suffered from acute low back pain. The authors found that cutaneous heat treatment was more effective than oral ibuprofen 1200 mg/day, acetaminophen 4000 mg/day or oral and heat placebos in producing pain relief and improving physical function. The authors offered several hypotheses for the mechanism(s) of action which includes increased muscle relaxation, connective tissue elasticity, blood flow, and tissue healing potential provided through the low-level topical heat. Similar beneficial effects of topical heat were show shown in patients who suffered from dysmenorrhea (Akin et al., 2001), and temporomandibular joint pain TMJ (Nelson et al., 1988).
A recent study used power Doppler ultrasound to evaluate the effects of topical heat on muscle blood flow in Humans (Erasala et al., 2001). Subjects underwent 30 minutes of heating over their trapezius muscle and changes in blood flow were examined at 18 different locations over the muscle. Vascularity increased 27% (p=0.25), 77% (p=0.03) and 104% (p=0.01) with 39, 40 or 42° C. temperature of the heating pad. Importantly increases in blood flow extended approximately 3 cm deep into the muscle. The authors concluded that the increased blood flow likely contributed to the analgesic and muscle relaxation properties of the topical heat. Similar increases in deep vascular blood flow were noted using magnetic resonance thermometry in subjects treated with mild topical heat by two separate groups (Mulkern et al., 1999, and Reid et al., 1999).
Recent studies demonstrating the analgesic effectiveness of heat and provided potential mechanisms of action. The mechanisms include a reduction of pain through a central nervous system interaction mediated via thin c-fibers (Kakigi and Watanabe, 1996, Ward et al. 1996), enhancement of superficial and deeper level blood flow (Erasala et al., 2001, Mulkern et al., 1999, Reid et al., 1999), or local effects on the muscle and connective tissue (Nadler et al., 2002, Akin et al. 2001). TENS is thought to act through inhibition of nociception by increasing endogenous opioids or by a neural inhibitory interaction of nociception via large diameter fibers. It is likely that TENS and heat act partly through different mechanisms with the potential for enhanced or even synergistic interactions. TENS is widely used and endorsed by the pain management guidelines of both the AHCPR and American Geriatric Society (Gloth 2001). However a significant number of patients fail to achieve adequate relief with TENS or fail within six months of starting treatment (Fishbain et al., 1996).
The present disclosure is directed generally to apparatuses, devices and associated methods for applying heat to various parts of the human body using a series of modular pods. The pods can be controlled by a remote controller in the form of a computer (a desktop or a laptop computer), or a mobile device such as a mobile phone, tablet or MP3 player. The pods can releasably attach to disposable rings that adhere to the body at various locations to which the patient desires to direct heat therapy.
Several details describing thermal and electrical principles are not set forth in the following description to avoid unnecessarily obscuring embodiments of the disclosure. Moreover, although the following disclosure sets forth several embodiments of the invention, other embodiments can have different configurations, arrangements, and/or components than those described herein without departing from the spirit or scope of the present disclosure. For example, other embodiments may have additional elements, or they may lack one or more of the elements described below with reference to
The stimulus pods 110 can also be used to deliver medicine to a patient through electrophoresis or iontophoresis. Electrophoresis is the motion of dispersed particles relative to a fluid under the influence of a spatially uniform electric field. Electrophoresis is ultimately caused by the presence of a charged interface between the particle surface and the surrounding fluid. Iontophoresis (a.k.a. Electromotive Drug Administration (EMDA)) is a technique using a small electric charge to deliver a medicine or other chemical through the skin. It is basically an injection without the needle. The technical description of this process is a non-invasive method of propelling high concentrations of a charged substance, normally a medication or bioactive agent, transdermally by repulsive electromotive force using a small electrical charge applied to an iontophoretic chamber containing a similarly charged active agent and its vehicle. One or two chambers are filled with a solution containing an active ingredient and its solvent, also called the vehicle. The positively charged chamber (anode) will repel a positively charged chemical, whereas the negatively charged chamber (cathode) will repel a negatively charged chemical into the skin.
Any of the attachment mechanisms provide a simple way for a patient to apply a stimulus pod 110 to their body. The stimulus pods 110 can be interchangeable between anchors 120, and vice versa. A patient can use a stimulus pod 110 until the battery is depleted, and then simply swap in another stimulus pod 110 with a fresh battery. The attachment means can be strong enough and the dimensions of the stimulus pod 110 can be small enough that the stimulus pod 110 can be worn under the patient's clothing easily. The placement of the anchors 120 can vary greatly according to a predetermined diagnostic pattern or personal preference. In some embodiments, the stimulus pods 110 can be placed at an area of discomfort, such as a painful lower back. Some research suggests that placing additional stimulus pods 110 at an area remote from a problem area can also provide analgesic effects. For example, a patient may use a stimulus pod 110 at the lower back—where the pain is—but they can also use a secondary stimulus pod 110 near the shoulders or on the legs. Multiple stimulus pods 110 can be used in concert to produce an aggregate affect. As different areas of the human body have different nerve densities, in certain areas two stimulus pods 110 placed near one another are perceived as a single, large stimulus pod 110. For example, the patient's back has much lower nerve density than the face, neck, or arms. Accordingly, the patient can use a pair of small stimulus pods 110 (e.g., one or two inches in diameter) at the lower back spaced about three or four inches apart and achieve the same sensory result as a larger stimulus pod covering the entire area. An unexpected benefit of this arrangement is that much less power is required to provide the stimulus in two small areas than would be required to stimulate the entire area.
The charging station 200 can include a light 225 that can indicate that the charging station 200 is transmitting power to a stimulus pod 110. When the battery 155 of the stimulus pod 110 is fully charged, the stimulus pod 110 can notify the charging station 200 which can then cease charging the battery 155 and change the light 225 to indicate that the battery 155 is fully charged and is ready for use. When there are several stimulus pods 110 having different power levels in different sockets 205, the charging station 200 can charge the stimulus pods 110 that have less than a full charge while not powering the stimulus pods 110 that have a more full charge.
In several embodiments, the stimulus pods 110 can communicate with a control station 230, shown schematically in
In several embodiments, the control station 230 can have information regarding the location of the stimulus pods 110 on the patient's body, and can vary the stimulus pattern accordingly. In one embodiment, the stimulus pods 110 can be built with certain body positions in mind. The stimulus pods 110 can carry body position labels to instruct the patient to apply the stimulus pods 110 according to the label. For example, in a set of four stimulus pods, two can be marked “shoulders,” a third can be marked “lower back,” and a fourth can be marked “upper back.” In some embodiments, the anchors can communicate its location to the stimulus pod 110. The anchor 120 can include a passive identifier such as an RFID tag or other simple, passive method of communicating with the stimulus pod 110. In this embodiment, the anchor 120 can remain in place even when different stimulus pods 110 are swapped in and out of the anchor 120. The stationary anchor 120 can accurately provide location information to the control station 230 independent of which specific stimulus pod 110 occupies the anchor 120.
In other embodiments, the patient can inform the control station 230 where the stimulus pods 110 are situated, and with this information the control station 230 can apply the desired stimulus pattern to the stimulus pods 110. For example, the stimulus pods 110 can fire sequentially, and the patient can indicate the location of the stimulus on a user interface. Through the user interface, the patient can also operate the system 100 and apply treatment. In one embodiment, a control station 230 that comprises a smart phone or a computer, a graphic depiction of the patient's body can be shown and the patient can indicate to the control station 230 where the stimulus pods 110 are located. Alternatively, the patient can directly control the stimulus application through the stimulus pods 110 by moving a pointing device along the graphical depiction of their body to create a virtual stimulus-massage that the patient, or a healthcare professional, controls directly. In some cases the control station 230 can include a touch screen that the patient can touch to apply heat or other stimulus to various portions of their body (or to the body of another patient).
In some embodiments, the index pod 110a and control station 230 can discern when two or more stimulus pods 110 (e.g., dummy pods 110b or index pods 110a) are near enough to one another that they can work in aggregate. If the control station 230 knows where the stimulus pods 110 are placed on the patient's body, the control station 230, through the index pods 110a, can vary the threshold distance between stimulus pods 110a, 110b as a function of nerve density at different locations on the body. For example, if the control station 230 discerns that two or more dummy and/or index pods 110a, 110b are three inches apart and on the lower back, the control station can operate the stimulus pods 110a, 110b together to effectively cover the area between the stimulus pods 110a, 110b as well as the area directly contacting the stimulus pods 110a, 110b. By comparison, if stimulus pods 110a, 110b are three inches apart, but are placed on a more sensitive area, such as the patient's face or neck, the control station 230 can determine that the aggregate effect may not be perceived to reach the area between the stimulus pods 110a, 110b because of the greater nerve density. This information can be used when applying a treatment plan that calls for stimulus on a prescribed area. The control station can determine whether there is a stimulus pod 110 on or near the prescribed area, and if not, whether the aggregate effect from two or more stimulus pods 110 can be used to carry out the treatment plan, and can execute the plan through the pods 110.
Several clinical studies were performed to evaluate effectiveness of the stimulus pod system. Details of the clinical studies and the results are provided below.
Study of Characteristics of Thermal Analgesia in Human Subjects
A stimulus pod system for the clinical study was designed and built to optimize heat levels, intermittency and distribution. The stimulus pod system included a software controller, a set of instructions on a laptop computer and a hardware interface that connected a variety of stimulus pods to the laptop controller. A person skilled in the art would know that many types of controllers and interfaces could be used for the modular stimulus applicator system including, for example, off-shelf dedicated controllers and a software based controller on a smart phone or a tablet computer connected through a wireless or wired interfaces to the stimulus pod system. The software controller was used to control thermal variables. These variables include:
maximum temperature (° C.) of the high heat cycle (T-max);
rate of temperature climb (Δ° C./seconds) for the initial heat cycle (T1-Ramp-up);
duration of T-max (seconds) (T-max time);
rate of temperature reduction (Δ° C./seconds) to the baseline soak temperature (Ramp-down). There was no active cooling, so the Ramp-down time was a passive variable;
minimum temperature (° C.) of the low heat cycle (T-soak);
duration of T-soak (seconds) (T-soak time);
rate of temperature climb (Δ° C./seconds) for the subsequent heat cycle (T2-Ramp-up);
wave forms of both the high heat (T-max) and low heat (T-soak) cycles (a square wave form or a saw tooth pattern). The temperature difference between the peak and valley of the saw tooth heat waves was controllable;
time (in seconds) from the beginning of one ramp up period to the beginning of the next ramp up period (Heat cycle); and
time (in minutes) of a number of sequential heat cycles (demand cycle).
The control laptop was connected via a USB port to a heating interface unit. This interface allowed controlling one to four stimulus pods. The pods had electrical resistance pads with embedded thermistors, which allowed for very tight control of temperature. The study initially utilized three sizes of stimulus pods: small (0.5×0.5 inches), medium (1×1 inches) and large (1.5×1.5 inches). The stimulus pods were connected to the heating interface unit with 8 ft long cables that allowed test subjects to move about the testing station.
The protocol was initially tested on 10 in-house subjects. Afterwards, a total of 23 outside subjects completed the entire initial protocol which was done in one 90 minute session. The results of the in-house testing were similar to the formal trial results. Within the group of 23 test subjects, 14 were females (61%) and 9 males (39%) with a mean age of 31 years (range 17-59, standard deviation ±9.9 years). The subjects were given explanation about the study procedure and study device. In an initial subset of subjects, each subject tried three different sizes of stimulus pods (small, medium, large) to determine what size was preferred for the subsequent phases of the study. The midsize stimulus pod was strongly preferred, and was used for the subsequent studies. In some instances, the subjects could not determine if the smallest pod was even heating. Also, there was no preference among the subjects for heating a larger area of the body by using a larger size (1.5×1.5 inches) stimulus pods.
Furthermore, a study was done to determine whether the subjects preferred a temperature above that which can be produced by a ThermaCare pad. Clinical observation indicated that many people who use heat as a therapy prefer temperatures which are in fact hot enough to cause hypertrophic changes of the underlying skin. These temperatures are most commonly obtained using electrical heating pads. Commercially available chemical heating pads, e.g., ThermaCare, can provide temperature only up to 40° C. The subsequent clinical observations indicated that this temperature limited the therapeutic effectiveness of chemical heating pads.
Once a subject's preferred temperature profile was determined, the subject was fitted with a variety of stimulus pods, and locations and the preferences were recorded. It was observed that the subjects were able to detect a difference in heat pulses of less than 1° C. As explained in more detail below, the subjects preferred a temperature that was significantly warmer (44.7° C.) than the 40° C. provided by ThermaCare.
The initial testing was done to determine the preferred temperature of the stimulus pods. The heating started at 41° C. for two minutes duration and then gradually increased in the 0.5° C. increments up to either a maximum temperature of 50° C. or until the subject felt that the pods were too hot. The initial ramp-up (T1-Ramp-up) was also varied and evaluated for the subject preference.
The temperature preferences and ratings were quantified using a thermal sensation scale that progressed from “very cold,” “cold,” “slightly cool,” “neutral,” “slightly warm,” “warm,” “hot,” to “very hot.” As shown in
It was also observed that some subjects liked an additional pod placed on their body distant to the area that was painful. This is likely just a distraction effect, but it still increased the effectiveness of the heating pod that was placed over the body part in pain.
In summary, this study systematically evaluated properties of heat that are likely to relate to thermal analgesia. The subjects preferred temperatures that were significantly hotter than the 40° C., which can be provided by chemical heat packs such as, for example, ThermaCare. The actual or optimal temperature preferred by the subjects varied and approached a a bell shaped distribution. Initially, it was assumed that the small size heating pods (0.5×0.5 inches) or the large size heating pods (1.5×1.5 inches) would be preferred by subjects. However, the medium size pods were the most preferred. It is possible that the small pods were too small to optimally stimulate the cutaneous thermal receptive fields. In many instances when subjects were asked how large of an area was being stimulated both the medium and large pods produced a heated area that was similar in size. In most instances once the pods were removed, subjects continued to report that the skin still felt as if it was being heated. Furthermore, in several subjects with a painful area of the body not being heated e.g., neck, reported that this proximal unheated area “felt better” when a distant area e.g., low back was heated.
The above clinical study demonstrated a “dose response” in the subjects. There is also a distinct fall-off as temperatures increase above 45-46° C. The distribution is relatively tight, and it provides little margin for error with analgesic devices, such as chemical hot packs with poorly controlled or too low temperature. Furthermore, it is possible that heat pulses may provide more stimulation of the cutaneous receptors in comparison to a steady heat wave.
Study of Heat Treatment of Premenstrual Syndrome (PMS) Pain
The hypothesis of this study was that a high level pulsed heat would be more effective than a low level continuous heat in relieving pain associated with PMS. The study compared analgesic effects of the stimulus pod system as in this invention with those of a commercially available ThermaCare® wrap. The stimulus pod system consisted of two heating pads that can be set to a temperature selected by the individual subject. The temperature range of the heater could be set between and including 42 to 47° C. The ThermaCare wrap is a commercial product available over the counter. The ThermaCare wrap is attached to the skin using its own elastic wrap. ThermaCare heats at a steady 40° C.
All subjects met with a research assistant (RA) prior to the start of the study. The RA explained and demonstrated the heating devices operation, their purpose and the methods of the study. The subjects were randomly assigned to one of two groups: the stimulus pod system or the ThermaCare group. All subjects completed a brief questionnaire about their pain. The study flow is illustrated in
Subjects rated their PMS pain level using Numeric Pain Scale and Iowa Pain Thermometer. Those subjects who were initially assigned to the ThermaCare had the device placed over their area of greatest pain (anterior abdomen or lower back). ThermaCare devices were allowed to warm up at least 30 minutes before being placed on the subject. Subjects rated their pain levels at baseline (time zero) and after 10, 20 and 30 minutes. After the first treatment session there was a 30 minute washout period.
Those subjects who were assigned to the stimulus pod system group were shown the study device. The RA facilitated a run-in period in which the subjects were able to gradually increase the temperature of the heating pads starting at 42° C. up to a maximum of 47° C. Once the subjects selected study temperature, the subjects wore the stimulus pod system and provided pain assessments at baseline and after 10 minutes, 20 minutes and 30 minutes. After completing the study subjects filled out an exit interview questionnaire and were paid for their participation.
In conclusion, both treatments produced significant reduction in pain in the subjects suffering from PMS pain. When compared to ThermaCare, the stimulus pod system produced significantly higher pain relief. In the exit interviews, the subjects almost unanimously noted that they all preferred the warmer temperatures from the stimulus pod system than those offered by the low level heat of the ThermaCare product. Many subjects also explained that they very much liked the pulsing sensation provided by the Heater device.
Study of Heat Treatment of Low Back Pain (LBP)
Heat has long been a mainstay treatment for low back pain. A number of recent studies demonstrated that heat reduces low back pain, improves function and may result in the use of fewer pain medications. In spite of both empiric evidence and formal studies little is known about mechanisms or dose response data for heat induced LBP relief. The hypothesis of this study was that a high level pulsed heat would be more effective than a low level continuous heat in relieving chronic low back pain.
The subjects used the stimulus pod system or ThermaCare as explained above in relation to the Study of Heat Treatment of Premenstrual Syndrome Pain. Those subjects who were randomized initially to the stimulus pod system group were shown the study device. The RA facilitated a run in period in which the subject was able to gradually increase the temperature of the heating pads starting at 42° C. up to a maximum of 47° C. Once the study temperature was selected, subjects wore the device and provided pain assessments at baseline and after 10 minutes, 20 minutes, and 30 minutes. After completing the study, all subjects filled out an exit interview questionnaire and were paid $100 for study participation.
As shown in
In conclusion, both treatments (the stimulus pod system and ThermaCare) produced reduction in pain in the subjects who suffered from chronic low back pain. The stimulus pod system produced significantly higher pain relief in comparison to ThermaCare. The higher heat provided by the stimulus pod system was associated with better and more profound pain relief. In the exit interviews, subjects almost unanimously noted that they all preferred the warmer temperatures from the stimulus pod system than that offered by the low level heat of the ThermaCare product. Many subjects also stated that they very much liked the pulsing sensation provided by the Heater device.
From the foregoing, it will be appreciated that specific embodiments of the invention have been described herein for purposes of illustration, but that various modifications may be made without deviating from the spirit and scope of the various embodiments of the invention. Further, while various advantages associated with certain embodiments of the invention have been described above in the context of those embodiments, other embodiments may also exhibit such advantages, and not all embodiments need necessarily exhibit such advantages to fall within the scope of the invention. Accordingly, the invention is not limited, except as by the appended claims.
The U.S. Government has a paid-up license in this invention and the right in limited circumstances to require the patent owner to license others on reasonable terms as provided for by the terms of grants 1R43CA099305-01A2, 2R44CA099305-02 and 2R44CA099305-03 awarded by the National Institutes of Health.
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
PCT/US2012/022252 | 1/23/2012 | WO | 00 | 4/1/2014 |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO2012/100258 | 7/26/2012 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
1377158 | Radisson et al. | May 1921 | A |
3857397 | Brosseau | Dec 1974 | A |
4107509 | Scher et al. | Aug 1978 | A |
4201218 | Feldman et al. | May 1980 | A |
4245149 | Fairlie | Jan 1981 | A |
4279255 | Hoffman | Jul 1981 | A |
4303074 | Bender | Dec 1981 | A |
4310745 | Bender | Jan 1982 | A |
4348584 | Gale et al. | Sep 1982 | A |
4396011 | Mack et al. | Aug 1983 | A |
4398535 | Guibert | Aug 1983 | A |
4518851 | Oppitz | May 1985 | A |
4575097 | Brannigan et al. | Mar 1986 | A |
4736088 | Bart | Apr 1988 | A |
4930317 | Klein | Jun 1990 | A |
5097828 | Deutsch | Mar 1992 | A |
5138138 | Theilacker et al. | Aug 1992 | A |
5336255 | Kanare et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5423874 | D'Alerta | Jun 1995 | A |
5447530 | Guibert et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
5451747 | Sullivan et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
5580350 | Guibert et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5601618 | James | Feb 1997 | A |
5658583 | Zhang et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5735889 | Burkett et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5741318 | Ouellette et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5817145 | Augustine et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5837005 | Viltro et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5860945 | Cramer et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5891189 | Payne, Jr. | Apr 1999 | A |
5893991 | Newell | Apr 1999 | A |
5906637 | Davis et al. | May 1999 | A |
5925072 | Cramer et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5947914 | Augustine | Sep 1999 | A |
5964721 | Augustine | Oct 1999 | A |
5964723 | Augustine | Oct 1999 | A |
5984995 | White | Nov 1999 | A |
5986163 | Augustine | Nov 1999 | A |
6010527 | Augustine et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6013097 | Augustine et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6045518 | Augustine | Apr 2000 | A |
6066164 | Macher et al. | May 2000 | A |
6071254 | Augustine | Jun 2000 | A |
6095992 | Augustine | Aug 2000 | A |
6096067 | Cramer et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6110197 | Augustine et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6113561 | Augustine | Sep 2000 | A |
6146732 | Davis et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6213966 | Augustine | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6217535 | Augustine | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6235049 | Nazerian | May 2001 | B1 |
6241697 | Augustine | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6248084 | Augustine et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6264622 | Augustine | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6267740 | Augustine et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6293917 | Augustine et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6353211 | Chen | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6406448 | Augustine | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6407307 | Augustine | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6419651 | Augustine | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6423018 | Augustine | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6465709 | Sun et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6468295 | Augustine et al. | Oct 2002 | B2 |
6485506 | Augustine | Nov 2002 | B2 |
6567696 | Voznesensky | May 2003 | B2 |
6572871 | Church et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6580012 | Augustine et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6605012 | Muller | Aug 2003 | B2 |
6710313 | Asami et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6840915 | Augustine | Jan 2005 | B2 |
6893453 | Agarwal et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
6921374 | Augustine | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6925317 | Samuels | Aug 2005 | B1 |
7022093 | Smith et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7672714 | Kuo | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7783361 | Docherty et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
8579953 | Dunbar et al. | Nov 2013 | B1 |
8702775 | Dunbar et al. | Apr 2014 | B2 |
20010037104 | Zhang et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020026226 | Ein | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020183813 | Augustine et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030013998 | Augustine | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030069618 | Smith et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030125648 | Leason | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20040073258 | Church et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040211569 | Vinegar et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20050256555 | Fisher | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20060195168 | Dunbar | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060258962 | Kopanic et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20080091248 | Libbus | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080103567 | Augustine | May 2008 | A1 |
20100036445 | Sakai et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20110279963 | Kumar | Nov 2011 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
100915320 | Sep 2009 | KR |
100915320 | Sep 2009 | KR |
WO-8702891 | May 1987 | WO |
2005079295 | Sep 2005 | WO |
WO-2005079295 | Sep 2005 | WO |
2006086513 | Aug 2006 | WO |
2008057884 | May 2008 | WO |
WO 2008057884 | May 2008 | WO |
Entry |
---|
International Search Report and Written Opinion issued in PCT/US2012/022252 and dated Aug. 22, 2012 (15 pages). |
International Search Report and Written Opinion, International Application No. PCT/US06/04506, dated Sep. 25, 2007, (10 pages). |
Extended European Search Report for European Patent Application No. 12736967.6 dated Aug. 18, 2014, 15 pages. |
Notice of Rejection for Japanese Patent Application No. 2013-550659 dated Nov. 23, 2015, 5 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140207219 A1 | Jul 2014 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61435221 | Jan 2011 | US |