Embodiments of the present invention relate generally to spinal implants and, more particularly, to intervertebral disc prostheses.
The human spine functions through a complex interaction of several parts of the anatomy.
Also illustrated in
Also illustrated in
For the spinal segment 4 to be healthy, each of the intervertebral disc 20 and the spinal facet joints 16 must be healthy. To remain healthy these joints require motion. The intervertebral disc 20 and the spinal facet joints 16 function together to provide both quality and quantity of motion. The quality of the motion is a exhibited by the non-linear energy storage (force-deflection, torque-rotation) behavior of the spinal segment 4. The quantity of motion is the range of segmental rotation and translation.
Back pain due to diseased, damaged, and/or degraded intervertebral discs 20 and/or spinal facet joints 16 is a significant health problem in the United States and globally. A non-exhaustive and non-limiting illustration of examples of diseased and/or damaged intervertebral discs is shown in
A degenerating spinal segment 18 is believed to be the product of adverse changes to its biochemistry and biomechanics. These adverse changes create a degenerative cascade affecting the quality and/or quantity of motion and may ultimately lead to pain. For example, as the health of a spinal segment 18 degenerates and/or changes, the space through which the spinal cord 30 and peripheral nerves 32 (
In many instances of degenerative disc disease, fusion of the vertebrae is the standard of care for surgical treatment, illustrated in
Spinal fusion aims to limit the movement of the vertebra that are unstable or causing a patient pain and/or other symptoms. Spinal fusion typically involves the removal of a diseased disc 50, illustrated in outline in
Fusion, however, often fails to provide adequate or sufficient long-term relief in about one-half of the treatments, resulting in low patient satisfaction. Further, fusion, by definition, restricts the overall motion of the treated functional spine unit, imposing increased stresses and limiting range of motion on those portions of the spinal segment adjacent to the fused vertebral bodies 51. Fusion of a spinal segment has been indicated as a potential cause of degeneration to segments adjacent to the fusion. The adjacent spinal facet joints 57 and adjacent discs 59 often have to bear a greater load as a result of the fusion than would typically be the case, leading to possible overloading and, in turn, degeneration. Thus, surgical fusion often provides short-term relief, but possibly greater long-term spinal degradation than would otherwise have occurred.
Thus, a challenge to alleviating the back pain associated with various ailments is to find an intervertebral disc prosthesis that provides sufficient freedom of movement to at least reduce the risk to the functional health of the adjacent spinal segments, and/or facet joints, and/or discs that are otherwise compromised or have their functional health degraded by spinal fusion, and, more preferably, maintain the functional health of the adjacent spinal segments and/or facet joints and/or discs. Further, an intervertebral prosthesis optionally provides sufficient stability to the diseased segment to alleviate pain and/or other symptoms.
A further challenge is simply the complex, multi-dimensional nature of movement associated with a functional spine unit. Illustrated in
Another difficulty associated with the complex motion of the spine is that the center-of-rotation for movement around each of the X-axis 60, Y-axis 63, and Z-axis 65 differs for each axis. This is illustrated in
Many previous efforts have been made to solve at least some of the problems associated with spinal fusion, but with varying degrees of success. For example, U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0195213 filed on Feb. 11, 2008 to several of the present inventors, discloses an intervertebral disc prosthesis that provides for motion in two directions, typically flexion-extension and lateral extension/bending, but not for axial rotation. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2008/0195213 is incorporated herein in its entirety for all purposes by this reference.)
Thus, there exists a need for an intervertebral disc prosthesis that provides for flexion-extension, lateral extension/bending, and axial rotation.
Further, there exists a need for an intervertebral spinal prosthesis that reduces the stress on a diseased and/or damaged spinal segment without overloading the adjacent discs and vertebrae that could initiate progressive degeneration or diseases in the adjacent discs and vertebrae.
A need also exists for a spinal implant that provides for proper force-deflection behavior of the spinal implant (kinetics)—as noted above in the discussion of
A need also exists for a spinal implant that exhibits kinematics—such as the limits of the ranges-of-motion and the centers-of-rotation noted above in the discussion of
Various features and embodiments of the invention disclosed herein provide robust and durable intervertebral disc prostheses that accommodate motion in three axes as compared to a single axis and/or double axes of motion of the prior art.
Embodiments of the invention include a spinal implant, such as an intervertebral disc prosthesis to replace an intervertebral disc that is removed from between two vertebra. Thus, embodiments of the spinal implant optionally are positioned between a first and a second vertebra. The spinal implant includes a first rolling-contact core that is operably coupled to the first vertebra. The rolling-contact core includes a convex surface having a first axis, the convex surface providing a rolling motion in a first direction to the vertebra coupled to the rolling-contact core relative to a second vertebra. At least one flexure optionally connected to the first rolling-contact core constrains, at least in part, the rolling motion of the first rolling-contact core.
Optionally, embodiments of the invention include a second rolling-contact core that is operably coupled to the first rolling-contact core. The second rolling-contact core also includes a second convex surface having a second axis rotated from the first axis, the second convex surface providing a rolling motion in a second direction to the first vertebra relative to the second vertebra. At least another flexure optionally connected to the second rolling-contact core constrains, at least in part, the rolling motion of the second rolling-contact core.
In various embodiments, at least one of the flexures and the rolling-contact cores are coupled or secured directly to the vertebra. Alternatively, embodiments of the invention include end plates, to which the flexures and rolling-contact cores are coupled. The end plates are secured to the first and second vertebra, thereby coupling the rolling-contact cores to the vertebrae.
Optionally, embodiments of the spinal implant include an axial-rotation core operably coupled to at least the first rolling-contact core. The axial-rotation core is configured to provide rotation to the first vertebra relative to the second vertebra around an axis orthogonal to the first axis and/or the second axis. The axial-rotation core optionally includes another flexure connected thereto that constrains, at least in part, the rotation.
Embodiments of the spinal implant include a geometry that, once implanted, is configured to allow flexion-extension, and/or lateral extension/bending, and/or axial rotation with an instantaneous or near-instantaneous centers-of-rotation for the diseased and/or damaged spinal segment and/or adjacent vertebrae and/or spinal facet joints and/or discs that are similar to that of a healthy spinal segment. Thus, the spinal implant restores, to a degree, close to normal movement of the diseased and/or damaged spinal segment and adjacent vertebrae and/or spinal facet joints and/or discs, which, in turn, aids in maintaining the health of adjacent vertebra and/or spinal facet joints and/or discs.
Other embodiments of the spinal implant provide protection to the spine, discs, spinal cord, and peripheral nerves by reducing the risk of harmful, damaging, and/or painful movements while still providing a sufficient range of motion to reduce the risk to adjacent vertebrae and/or spinal facet joints and/or intervertebral discs becoming diseased and/or damaged from lack of sufficient movement. Embodiments of the spinal implant do so by reducing the stresses on a diseased and/or damaged spinal segment from which an intervertebral disc is removed without overloading the adjacent spinal segments, including the adjacent intervertebral discs, spinal facet joints, and vertebrae, that could initiate progressive degeneration or diseases in the adjacent spinal segments.
Additionally, embodiments of the spinal implant preferably provide proper motion—such as the centers-of-rotation, whether instantaneous or otherwise, limits of the ranges-of-motion, and the types of motion—that are maintained near those of a functional spine unit to maintain an effective range of motion for the muscles and the tendons around the spine and to reduce the amount of spinal cord strain.
Embodiments of the spinal implant are preferably made of biocompatible materials, including, but not limited to, biocompatible polymers and plastics, stainless steel, titanium, nitinol, shape-memory materials and/or alloys, and other similar materials.
Embodiments of methods of using the spinal implant are also disclosed.
As used herein, “at least one,” “one or more,” and “and/or” are open-ended expressions that are both conjunctive and disjunctive in operation. For example, each of the expressions “at least one of A, B and C,” “at least one of A, B, or C,” “one or more of A, B, and C,” “one or more of A, B, or C” and “A, B, and/or C” means A alone, B alone, C alone, A and B together, A and C together, B and C together, or A, B and C together.
Various embodiments of the present inventions are set forth in the attached figures and in the Detailed Description as provided herein and as embodied by the claims. It should be understood, however, that this Summary does not contain all of the aspects and embodiments of the one or more present inventions, is not meant to be limiting or restrictive in any manner, and that the invention(s) as disclosed herein is/are and will be understood by those of ordinary skill in the art to encompass obvious improvements and modifications thereto.
Additional advantages of the present invention will become readily apparent from the following discussion, particularly when taken together with the accompanying drawings.
To further clarify the above and other advantages and features of the one or more present inventions, reference to specific embodiments thereof are illustrated in the appended drawings. The drawings depict only exemplary embodiments and are therefore not to be considered limiting. One or more embodiments will be described and explained with additional specificity and detail through the use of the accompanying drawings in which:
The drawings are not necessarily to scale.
As noted above, the kinetics and kinematics of the spine are quite complex, involving three separate axes around which motion occurs and three separate centers-of-rotation for the different motions. Applicants have recognized that previous spinal implants often address just one form of motion, typically flexion and extension, often through the use of springs of some type that flex and compress. Efforts to address more than one mode of rotation or motion typically tend to be complex, large, and often do not address each individual motion as effectively as devices dedicated to a single motion.
Turning to
Referring to
Further details of the embodiments of the spinal implant 150, 151 are illustrated in
Optionally, the spinal implant 150, 151 includes a second rolling-contact core 156, which includes a second rolling surface 157 and a second chord surface 159, as best illustrated in
The second rolling-contact core 156, when included, is oriented such that the second axis 181 is rotated relative to the first axis 180 such that the second rolling motion occurs in a second, different direction 186 relative to the first rolling motion that occurs in the first direction 184. The first axis 180 and second axis 181 can be rotated relative to each other from about 0 degrees to about 180 degrees and, more preferably, from about 30 degrees to about 150 degrees and, more preferably still, from about 70 degrees to about 110 degrees, as well as orthogonal to each other. For example, a spinal implant 150, 151 can be provided that allows rolling motion in flexion-extension (e.g., around the X-axis 60 in
The spinal implant 150, 151 can be formed of biocompatible plastics, polymers, metals, metal alloys, laminates, shape-memory materials, and other similar materials, either wholly as one material or as a combination of materials—i.e., different components may be manufactured from different materials and/or a single component, such as a rolling-contact core, can be manufactured of two or more materials, such as have a softer or resilient outer surface over a more rigid inner material. Optionally, the materials can be resilient. That is, the materials can have a varying and selectable degree of elastic deformation to provide cushioning between the vertebra 106 and 108 in order to mimic, at least in part, the cushioning that intervertebral discs 120 provide to the spinal segment 100.
Optionally, the first rolling-contact 152 core includes at least one flexure 154, and the second rolling-contact core 156 optionally includes at least another flexure 158. That is, one or more flexures 154, 158 can be used to create what may be referred to as a compliant mechanism or compliant spinal implant because its motion occurs, in part, through the flexible deflection of the flexures, as is described below. For example,
The flexures 154, 158 optionally are formed by separating a strip of material from the respective rolling-contact core 152, 156. Alternatively, the flexures 154, 158 are coupled to the respective rolling surface 153, 157 by welding, adhesives, mechanical connectors, and the like at a first end of the flexure 154, 158. At another end of the flexure spaced apart from the first end, the flexure 154, 158 is coupled to either an end plate or directly to a vertebra through the use of bio-compatible adhesives, mechanical connectors, such as screws, welding, and the like.
The flexures 154, 158 provide, in part, a spring-like constraint to the rolling motion in the directions 184 and 186, respectively. That is, the further the rolling motion occurs, the greater the restoring force that the flexures 154, 158 impart to the rolling-contact core 152, 156 to return the rolling-contact core 152, 156 to a neutral or undeflected position. In addition, the flexures 154, 158, maintain, in part, the relative position of the rolling-contact core 152, 156 to either the vertebrae 106, 108 and/or the end plates 162, 164. That is, the flexures 154, 158 allow rolling motion, but limit, in part, the ability of the rolling-contact core 152, 156 to move laterally, posteriorly, or anteriorly out of position relative to the vertebrae 106, 108.
The flexures 154, 158 as noted optionally couple the rolling-contact cores 152, 156 directly to the vertebrae 106, 108, whether through adhesives or mechanical devices, such as screws. The flexures 154, 158 can be attached at the vertebral end plate, within the area of the vertebra bounded by the vertebral end plate, or elsewhere on the vertebra, including the pedicles and/or the spinous process, and the like. The rolling surfaces 153, 157 would then roll directly upon the vertebra 106, 108.
Alternatively, the flexures 154, 158 can be coupled to the device end plates 162, 164 by mechanical devices, such as screws and the like, adhesives, welding, slots into which the ends of the flexures are retained, such as by clamping, and such other methods and systems. The rolling surfaces 153, 157 then roll upon a surface of the end plates 162, 164. The end plates 162, 164 can be square, rectangular, shaped like the vertebra 106, 108, as illustrated in
The end plates 162, 164 can be formed of biocompatible plastics, polymers, metals, metal alloys, laminates, shape-memory materials, and other similar materials, either wholly as one material or as a combination of materials, such as having a softer or resilient outer surface over a more rigid inner material. Optionally, the materials can be flexible and/or resilient. That is, the materials can have a varying and selectable degree of elastic deformation to provide cushioning between the vertebra 106 and 108 in order to mimic, at least in part, the cushioning that intervertebral discs 120 provide to the spinal segment 100. Further, resilient end plates 162, 164 optionally distribute the compressive load borne by the spinal implant 150 across a larger percentage of the area within the vertebral end plates, which may reduce the degree or the risk of remodeling of the cancellous tissue of the vertebra. Alternatively, the end plates 162, 164 optionally distribute the compressive load to the vertebral end plates.
The end plates 162, 164 operably couple the flexures 154, 158 and the rolling-contact cores 152, 156, respectively, to the first vertebra 106 and the second vertebra 108. More preferably, the end plates 162, 164 are not just operably coupled the vertebra, but also secured to the vertebra which indicates a direct connection to the vertebra, whereas operably coupled can include either a direct or indirect connection to the vertebra. The end plates 162, 164 can be secured via adhesives and/or mechanical devices, such as bone screws that can be installed in the optional through-holes 163 (
It is noted that the above embodiments describe rolling-contact cores 152, 156 that include a curved surface and end plates 162, 164 of substantially planar surfaces. Of course, other embodiments of rolling-contact cores and end plates fall within the scope of the disclosure. Non-limiting examples of such embodiments are illustrated in
Optionally, the spinal implant 150, 151 includes an axial-rotation core 160 configured to provide axial rotation in a direction 188 (
The axial-rotation core 160 can be formed of biocompatible plastics, polymers, metals, metal alloys, laminates, shape-memory materials, and other similar materials, either wholly as one material or as a combination of materials. Optionally, the materials can be resilient. That is, the materials can have a varying and selectable degree of elastic deformation to provide cushioning between the vertebra 106 and 108 in order to mimic, at least in part, the cushioning that intervertebral discs 120 provide to the spinal segment 100. The axial-rotation core 160 can be formed to be an integral part of one or more of the rolling-contact cores 152, 156, or it can be a separate component coupled, either directly or indirectly, to the rolling-contact cores 152, 156, such as through the use of adhesives and mechanical connecting devices, such as screws, welding, and the like.
Embodiments of the axial-rotation core 160 include those that are positioned between a rolling-contact core and a vertebra (not illustrated) and/or an end plate 162, 164. Other embodiments include positioning the axial-rotation core 160 between two rolling-contact cores 152, 156 as illustrated in
Optionally, the axial-rotation core 160 includes at least one axial or third flexure 161 and, optionally, more flexures 161. The axial flexure(s) 161 can be coupled, directly or indirectly, to various parts of the axial-rotation core 160, as illustrated in
The axial flexure(s) 161 optionally can be made from a different material or the same material as the axial-rotation cores 160. The axial flexure(s) 161 optionally can be formed as flexible bands of a resilient or elastic material. That is, the axial flexure(s) 161 optionally exhibit elastic, spring-like behavior. The axial flexure(s) 161 optionally can be formed of biocompatible plastics, polymers, metals, metal alloys, laminates, shape-memory materials, and other similar materials, either wholly as one material or as a combination of materials—i.e., different components may be manufactured from different materials.
The axial flexure(s) 161 provide, in part, a spring-like constraint to axial rotation in the direction 188. That is, the greater the axial rotation, the greater the restoring force that the axial flexure(s) 161 impart to the axial-rotation core 160 to return the axial-rotation core 160 to a neutral or undeflected position. In addition, the axial flexure(s) 161 maintain, in part, the relative position of the axial-rotation core 160 to either the vertebrae 106, 108 and/or the end plates 162, 164. That is, the axial flexure(s) 161 allow axial rotation, but limit, in part, the ability of the axial-rotation core 160 to move laterally, posteriorly, or anteriorly out of position relative to the vertebrae 106, 108.
Another embodiment of the axial-rotation core is illustrated in
Optionally, the axial-rotation core 390 includes axial flexures (not illustrated in
Embodiments of the spinal implant disclosed herein provide additional benefits, such as:
Kinetics similar to a healthy spine: Embodiments of the spinal implant provide relative motion to vertebra in the three axes discussed above regarding
Kinematics similar to a healthy spine: Related to the kinetics are the natural kinematics of embodiments of the spinal implants. As discussed above, the centers-of-rotation for flexion-extension, lateral extension/bending, and axial rotation, are each located in different places. Prior art devices cannot accommodate these separate centers-of-rotation around more than one axis, if even that; nor can they provide for the instantaneous or near instantaneous change in the location of the centers-of-motion as a spinal segment moves; nor can they provide for motion approximate the motion of a natural helical axis. Stated differently, the center-of-rotation of prior art devices is often in a different location than the natural center-of-rotation of the spine for a given movement. To compensate, patients with prior art devices suffered strain upon the spinal cord and peripheral nerves, muscle strain caused by the muscles overworking and compensating for the two different centers-of-rotation (that of the prior art device and that of the spine), ligament strain, and, consequently, pain. In contrast, embodiments of the present spinal implant provide centers-of-rotation in each of the three axes that are the same, or nearly the same, as a patient's natural centers-of-rotation for the spine. Thus, patients typically have less pain and, consequently, greater movement, to the benefit of the discs and the spine in general.
Adjust to the individual spine: As noted, embodiments of the spinal implant can be designed and/or selected preoperatively for an individual patient in order to provide implants that restore the diseased spine to near healthy function. That is, the particular geometry of the spinal implant and its components can be individually tailored to a particular patient and the particular location within the patient's spine at which the spinal implant is to be implanted.
Thus, disclosed above, in addition to the embodiments of the spinal implant are methods of treating a spine with a spinal implant, such as an intervertebral disc prosthesis, configured to provide motion in three axes and that provides kinetics and kinematics similar to that of a functional spine, as well as other methods that will be recognized by one of skill in the art.
As alluded to above, embodiments of methods of using the spinal implant are disclosed. While the spinal implants disclosed herein can be positioned within a spinal segment by using an anterior, posterior, or lateral approach in the patient, a preferred method is to use a posterior approach. Further, it is preferred that a minimally invasive procedure be used, such as by laparoscopy in which only one or a few, small incisions are made and the surgery is conducted with laparoscopic tools. The methods include making an incision; providing an embodiment of the spinal implant disclosed herein; positioning the spinal implant between a first vertebra and a second vertebra; and coupling the spinal implant to at least the first vertebra. Securing the spinal implant to the vertebrae may be done by applying straps, applying biocompatible adhesives, installing pedicle screws, and the like, as known in the art.
The present invention, in various embodiments, includes providing devices and processes in the absence of items not depicted and/or described herein or in various embodiments hereof, including in the absence of such items as may have been used in previous devices or processes, e.g., for improving performance, achieving ease and/or reducing cost of implementation.
The foregoing discussion of the invention has been presented for purposes of illustration and description. The foregoing is not intended to limit the invention to the form or forms disclosed herein. In the foregoing Detailed Description for example, various features of the invention are grouped together in one or more embodiments for the purpose of streamlining the disclosure. This method of disclosure is not to be interpreted as reflecting an intention that the claimed invention requires more features than are expressly recited in each claim. Rather, as the following claims reflect, inventive aspects lie in less than all features of a single foregoing disclosed embodiment. Thus, the following claims are hereby incorporated into this Detailed Description, with each claim standing on its own as a separate preferred embodiment of the invention.
Moreover, though the description of the invention has included description of one or more embodiments and certain variations and modifications, other variations and modifications are within the scope of the invention, e.g., as may be within the skill and knowledge of those in the art, after understanding the present disclosure. It is intended to obtain rights which include alternative embodiments to the extent permitted, including alternate, interchangeable and/or equivalent structures, functions, ranges or steps to those claimed, whether or not such alternate, interchangeable and/or equivalent structures, functions, ranges or steps are disclosed herein, and without intending to publicly dedicate any patentable subject matter.
This application is a continuation-in-part of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/029,046, now U.S. Pat. No. 8,308,801, which claimed the benefit of and priority from U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 60/901,217 filed on Feb. 12, 2007, and claims the benefit of and priority from U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 61/210,572 filed on Mar. 19, 2009, which is incorporated herein in its entirety for all purposes by this reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3945053 | Hillberry et al. | Mar 1976 | A |
4267608 | Bora, Jr. | May 1981 | A |
5405408 | Pitkin | Apr 1995 | A |
5415661 | Holmes | May 1995 | A |
5733285 | Errico | Mar 1998 | A |
5772661 | Michelson | Jun 1998 | A |
5964760 | Richelsoph | Oct 1999 | A |
6045552 | Zucherman et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6355040 | Richelsoph | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6379354 | Rogozinski | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6440169 | Elberg | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6527804 | Gauchet et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6540785 | Gill et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6572653 | Simonson | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6579320 | Gauchet et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6610093 | Pisharodi | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6645248 | Casutt | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6723127 | Ralph et al. | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6793678 | Hawkins | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6802867 | Manasas et al. | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6811567 | Reiley | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6863688 | Ralph et al. | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6936071 | Marnay et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6949123 | Reiley | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6964666 | Jackson | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6966910 | Ritland | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6974478 | Reiley et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
6983924 | Howell et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6991632 | Ritland | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6997955 | Zubok et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7029475 | Panjabi | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7074238 | Stinson et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7093827 | Culpepper | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7115129 | Heggeness | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7144396 | Shluzas | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7207992 | Ritland | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7229441 | Trieu et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7270682 | Frigg et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7326210 | Jahng et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7338398 | Whiting et al. | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7361196 | Fallin et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7371238 | Soboleski et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7377942 | Berry | May 2008 | B2 |
7445635 | Fallin et al. | Nov 2008 | B2 |
7458981 | Fielding et al. | Dec 2008 | B2 |
7476238 | Panjabi | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7476251 | Zucherman et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7481830 | Wall et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7485133 | Cannon et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7485134 | Simonson | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7485146 | Crook et al. | Feb 2009 | B1 |
7491218 | Landry et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7491238 | Arnin et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7491240 | Carver et al. | Feb 2009 | B1 |
7494507 | Dixon et al. | Feb 2009 | B2 |
7537615 | Lemaire | May 2009 | B2 |
7618441 | Groiso | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7632292 | Sengupta et al. | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7682375 | Ritland | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7785351 | Gordon et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7909877 | Krueger et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
8025681 | Colleran et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
20020138077 | Ferree | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20030171751 | Ritland | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20040002708 | Ritland | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040176849 | Zubok et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20050101954 | Simonson | May 2005 | A1 |
20050113924 | Buttermann | May 2005 | A1 |
20050113927 | Malek | May 2005 | A1 |
20050125065 | Zucherman et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050149023 | Ritland | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050159818 | Blain | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050165487 | Muhanna | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050177156 | Timm et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050240270 | Zubok et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050261772 | Filippi et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20060009768 | Ritland | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060009850 | Frigg et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060036240 | Colleran | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060041314 | Millard | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060052784 | Dant et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060084987 | Kim | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060190079 | Istephanous et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060229609 | Wang | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060240533 | Sengupta et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060271047 | Jackson | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060271051 | Berrevoets | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070016193 | Ritland | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070028714 | Lusk et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070043365 | Ritland | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070049936 | Colleran et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070088440 | Eisermann et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070179618 | Trieu et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20080015588 | Hawkes | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080077246 | Fehling et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080140075 | Ensign | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080183209 | Robinson et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080195208 | Castellvi | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080195213 | Halverson et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080312693 | Trautwein | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090005819 | Ben-Mokhtar et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090048631 | Bhatnagar et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090228045 | Hayes et al. | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090259257 | Prevost | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090270921 | Krause | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20100204732 | Aschmann | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100211106 | Bowden | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100217324 | Bowden et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100217326 | Bowden et al. | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100217334 | Hawkes | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20100222821 | Bowden et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20100222823 | Bowden et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1020050080493 | Aug 2005 | KR |
1020060113318 | Nov 2006 | KR |
WO 2004071344 | Aug 2004 | WO |
WO 2005051243 | Jun 2005 | WO |
WO 2005107654 | Nov 2005 | WO |
WO 2006127992 | Nov 2006 | WO |
WO 2008070840 | Jun 2008 | WO |
WO 2008100891 | Aug 2008 | WO |
WO 2010096621 | Aug 2010 | WO |
WO 2010096829 | Aug 2010 | WO |
WO 2010108010 | Sep 2010 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Jeanneau et al.; “A Compliant Rolling Contact Joint and it's Application in a 3-DOF Planar Parallel Mechanism with Kinematic Analysis”; Proceedings of DETC'04, ASME 2004 Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference; Sep. 28-Oct. 2, 2004; Salt Lake City, Utah USA. DETC2004-57264, 2004by ASME. |
Cannon et al.; “Compliant Rolling-Contact Element Mechanisms”; Proceedings of IDETC/CIE 2005, 2005 ASME Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Sep. 24-28, 2005, 2005; Long Beach, California, USA; DETC2005-84073. |
Halverson et al.; “Concepts for Achieving Multi-Stability in Compliant Rolling-Contact Elements”; Proceedings of IDETC/CIE 2007; ASME 2007 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences & Computers and Information in Engineering Conference; Sep. 24-28, 2007; Las Vegas, USA; DETC2007-34836. |
Halverson et al.; Tension-Based Multi-Stable Compliant Rolling-Contact Elements: 13th National Conference on Mechanisms and Machines (NaCoMM-2007); IISc, Bangalore, India; Dec. 12-13, 2007. |
Jacobsen et al.; “Components for the Design of Lamina Emergent Mechanism”; Proceedings of IMECE 2007, 2007 ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition; Nov. 10-16, 2007; Seattle, USA. |
Jacobsen et al.; “Mechanism and Machine Theory”; Mechanism and Machine Theory; 2009; pp. 2098-2109; vol. 44; Elsevier. |
Stratton et al.; Force-Displacement Model of the Flexsure™ Spinal Implant; Proceedings of the ASME 2010 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference IDETC/CIE 2010; Aug. 15-18; Montreal, Quebec, Canada. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/916,110, filed Oct. 29, 2010; Spencer P. Magleby. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/952,709, filed Dec. 7, 2007; Michael D. Ensign; office action received Sep. 24, 2010. |
PCT Application PCT/US2010/025101; filing date Feb. 23, 2010; David Hawkes; ISR mailed Sep. 27, 2010. |
PCT Application PCT/US2007/086803; filing date Dec. 7, 2007; Michael D. Ensign; ISR mailed May 19, 2008. |
PCT Application PCT/US2008/053661; filing date Feb. 12, 2008; Peter Halverson; ISR mailed Jun. 5, 2008. |
PCT Application PCT/US2010/024674; filing date Feb. 19, 2010; Anton E. Bowden; ISR mailed Nov. 19, 2010. |
PCT Application PCT/US2010/027826; filing date Mar. 18, 2010; Peter A. Halverson; ISR mailed Jan. 17, 2011. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/709,240, filed Feb. 19, 2010; Anton E. Bowden; office action issued Dec. 30, 2011. |
U.S. Appl. No. 11/952,709, filed Dec. 7, 2007; Michael D. Ensign; office action mailed Mar. 17, 2011. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/916,110, filed Oct. 29, 2010; Spencer P. Magleby; office action issued Mar. 16, 2012. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/711,131, filed Feb. 23, 2010; David T. Hawkes; office action issued Jun. 4, 2012. |
U.S. Appl. No. 120/029,046, filed Feb. 11, 2008; Peter Halverson; office action issued Apr. 20, 2012. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/709,240, filed Feb. 19, 2010; Anton E. Bowden; office action dated Jul. 11, 2012. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/709,240, filed Feb. 19, 2010; Anton E. Bowden; office action issued Aug. 29, 2011. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/709,243, filed Feb. 19, 2010; Anton E. Bowden; office action issued Sep. 1, 2011. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/709,248, filed Feb. 19, 2010; Anton E. Bowden; office action issued Sep. 13, 2011. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/709,255, filed Feb. 19, 2010; Anton E. Bowden; office action issued Sep. 15, 2011. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/029,046, filed Feb. 11, 2008; Peter Halverson; office action issued Sep. 22, 2011. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/709,246, filed Feb. 19, 2010; Anton E. Bowden; office action issued Sep. 1, 2011. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/916,110, filed Oct. 29, 2012; Spencer P. Magleby; office action dated Dec. 14, 2012. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/711,131, filed Feb. 23, 2010; David T. Hawkes; office action dated Dec. 26, 2012. |
PCT/US2012/041360; filed Jun. 7, 2012; Brigham Young University, et al.; search report dated Dec. 14, 2014. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/709,240, filed Feb. 19, 2010; Anton E. Bowden; office action dated Apr. 22, 2013. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/709,240, filed Feb. 19, 2010; Anton E. Bowden; Notice of Allowance issued Oct. 15, 2013. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20100241232 A1 | Sep 2010 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61210572 | Mar 2009 | US | |
60901217 | Feb 2007 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 12029046 | Feb 2008 | US |
Child | 12726816 | US |