The invention relates to testing the integrity of a vehicle testing/diagnostic system used to communicate with an on board diagnostic system of a vehicle.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requires vehicle manufacturers to install on-board diagnostic (OBD) systems for emission control on their light-duty automobiles and trucks beginning with model year 1996. OBD systems typically monitor vehicle emission control systems to detect any malfunction or deterioration that may cause emissions to exceed certain thresholds, such as state-mandated emission requirements or other thresholds. In conventional OBD systems, all (or substantially all) information monitored and/or calculated by an OBD system may be made available through a standardized, serial 16 cavity connector referred to as a Data Link Connector (DLC). The physical and electrical characteristics of typical DLCs provided on vehicles may be standard for all vehicles sold in the United States after 1996.
Generally, a variety of vehicle functions may be monitored by a vehicle's OBD system and, based on observed irregularities in the monitored functions, the OBD system may set one or more “trouble codes” that indicate a specific mechanical or electrical problem with the vehicle (e.g., an emission threshold has been exceeded). Via the DLC, the trouble codes currently set on the OBD may be accessed for any number of applications such as, for example, emissions testing, maintenance, repair diagnostics, or other applications. In some known diagnostic and testing systems, a vehicle testing/diagnostic system may be connected with the OBD to access the trouble codes. The vehicle testing/diagnostic system may be connected with the OBD by way of a serial 16 pin connector, or DLC, that corresponds to the serial 16 cavity DLC provided on the vehicle.
Known emission testing systems exist in which a vehicle may enter a testing station where a vehicle testing/diagnostic system may be connected via a DLC with an OBD system in the vehicle. Based on the trouble codes currently set in the OBD, the vehicle testing/diagnostic system may classify the vehicle as a “pass” or a “fail”. However, should the vehicle testing/diagnostic system be unable to communicate with the OBD upon connection due to a malfunction associated with the OBD system, or for other reasons, the vehicle may be classified as a “fail.” Some conventional emission testing systems may be incapable of detecting instances wherein a failure to communicate between the vehicle testing/diagnostic system and the OBD may be caused by a malfunction associated with the testing station (e.g., a faulty DLC associated with the vehicle testing/diagnostic system) rather than a malfunction associated with the OBD system. Consequently, in cases wherein a malfunction may be present at the testing station, vehicles may be incorrectly classified as “fails” with respect to meeting emissions standards. Similarly, known diagnostic systems may not be capable of determining instances in which a failure to communicate with an OBD system may be due to faulty diagnostic equipment, as opposed to a faulty OBD system. These and other drawbacks exist with conventional diagnostic and testing systems that communicate with OBD systems.
The invention solving these and other problems relates to a system and method for testing the integrity of a vehicle testing/diagnostic system that is used to communicate with an OBD system of a vehicle.
Examples of vehicle testing/diagnostic systems may include any equipment (portable or stationary) found in an automotive maintenance and/or testing (e.g., centralized or decentralized) environment (e.g., a test lane, garage bay, open-air test area, etc.) or other environment capable of communicating with vehicle on-board diagnostic (OBD) systems. Prior to conducting an OBD test on one or more vehicles, an integrity testing system interfaces with a vehicle testing/diagnostic system to determine whether the vehicle testing/diagnostic system is capable of communicating via one or more predetermined communications protocols.
One aspect of the invention relates to enabling an integrity testing system to interface with a vehicle testing/diagnostic system in substantially the same manner as a vehicle would so as to determine whether the vehicle testing/diagnostic system itself is functioning properly with respect to one or more predetermined communications protocols.
According to one implementation, the integrity testing system may comprise a connector, a receiving module, a determination module, a results/display module, reset module, and/or a power module. Additional modules may be implemented. In certain implementations, not all modules may be utilized.
The connector (of the integrity testing system) may be configured to interface with the vehicle testing/diagnostic system just as a connector associated with a vehicle OBD system would.
Via the connector, the receiving module (of the integrity testing system) may receive signals transmitted by the vehicle testing/diagnostic system. In some instances, these signals may be part of a “hand-shaking” routine used by the vehicle testing/diagnostic system to determine in which communications protocol(s) a given OBD system is capable of communicating. The receiving module may group the signals according to the one or more predetermined communications protocols.
Based on the signals received (and/or grouped) by the receiving module, the determination module may determine whether the vehicle testing/diagnostic system is capable of communicating via one or more predetermined communications protocols based on the received signals.
The results/display module may convey one or more of the determinations made by the determination module to a user.
Various phenomena may preclude vehicle testing/diagnostic systems from communicating in one or more predetermined communications protocols. For example, an equipment malfunction (e.g., a broken hardware component such as a broken pin or cavity, a shorted or open connection, other broken hardware components, etc.), a software and/or firmware malfunction, or other malfunctions may disable the vehicle testing/diagnostic system with respect to individual ones of the one or more predetermined communications protocols. In some cases, a malfunction of the vehicle testing/diagnostic system may disable the vehicle testing/diagnostic system with respect to some, but not all, of the predetermined communications protocols. By utilizing the integrity testing system of the invention, a vehicle testing/diagnostic system may be tested to determine whether the vehicle testing/diagnostic system is capable of communicating via any or all of the one or more predetermined communications protocols.
In some implementations, the connector (of the integrity testing system) may be formed similarly to a standard connector of a vehicle OBD system. For example, the connector may comprise a sixteen cavity data link connector similar in structure and function to a data link connector of a vehicle OBD system.
Each of the one or more predetermined protocols may not implement all of the connections (e.g., pins, cavities, etc.) formed between the vehicle testing/diagnostic system and the integrity testing system via the connector. As such, the receiving module may group the signals transmitted by the vehicle testing/diagnostic system via the connector in accordance with the one or more predetermined communications protocols. For example, in instances wherein the connector includes a standard sixteen cavity data link connector, if a given communications protocol implements only cavities 4 and 12, then the receiving module may group the signals received by the integrity system on cavities 4 and 12 of the connector.
Based on the signals received by the receiving module, the determination module may determine whether the vehicle testing/diagnostic system is capable of communicating via the one or more predetermined communications protocols. For instance, in the example of the given communications protocol that implements cavities 4 and 12, if the receiving module receives signals from the vehicle testing/diagnostic system via cavities 4 and 12 of the connector, then the determination module may determine that the vehicle testing/diagnostic system is capable of communicating via this given communications protocol. However, if a second given communications protocol implements cavities 3 and 8, and the receiving module does not receive a signal from the vehicle testing/diagnostic system via cavity 8, then the determination module may determine that the vehicle testing/diagnostic system is not capable of communicating via the second communications protocol.
The results/display module may convey the determinations of the determination module to a user. For example, the results module may graphically display (e.g., via one or more lights, a display screen, or other visual display) the determinations of the determination module. In other implementations, the results/display module may use other mechanisms for conveying the determinations (e.g., sounds, etc.). In some instances, the results/display module may convey a determination about each of the predetermined communications protocols separately. For instance, in the example provided above, the results/display module may convey that the vehicle testing/diagnostic system is capable of communicating via the first given communications protocol but is not capable of communicating via the second given protocol.
In some implementations, the results/display module may convey an overall determination that is an aggregation of the individual determinations. For example, the overall determination for the example described above might be that the vehicle testing/diagnostic system is not capable of communicating in the predetermined communications protocols. This overall determination would change if the determination module determined that the vehicle testing/diagnostic system was capable of communicating via the second given communications protocol. Thus, the results/display module may provide the user with an indication as to which communications protocols the vehicle testing/diagnostic system is or is not capable of communicating in, and/or an indication of the overall ability of the vehicle testing/diagnostic system to communicate with vehicle OBD systems in the predetermined communications protocols.
The various objects, features, and advantages of the invention will be apparent through the detailed description of the invention and the drawings attached hereto. It is also to be understood that both the foregoing general description and the following detailed description are exemplary and not restrictive of the scope of the invention.
Vehicle testing/diagnostic system 110 may, for example, comprise any equipment (portable or stationary) found in an automotive maintenance and/or testing (e.g., centralized or decentralized) environment (e.g., a test lane, garage bay, open-air test area, etc.) or other environment capable of communicating with an OBD system.
Vehicle OBD system 112 may include a sixteen cavity data link connector 114. System 110 may include a sixteen pin data link connector 116 capable of interfacing with connector 114 to form an operative communication link between system 110 and vehicle OBD system 112. Information may be transmitted over this communications link from vehicle OBD system 112 to system 110, or vice versa. The information transmitted to system 110 may include trouble codes that are set and/or not set on vehicle OBD system 112, diagnostic information, emissions information, or other information. In some implementations, system 110 may include an emissions testing system capable of receiving the information from vehicle OBD system 112 and classifying the vehicle as a “pass” or a “fail” based on the information. In some instances, if system 110 cannot communicate with vehicle OBD system 112, the vehicle may be classified as a “fail.” In other implementations, system 110 may include a vehicle diagnostic system capable of receiving the information from vehicle OBD system 112, and determining or identifying needed and/or received maintenance and/or repair based on the information.
When systems 110 and 112 are initially connected via connectors 116 and 114, respectively, systems 110 and 112 may engage in a “hand-shaking” routine wherein signals may be transmitted from system 110 to system 112, or vice versa. The signals transmitted between systems 110 and 112 may include digital signals. The “hand-shaking” routine may enable each of systems 110 and 112 to establish that a valid connection exists between connectors 114 and 116.
Communications between systems 110 and 112 may be made by implementing a predetermined communications protocol. Examples of the communications protocols may include a controller area network (CAN) protocol, an international standards organization (ISO) protocol, a keyword protocol (KWP), a variable pulse width (VPW) protocol, a pulse width modulated (PWM) protocol, or other protocols. The protocol implemented in a particular communications session between systems 110 and 112 may be dictated by vehicle OBD system 112. In some instances, vehicle OBD system 112 may be incapable of communicating in more than one protocol, while system 110 may be capable of communicating via a plurality of protocols. System 110 may determine in which protocol (or protocols) vehicle OBD system 112 is capable of communicating during a “hand-shaking” routine that is initiated upon connection of connectors 114 and 116.
As recited above, in those instances when systems 110 and 112 are unable to communicate via the interface between connectors 114 and 116, the vehicle associated with vehicle OBD system 112 may be classified as a “fail,” for emissions testing purposes. However, the inability of systems 110 and 112 to communicate may not be the “fault” of vehicle OBD system 112, but instead may be caused by an inability of system 110 to send and/or receive information via connector 116. For example, system 110 may experience an equipment malfunction (e.g., a broken hardware component such as a broken pin or cavity, a shorted or open connection, other broken hardware components, etc.). System 110 may also experience a software and/or firmware malfunction, or other malfunctions that may result in the inability of systems 110 and 112 to communicate.
According to one implementation of the invention (and with reference to
According to one aspect of the invention, processor 122 (of integrity testing system 118) may comprise a receiving module 310, a determination module 312, a results/display module 314, a reset module 316, and a power module 318, among other modules. It should be appreciated that the representation of modules 310, 312, 314, 316, and 318 are provided for illustrative purposes only, and that each module may include one or more components that perform the functionalities assigned to modules 310, 312, 314, 316, and 318, as well as other functions. Modules 310, 312, 314, 316, and 318 may include components implemented as hardware, software, firmware, a combination of hardware, software, and/or firmware, as well as in other mediums.
According to an aspect of the invention, receiving module 310 may receive signals from connector 120. The signals may include digital signals received by cavities 1-16 from pins 1-16 of connector 114 during a “hand-shaking” routine, or at another time. Receiving module 310 may group the received signals based on protocol usage. For example, in different implementations: (1) signals received at cavities 2 and 5 may be grouped together in accordance with their use as data signals within the VPW protocol; (2) signals received at cavities 2 and 10 may be grouped together in accordance with their use as data signals within the PWM protocol; (3) signals received at cavities 6 and 14 may be grouped together in accordance with their use as data signals in the CAN protocol; and (4) signals received at cavities 7 and 15 may be grouped together in accordance with their use as data signals in the ISO and KWP protocols.
In some implementations, determination module 312 may determine whether system 110 is capable of communicating with vehicle OBD system 112 via one or more communication protocols. Determination module 312 may receive the grouped signals from receiving module 310 and, based on the grouped signals, may determine whether system 110 is capable of communicating with vehicle OBD system 112 via the communication protocols. For example, from the grouped signals received at cavities 2 and 5, determination module 312 may determine whether system 110 is capable of communicating via the VPW protocol. Based on this determination, determination module 312 may generate one or more outputs.
According to an aspect of the invention, results/display module 314 may receive outputs from determination module 312, and may convey the results of the determination (or determinations) made by determination module 312 to a user. In some implementations, results/display module 314 may comprise a visual display that conveys the results to the user. Other means of conveying results may be utilized.
According to an aspect of the invention, reset module 316 may enable processor 122 to be reset to begin a new test of the integrity of system 110. Via reset module 316, one or both of determination module 312 and results module 314 may be reset for a new test.
According to one aspect of the invention, power module 318 may provide power to one or more of the modules 310, 312, 314, and 316, as well as other modules within processor 122. In some implementations, power module 318 may include a battery that may provide the power. In these implementations, power module 318 may include a low battery indicator that indicates that a power level of the battery is low. In some implementations, power module 318 may include a power connector for connecting processor 122 and/or the battery to an external power source. Power module 318 may comprise a recharging circuit for recharging the battery via the external power source.
Referring back to
Referring back to
For example, when the determination outputs are in their default state, transistors 418 may not drive “go” LEDs 420 so that “go” LEDs 420 may not be lit when the determination outputs are in their default state. As one of the determination outputs switches from its default state to the opposite state, the corresponding transistor 418 may drive the “go” LED 420 connected to that particular transistor 418. The lit “go” LED 420 may signal to a user that the determination output has switched from its default state, indicating that system 110 may be capable of communicating in the protocol (or protocols) associated with that particular determination output.
Similarly, when the determination outputs are in their default state, the inverses of the determination outputs may be in the opposite state, which may cause transistors 422 to drive “no-go” LEDs 424 to indicate to the user that system 110 may not yet have demonstrated an ability to communicate in the protocols associated with no-go LEDs 424. However, as a determination output is switched out of its default state, the inverse of the determination output may also switch, which may cause the transistor 422 connected to that particular inverse of the determination output to stop driving its associated no-go LED 424.
In some implementations, display module 314 may include an AND gate 426. The inputs of AND gate 426 may be connected to the determination outputs. When all of the determination outputs connected to the inputs of AND gate 426 are switched out of their default state, a system-ok LED 428 may be lit. When system-ok LED 428 is lit, it may signify to the user that system 110 may be capable of communicating in all of the protocols being tested by integrity testing system 118.
In one implementation, logic gate 714 may include an input NAND gate 74LS30. In the implementation shown in
Referring back to
Referring back to
It should be appreciated that the representation of the circuitry of processor 122 shown in
In some implementations, integrity testing system 118 may not test for a uniform set of protocols, but may instead be configurable to test only for one or more protocols specifically selected by a user.
In some implementations, a vehicle testing/diagnostic system and an OBD system may be capable of communicating with one another via an alternate connection to the interface between two data link connectors. For example, the system may be capable of wireless communication. In such implementations, the invention contemplates enabling an integrity testing system to intercept wireless signals being transmitted by the vehicle testing/diagnostic system to confirm the integrity of the vehicle testing/diagnostic system.
In an operation 1012, one or more determinations may be made with respect to the ability of the vehicle testing/diagnostic system to communicate according to one or more communications protocols. For example, the determination may include determining whether the vehicle testing/diagnostic system may be capable of communicating in various ones of the one or more communications protocols.
In an operation 1014, the determinations made in operation 1012 may be conveyed to a user. For instance, a visual display may be implemented to convey the determinations to the user.
Other embodiments, uses and advantages of the invention will be apparent to those skilled in the art from consideration of the specification and practice of the invention disclosed herein. The specification should be considered exemplary only, and the scope of the invention is accordingly intended to be limited only by the following claims.
This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/506,000, filed Aug. 18, 2006, and issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,945,358 on May 17, 2011, which claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 60/709,117, filed Aug. 18, 2005, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4864568 | Sato et al. | Sep 1989 | A |
4962456 | Abe et al. | Oct 1990 | A |
5506772 | Kubozono et al. | Apr 1996 | A |
5541840 | Gurne et al. | Jul 1996 | A |
5548713 | Petry et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
5565856 | Takaba et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5657233 | Cherrington et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5717595 | Cherrington et al. | Feb 1998 | A |
5964813 | Ishii et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5995898 | Tuttle | Nov 1999 | A |
6070155 | Cherrington et al. | May 2000 | A |
6112152 | Tuttle | Aug 2000 | A |
6128560 | Ishii | Oct 2000 | A |
6134488 | Sasaki et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6175787 | Breed | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6181992 | Gurne et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6192302 | Giles et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6233509 | Becker | May 2001 | B1 |
6263268 | Nathanson | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6282469 | Rogers et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6295492 | Lang et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6308130 | Vojtisek-Lom | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6341670 | Leblanc et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6359570 | Adcox et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6360145 | Robinson | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6388579 | Adcox et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6429773 | Schuyler | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6435019 | Vojtisek-Lom | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6442458 | Kubo et al. | Aug 2002 | B2 |
6526340 | Reul et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6535112 | Rothschink | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6594579 | Lowrey et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6601441 | Torgerson et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6604033 | Banet et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6609051 | Fiechter et al. | Aug 2003 | B2 |
6611740 | Lowrey et al. | Aug 2003 | B2 |
6622070 | Wacker et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6623975 | Tefft et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6630885 | Hardman et al. | Oct 2003 | B2 |
6633784 | Lovelace et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6636790 | Lightner et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6647420 | Hellbusch et al. | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6650977 | Miller | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6662091 | Wilson et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6668253 | Thompson et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6676841 | Akins et al. | Jan 2004 | B2 |
6687584 | Andreasen et al. | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6701233 | Namaky et al. | Mar 2004 | B2 |
6728611 | Kamiya | Apr 2004 | B2 |
6732031 | Lightner et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6732032 | Banet et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6735630 | Gelvin et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6775602 | Gordon et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6785605 | Huller et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6791456 | Nakayama et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6799106 | Fukushima et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6816760 | Namaky | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6832141 | Skeen et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6836708 | Tripathi | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6868388 | Millsap et al. | Mar 2005 | B1 |
6876296 | Talmadge et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6879894 | Lightner et al. | Apr 2005 | B1 |
6901374 | Himes | May 2005 | B1 |
6920381 | Doherty et al. | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6925368 | Funkhouser et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6928348 | Lightner et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6928349 | Namaky et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6941203 | Chen | Sep 2005 | B2 |
6947816 | Chen | Sep 2005 | B2 |
D510287 | Chen et al. | Oct 2005 | S |
6988053 | Namaky | Jan 2006 | B2 |
7061371 | Shockley | Jun 2006 | B2 |
7085680 | Huang | Aug 2006 | B2 |
7116216 | Andreasen et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7124051 | Patterson et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7124058 | Namaky et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
RE39619 | Andreasen et al. | May 2007 | E |
7239946 | Sowa | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7257472 | Hauer et al. | Aug 2007 | B2 |
7945358 | Avery et al. | May 2011 | B2 |
20020007237 | Phung et al. | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020016655 | Joao | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020024537 | Jones et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020087237 | Ol et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020095321 | Hellbusch et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020116095 | Miller et al. | Aug 2002 | A1 |
20020123833 | Sakurai et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020123933 | Himes | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020133273 | Lowrey et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020150050 | Nathanson | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020156692 | Squeglia et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020173885 | Lowrey et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020193925 | Funkhouser et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020197955 | Witkowski et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030004623 | Namaky et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030004624 | Wilson et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030060953 | Chen | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030130774 | Tripathi et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030138475 | Chen | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030158640 | Pillar et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030171111 | Clark | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030187557 | Shockley | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030191660 | Himes | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030228879 | Witkowski et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030236601 | McLeod et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040002921 | Himes | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040015278 | Gordon, Jr. et al. | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040039502 | Wilson et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040039646 | Hacker | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040044453 | Malik et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040048622 | Witkowski et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040110472 | Witkowski et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040203379 | Witkowski et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20050010341 | MacNamara et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050015278 | Ghouri | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050043868 | Mitcham | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050043869 | Funkhouser et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050075768 | Nicholson et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050096806 | Diem | May 2005 | A1 |
20050119809 | Chen | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050125117 | Breed | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050131596 | Cherrington et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050143882 | Umezawa | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050159923 | Huang | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050171735 | Huang | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050177286 | Namaky et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050182535 | Huang | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050182537 | Tefft et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20060027650 | Andreasen et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060089767 | Sowa | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060089768 | Sakurai et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060149434 | Bertosa et al. | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060149437 | Somos | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060167593 | Eckles | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060293811 | Andreasen et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070005201 | Chenn | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070016483 | Chenn | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070043488 | Avery et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
WO 9922497 | May 1999 | WO |
WO 0079727 | Dec 2000 | WO |
WO 0184380 | Nov 2001 | WO |
WO 0186576 | Nov 2001 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20120016552 A1 | Jan 2012 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60709117 | Aug 2005 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11506000 | Aug 2006 | US |
Child | 13108890 | US |