DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 19, 2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant has argued (Remarks, pages 9-10) that the common wingtip in Houck is not formed by a continuous and smooth transition of the underside of the leading wing with the upper surface of the trailing wing, providing an annotated figure depicting overlap between the upper and lower wings.
This argument is not persuasive. Fig. 4 is a side view, but from fig. 2 it can be seen that the portions of the wings indicated by Applicant’s annotations are part of the wing root, not the wing tip, as a result of the curvature as the wings taper into the fuselage.
PNG
media_image1.png
367
1174
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Item A: Excerpts from Fig. 2 and Fig. 4 of Houck
The portions which overlap in the projection onto the x-z plane are where the wings blend into the fuselage at the wing roots; neither the leading wing 14 or the trailing wing 15 extends past the wingtip in the region of the wingtip. When the perspective, top, front and side views in figs. 1-4 are taken in context together, the common wingtip of Houck is shown to have no discontinuities in curvature.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-10, 12, 14, 16-22, 27 and 36-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2010/0025541 A1 to Houck, II in view of US 2,447,100 to Stalker.
Regarding claim 1: Houck teaches an aircraft (figs. 1-4: 10) comprising:
a fuselage (20);
an anhedral rearwardly-swept leading wing (upper leading course 14) for generating lift connected to an upper portion of the fuselage (most visible in figs. 3-4); and
a dihedral forwardly-swept trailing wing (lower trailing course 15) for generating lift attached to a lower portion of the fuselage (as shown in figs. 1-4), the trailing wing being arranged to be vertically lower than the leading wing in flight (most visible in figs. 3-4),
wherein the leading wing and trailing wing are blended together at their wingtips (¶ 0270: “Starboard and port flow guides 16, 18 create blended bridges between upper course 14 and lower course 15,” see also ¶ 0006, 0263-0264), forming a common wingtip (as shown in figs. 1-3, 5A-5B and 6), such that the underside surface of the leading wing forms a generally continuous and smoothly transitioning surface with the upper surface of the trailing wing (as shown in figs. 1-6, surface 38 forms the underside of the upper wing 14 and transitions along the length of the flow guide into the upper surface of lower wing 15; see also ¶ 0264: “Flow guides 16, 18 are configured in the form of an arc having a center portion 69 of substantially circular curvature and end portions 68, 70 of a curvature which causes a blending with the surfaces of upper course 14 and lower course 15,” ¶ 0265: “The entire surface of lifting foil 10 is preferably smooth“) so as to form a vortex guide surface (flow guide 16/18) such that vortex air flow from the leading wing is guided by the vortex guide surface onto, or into the path of, the trailing wing (¶ 0293: the wings are jointed at the tips with “endplates or cambered flow guides 16, 18 designed to combine the individual wingtip vortices into a single vortex that is more widespread as displayed in figs. 5A and 5B,” ¶ 0423: “the lower wing is immersed in the induced downwash of the upper wing,” see also ¶ 0006-0008),
wherein the common wingtip comprises a cross-section (considered as the cross-section in a plane parallel to the y-z plane, using the axes depicted in Houck figs. 1-4 and 5B) which twists along the length of the common wingtip such that the vortex guide surface rotates to blend the underside surface of the leading wing with the upper surface of the trailing wing (figs. 1-4: the common wingtips are continuously aft swept, such that as y-z cross-sections progress aft they contain portions of the aircraft located further along the length of the common wingtip, and each of ribs 81-89 in fig. 5B along the length of the common wingtip is positioned aft of the preceding rib; ¶ 0271: the ribs are secured between surfaces 38 and 39; fig. 5B: each of ribs 81-89 is at an orientation rotated counter-clockwise relative to the preceding rib such that at each of ribs 81-89 spaced along the length of flow guide 16, the joints between the rib and skins 38 and 39 are rotated in a counter-clockwise direction relative to the preceding rib, resulting in a cross-section which rotates along the length of the flow guide; see also examiner annotations to fig. 6 in Figure B below, with surfaces 38 and 39 labeled at the location of each rib 81-89, taken at respective chordwise cross-sections 6A to 6I — note that the chordwise cross-sections 6A-6I are not relied upon for the claimed “cross-section which twists along the length of the common wingtip”; the orientations of the planes containing these cross-sections correspond with the orientations of cross-sections taken parallel to the y-z axis due to the construction of the wingtip),
PNG
media_image2.png
684
467
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Item B: excerpt from FIG. 6 of US 2010/0025541 A1 to Houck, with examiner annotations
wherein the common wingtip is configured such that spanwise airflow on the underside surface of the leading wing is guided by the vortex guide surface onto the upper surface of, or into the path of, the trailing wing by travelling substantially along the length of the common wingtip (Houck ¶ 0293: the wings are jointed at the tips with “endplates or cambered flow guides 16, 18 designed to combine the individual wingtip vortices into a single vortex that is more widespread as displayed in figs. 5A and 5B,” see also ¶ 0006-0008, 0263-0264, 0423, and figs. 1-2, copied below).
PNG
media_image3.png
715
613
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Item C: Figs. 1 and 2 of Houck
Houck is silent to flow ducts extending through the wings and to what provides propulsive power to the aircraft.
Stalker teaches an aircraft with a wing (24) which comprises one or more flow ducts extending therethrough (figs. 1, 3: from inlet 17 to nozzle 28), and
wherein the ducts comprise at least one motor (prime mover 12) provided therein configured to provide propulsive power to the aircraft (c. 2, ℓ. 48-52: the airplane is propelled by the prime mover 12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the aircraft of Houck with flow ducts with motors provided therein, such as taught by Stalker, for the purpose of improving increased thermal efficiency (Stalker c. 1, ℓ. 53–c. 2, ℓ. 47).
Regarding claim 2: Houck, as modified, provides the aircraft of Claim 1, wherein the vortex guide surface comprises a blended surface of the underside surface of the leading wing and the upper surface of the trailing wing (figs. 5A-5B: surface 38 is the underside surface of leading wing 14 and blends into the upper surface of trailing wing 15; see also Houck ¶ 0264: “Flow guides 16, 18 are configured in the form of an arc having a center portion 69 of substantially circular curvature and end portions 68, 70 of a curvature which causes a blending with the surfaces of upper course 14 and lower course 15”).
Regarding claim 3: Houck, as modified, provides the aircraft of Claim 1, wherein the upper surface of the leading wing forms a generally continuous surface and smoothly transitioning with the underside surface of the trailing wing (Houck figs. 5A-5B: surface 39 is a continuous surface smoothly transitioning from the upper surface of leading wing 14 to the underside of trailing wing 15).
Regarding claim 4: Houck, as modified, provides the aircraft of Claim 3, wherein the upper surface of the leading wing is blended with the underside surface of the trailing wing (Houck ¶ 0006, 0263, 0270) so as to form a generally continuous and smoothly transitioning surface from the upper surface of the leading wing to the underside surface of the trailing wing (Houck figs. 5A-5B: surface 39 is a continuous surface smoothly transitioning from the upper surface of leading wing 14 to the underside of trailing wing 15).
Regarding claim 5: Houck, as modified, provides the aircraft of any preceding claim 1, wherein the common wingtip extends substantially in a longitudinal direction of the fuselage (Houck figs. 1-5B: flow guides 16, 18 extend parallel to the longitudinal direction x of the fuselage).
Regarding claim 6: Houck, as modified, provides the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the longitudinal axis of the common wingtip is inclined with respect to a longitudinal axis of the fuselage by less than 45 degrees (Houck fig. 4: the flow guide can be seen to be inclined with respect to the longitudinal axis of the fuselage; Houck defines the gap as the vertical distance between the wings and stagger as the horizontal distance between the leading edges, see figs. 26(B), 34, ¶ 0235; fig. 35(D): with a gap of 0.5C and stagger of 1.0C, the angle between the longitudinal axis of the flow guide and that of the fuselage is the arctangent of 0.5C/1.0C, or about 26.6 degrees; see also the table in ¶ 0330: models 3 and 6 have an angle of 45 degrees, but model 8 has an angle of about 33.7 degrees, while model 4 represents the 26.6 degree configuration shown in fig. 35(D); ¶ 0293-0296: Houck based the models used for testing on the aircraft of figs. 1-4 and 5A-5B).
Regarding claim 7: Houck, as modified, provides the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the common wingtip has a length less than 10 times its width (Houck ¶ 0330, as discussed below; as with claim 6 above, note Houck ¶ 0293-0296: the models used for testing are based on the aircraft of figs. 1-4 and 5A-5B).
Considering the length as measured along the longitudinal axis of the wingtip or flow guide surface and accounting for the “substantially circular curvature” of center portion 69 (¶ 0264), the length of the flow guide may be calculated as a spiral length,
L
=
H
P
(
π
D
)
2
+
P
2
. Using the stagger for the Height H of the spiral, the gap for the Diameter D of the spiral, and twice the stagger for the Pitch P or distance between turns of the spiral (the common wingtip extending only for half of a full turn of the spiral such that the stagger is the distance of half a turn of the spiral), in the context of Houck the length can be calculated with,
L
=
s
t
a
g
g
e
r
2
∙
s
t
a
g
g
e
r
(
π
∙
g
a
p
)
2
+
(
2
∙
s
t
a
g
g
e
r
)
2
. Model 3, having a value of 0.5C for both gap and a stagger, has the shortest length at about 0.9C and model 7, having a gap of 2C and a stagger of 1C, has the longest length at about 3.3C. As the values used are in terms of chord length, the greatest ratio of length to chord is 3.3, which is less than 10.
Regarding claim 9: Houck, as modified, provides the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the common wingtip is hollow (see Houck fig. 5B: the wingtip is hollow).
Regarding claim 10: Houck, as modified, provides the aircraft of claim 9, wherein the common wingtip comprises an internal chamber (Houck fig. 5B: there is space between each pair of ribs 83-87).
Regarding claim 12: Houck, as modified, provides the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the common wingtip comprises a substantially triangular, or substantially rounded-triangular, lateral cross-section (Houck figs. 6A-6I: at least the cross-sections in figs. 6A, 6B, 6H and 6I may be considered as substantially rounded-triangular; note that the cross-section recited in claim 12 is not linked to the cross-section of claim 1 and is not required to twist along the length of the common wingtip).
Regarding claim 14: Houck, as modified, provides the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the upper surface of the leading wing and the underside surface of the trailing wing are generally arcuate so as to form a generally curvilinear profile when viewed from the front or rear of the aircraft (Houck fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16: Houck, as modified, provides the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the leading edge of the leading wing and the trailing edge of the trailing wing are generally straight so as to form a generally kite-shaped, or rhomboid, profile when viewed from above or below (Houck fig. 2: the shape is generally kite-shaped or rhomboid).
Regarding claim 17: Houck, as modified, provides the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the upper surface is the low pressure surface, or extrados surface, of the wing, and the underside surface is the high pressure surface, or intrados surface, of the wing (Houck fig. 5A shows forces 63 from pressure, and forces 63e-63h are oriented upward).
Regarding claim 18: Houck, as modified, provides the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the vortex guide surface is configured to direct vortex air flow so as to impinge on the leading edge of the trailing wing (see Houck figs. 1-5B, ¶ 0293: the wings are jointed at the tips with “endplates or cambered flow guides 16, 18 designed to combine the individual wingtip vortices into a single vortex that is more widespread as displayed in figs. 5A and 5B,” ¶ 0423: “the lower wing is immersed in the induced downwash of the upper wing,” see also ¶ 0006-0008, 0263-0264).
Regarding claim 19: Houck, as modified, provides the aircraft of claim 18, wherein the vortex guide surface is configured to direct vortex air flow so as to be generally in line with the chord or a stagnation point of the trailing wing (Houck figs. 1-4: guide surfaces 16, 18 will inhibit spanwise flow of vortex air and direct vortex flow aft, which is in line with the chord of the trailing wing).
Regarding claim 20: Houck, as modified, provides the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the fuselage passes within an annular space formed between the leading wing and the trailing wing (Houck figs. 1-4).
Regarding claim 21: Houck, as modified, provides the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the leading wing is attached to an upper portion of the fuselage which is above a pitch axis, or roll axis, of the aircraft and wherein the leading wing is attached to a lower portion of the fuselage which is below a pitch axis, or roll axis, of the aircraft (see Houck figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 22: Houck, as modified, provides the aircraft of claim 1.
Houck and Stalker are both silent to specifically six flow ducts per wing, three flow ducts on each side of the fuselage on each wing. However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the aircraft of Houck, as modified by Stalker, with three flow ducts on each side of the fuselage on each wing, as a mere duplication of parts, for the purpose of increasing the total amount of thrust available to the aircraft, as well as for the purpose of redundancy.
Regarding claim 27: Houck, as modified, provides the aircraft of claim 22, wherein the vortex guide surface is configured to direct air flow into the flow ducts (Stalker fig. 3: as modified by Stalker, there are multiple inlets 17, 22, 23, to the flow ducts on the lower wing; Houck ¶ 0423: “the lower wing is immersed in the induced downwash of the upper wing”; being immersed includes air flow to the flow ducts).
Regarding claim 36: Houck, as modified, provides the aircraft of claim 1.
Houck and Stalker are both silent to solar panels provided on the upper surface of the wings, however the examiner has taken (Office action of September 30, 2024, page 8, regarding claim 36) Official notice that it is known in the art to place solar panels on the upper surfaces of aircraft wings or fuselages, to provide electrical power. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided solar panels on the upper surface of at least one of the leading or trailing wings of Houck, as modified by Stalker, for the purpose of generating electricity to supply power to components on the aircraft.
Regarding claim 37: Houck, as modified, provides the aircraft of claim 1, wherein both the leading and trailing wings are blended into the fuselage so as to form a blended wing body (see Houck figs. 1-4: the wings are blended into the fuselage).
Regarding claim 38: Houck, as modified, provides the aircraft of claim 1, wherein an upper surface of the fuselage forms a blended common upper surface with the upper surface of the leading wing, and wherein a lower surface of the fuselage forms a blended common lower surface with the lower surface of the trailing wing (see Houck figs. 1-4: the wings are blended into the fuselage).
Regarding claim 39: Houck, as modified, provides the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the leading wing is attached to a forward second of the fuselage and the trailing wing is attached to an aft section of the fuselage (see Houck fig. 2).
Regarding claim 40: Houck, as modified, provides the aircraft of claim 39, wherein the leading wing is attached to the fuselage ahead of a pitch axis of the aircraft and wherein the trailing wing is attached to the fuselage behind a pitch axis of the aircraft (¶ 0262: the center of gravity is at the origin of the coordinate system; Houck figs. 1-4: leading wing 14 attaches to fuselage 12 along a length of the fuselage including the very front, such that the leading wing is attached at points forward of the pitch axis; and trailing wing 15 attaches to fuselage 12 along a length of the fuselage including the point furthest aft, such that the trailing wing is attached at points aft of the pitch axis).
Regarding claim 41: Houck, as modified, provides the aircraft of claim 1, wherein the vortex guide surface is generally or substantially twisted along its length (as discussed above regarding claim 1).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houck, II (US 2010/0025541 A1) in view of Stalker (US 2,447,100), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cabrol (WO 2014/195241 A1).
Regarding claim 15: Houck, as modified, provides the aircraft of claim 1. Houck does not specifically teach the anhedral angle of the leading wing on each lateral side of the aircraft and the dihedral angle of the trailing wing on each lateral side of the aircraft continuously and smoothly increases along the span of each wing away from the fuselage.
Cabrol teaches an aircraft an anhedral rearwardly-swept leading wing (front wing 5) connected to an upper portion of the fuselage (figs. 1-2: at junctions 9); and a dihedral forwardly-swept trailing wing (rear wing 6) attached to a lower portion of the fuselage (figs. 1-2: at junctions 10), the trailing wing being arranged to be vertically lower than the leading wing in flight (see figs. 1, 15-16), wherein the leading wing and trailing wing are blended together at their wingtips (7) forming a common wingtip (see figs. 1, 15-16);
wherein the anhedral angle of the leading wing on each lateral side of the aircraft and the dihedral angle of the trailing wing on each lateral side of the aircraft continuously and smoothly increases along the span of each wing away from the fuselage so as to form a generally curvilinear, or hoop-shaped, profile when viewed from the front or rear of the aircraft (see figs. 15-16).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have configured the wings of the aircraft of Houck, as modified by Stalker, with continuously and smoothly increasing anhedral and dihedral to form a generally curvilinear profile from the front or rear, as taught by Cabrol, for the purpose of further blending the shape of the closed wing structure to reduce vortex generation (Houck ¶ 0265) and to improve aerodynamic performance.
Claim(s) 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houck, II (US 2010/0025541 A1) in view of Stalker (US 2,447,100), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grow (US 4,026,500).
Regarding claims 23-26: Houck, as modified, provides the aircraft of claim 22, wherein the flow ducts extend from a high pressure or intrados surface of the wing, (Stalker fig. 3: lower inlets 22, 23 are located on the high pressure surface of the wing), a stagnation area of the wing (Stalker fig. 3: inlet 17 is located at the stagnation point of the wing, and nozzle 28 is at an area having lower pressure than inlet 17) and a low pressure or extrados surface of the wing (Stalker fig. 3: upper inlets 22, 23 are located on the low pressure surface of the wing). Stalker is silent to a duct extending to a low pressure surface or a high pressure surface of the wing.
Grow teaches an aircraft wing having an internal duct (25) with an engine (40) therein, wherein ailerons, flaps or valves may be used to discharge air from the ducts to the exterior of the wing on the upper or lower surface ahead of the trailing edge for boundary layer control (c. 5, ℓ. 1-16).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have provided the aircraft flow ducts of Houck, as modified by Stalker, with discharge valves on the upper and lower surfaces of the wing, as taught by Grow, for the purpose of providing additional boundary layer control. In so doing, due to the valves provided on the upper and lower surfaces of the wing, the flow ducts will also extend to a low pressure or extrados surface and a high pressure surface or intrados of the wing.
Claim(s) 29-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houck, II (US 2010/0025541 A1) in view of Stalker (US 2,447,100), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Groninga et al. (US 10,377,480 B2).
Regarding claim 29-31: Houck, as modified, provides the aircraft of claim 22. Houck and Stalker are both silent to pivotable sections of the wingspan.
Groninga teaches an aircraft having ducts (of fan systems 30, 32, 34, 36; see duct in fig. 17) provided on independently pivotable sections of the wingspan of both leading (20, 22) and trailing (24, 26) wings (see fig. 1A) so as to provide thrust vectoring (c. 6, ℓ. 36-47: each fan system is rotatably mounted; c. 7, ℓ. 41–c. 8, ℓ. 11: the fan systems may be independently rotated for control in yaw, roll and pitch), wherein the leading wing and the trailing wing each comprise at least two pivotable sections: one on each side of the fuselage on each wing (fig. 1A: on leading wings 20, 22 and trailing wings 24, 26).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have configured the aircraft of Houck, as modified by Stalker, with the ducts in pivotable sections of the wings, as taught by Groninga, for the purpose of providing vertical take-off and landing capability (Groninga c. 7, ℓ. 9-30).
Regarding claim 32: Houck, as modified, provides the aircraft of claim 29, wherein the pivotable sections are configured to be pivotable from a cruise configuration to a vertical take-off and landing configuration (Groninga c. 7, ℓ. 9-30).
Regarding claim 33: Houck, as modified, provides the aircraft of claim 32, in the vertical take-off and landing configuration, the pivotable sections are configured to pivot sufficiently such that the combined thrust vector provided by the engines provided within the pivotable sections is sufficient to generally or substantially equal the weight vector of the aircraft (Groninga c. 7, ℓ. 9-30: hover flight mode indicates thrust substantially equal to the weight vector).
Regarding claim 34: Houck, as modified, provides the aircraft of claim 33, the aircraft is an airplane (Houck ¶ 0265: it may have a cockpit and crew quarters) or a UAV.
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houck, II (US 2010/0025541 A1) in view of Stalker (US 2,447,100), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Roebroeks et al. (US 2010/0133380 A1).
Regarding claim 35: Houck, as modified, provides the aircraft of claim 1. Houck and Stalker are both silent to a hemp and epoxy composite.
Roebroeks teaches a fiber metal laminate skin panel (abstract) for aircraft fuselages and wings (¶ 0032) wherein the fiber-reinforced polymer layers may comprise hemp fibers in an epoxy matrix (¶ 0014). Advantageously, these skin panels lower the load in aluminum parts of the fuselage, increases the damage tolerance of the skin panel and may result in weight savings (¶ 0005).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have used skin panels made from a hemp and epoxy composite, as taught by Roebroeks in at least one of the leading wing or the trailing wing or the fuselage of the aircraft of Houck, as modified by Stalker, due to their increased damage tolerance and weight savings.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Richard Green whose telephone number is (571)270-5380. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 11:00 to 7:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kimberly Berona can be reached at (571) 272-6909. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Richard Green/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647