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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the capacitive sensor located on the main body must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 17 and 18 recite “a capacitive sensor located on the main body”. The limitations was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor. The specifications and drawings recite that a capacitive sensor is located on the handle ([pg. 7, Lines 22-23] but not the main body.
Claims 2-16 and 19-20 are rejected due to being dependent upon a rejected claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a capacitive sensor located on the main body”. It is unclear to the examiner how the capacitive sensors would work on the main body due to when in use the sensor needs to be touched by the user. Further dependent claim 19 recites the capacitive sensor located on the handle. It is unclear if applicant intended for the capacitive sensor to be located on the handle or the main body or if the handle is apart of the main body. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the handle as part of the main body.
Claims 17 and 18 recite “a capacitive sensor located on the main body”. It is unclear to the examiner how the capacitive sensors would work on the main body due to when in use the sensor needs to be touched by the user. It is unclear if applicant intended for the capacitive sensor to be located on the handle or the main body or if the handle is a part of the main body. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the handle as part of the main body.
Claims 2-16 and 20 are rejected due to being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-5, 10-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawrence (GB2490256A, previously presented) in view of Reindle (US 2005/0065662, previously presented).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood in light of the 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above, Lawrence teaches a vacuum cleaner (Ref. 1, Fig. 1) comprising:
a vacuum motor (Ref. 24, Fig. 2);
a main body (Ref. 3&14-15, Fig. 2) housing the vacuum motor (24, Fig. 2);
one or more motion sensors (Ref. 21&23, Fig. 1 teach motion sensors) configured to generate a first sensor signal ([Pg. 9, Lines 5-21]).
a capacitive sensor (Ref. 17&19, Fig. 2, [Pg. 6, Line 1-2] teaches a capacitive sensor) located on the main body (3&14) in proximity to a handle of the vacuum cleaner (Ref. 14, Fig. 1) and configured to generate second sensor signals dependent on whether a user is gripping the handle ([Pg. 8, Lines 15-19] describes the touch sensor is use to indicate if the user is holding the handle); and
a controller ([Pg. 9, Line 5-12] describe a power management system) configured to:
process the generated first and second sensor signals ([Pg. 7, Lines 3-6]) to determine whether the vacuum cleaner is actively being used by the user ([Pg. 9, Lines 5-12]); and
in response to determining that the vacuum cleaner is actively being used, activate the vacuum motor ([Pg. 10, Lines 13-20] describes activating the motor when the touch and motion sensors are sensed being used).
Lawerence teaches one or more motion sensors (Ref. 21&23, Fig. 1 teach motion sensors) configured to generate a first sensor signal ([Pg. 9, Lines 5-21]). However, Lawerence fails to explicitly teach one or more time of flight sensors configured to generate first sensor signals dependent on the proximity of an object to the one or more time of flight sensors. Reindle teaches a vacuum cleaner with a main body, sensors, and controllers and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of vacuums cleaners. Reindle teaches a vacuum cleaner with one or more time of flight sensors (Ref. 96, Fig. 3, [0055]) using lasers ([0056] describes the sensors as infrared sensors that are old and known in the art to use infrared lasers) configured to generate sensor signals dependent on the proximity of an object to the one or more time of flight sensors ([0055-0056] teaches a proximity sensor for detecting the distance from the floor that is sent to a controller to command the vacuum to stop or reverse). Given Lawerence teaches a motion sensor and the time of flight sensor is a proximity sensor to detect if the device is moving towards and away the floor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the motion sensors, as taught by Lawerence, with the time of flight sensors, as taught by Lawerence, to achieve the predictable result of detecting movement of the vacuum cleaner and to add further functionality of determining if the device is in proper contact with a surface or if the surface area is hazardous ([0056]).
Regarding Claim 2, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Lawerence further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to deactivate the vacuum motor in response to determining that the vacuum cleaner is no longer actively being used by the user ([Pg. 9, Lines 20-21] describes powering down the motor).
Regarding Claim 3, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Lawerence further teaches wherein the controller is configured to process the first and second sensor signals to determine whether the vacuum cleaner is actively being used both when the vacuum motor is activated and when the vacuum motor is deactivated ([Pg. 8, Lines 12- Pg. 9-21] describes the power management system detecting if the vacuum is used or not used at all times).
Regarding Claim 4, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and give the incorporation of the time of flight sensor being a laser in claim 1, Lawerence as modified further teaches wherein the one or more time of flight sensors comprise a radar device and/or a laser device ([0056] describes a time of flight sensors uses infrared lasers, Reindle).
Regarding Claim 5, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, give the incorporation of the time of flight sensor being a laser in claim 1, Lawerence as modified further teaches wherein determining that the vacuum cleaner is actively being used comprises determining, from the first sensor signals, that the object is within a predetermined threshold distance from at least one of the one or more time of flight sensors ([0055-0056] teaches a proximity sensor for detecting the distance from the floor that is sent to a controller to command the vacuum to stop or reverse, Reindle).
Regarding Claim 10, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Lawerence further teaches wherein one of the one or more time of flight sensors (21&23) is located on the main body (15, Fig. 1-2).
Regarding Claim 11, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Lawerence further teaches wherein determining that the vacuum cleaner is actively being used comprises determining, from the second sensor signals, that the user is gripping the handle of the vacuum cleaner ([Pg. 8, Lines 31-33 - Pg. 9, Lines 1-21]).
Regarding Claim 12, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Lawerence further teaches wherein the controller is configured to process the sensor signals by performing a pre-processing step ([Pg. 7, Line33-34 - Pg. 8, Lines 1-2] describe a pre-processing step of associating different sensor signals to a time) and a classification step ([Pg. 8, Lines 12-21] describe the controller detects where a signal is a first or second signal).
Regarding Claim 13, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and Lawerence further teaches wherein the pre-processing step comprises extracting features from time portions of the sensor signals ([Pg. 7, Line33-34 - Pg. 8, Lines 1-2] describe a pre-processing step of associating different sensor signals to a time).
Regarding Claim 14, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 12, as described above, and Lawerence further teaches wherein the pre-processing step comprises filtering the sensor signals ([Pg. 8, Lines 12-21] describe the controller detects where a signal is a first or second signal).
Regarding Claim 17, as best understood in light of the 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above, Lawerence teaches a method of operating a vacuum cleaner (Ref. 1, Fig. 1) comprising:
generating first sensor signals by one or more motion sensors (Ref. 21&23, Fig. 1 teach motion sensors, [Pg. 9, Lines 5-21]);
generating second sensor signals by a capacitive sensor (Ref. 17&19, Fig. 2, [Pg. 6, Line 1-2] teaches a capacitive sensor) on a main body of the vacuum cleaner (Ref. 3&14, Fig. 1) located in proximity to a handle of the vacuum cleaner (Ref. 14, Fig. 1), the second sensor signals dependent on whether a user gripping the handle ([Pg. 8, Lines 15-19] describes the touch sensor is use to indicate if the user is holding the handle);
processing the first and second sensor signals to determine whether the vacuum cleaner is actively being used by the user ([Pg. 9, Lines 5-12]); and
in response to determining that the vacuum cleaner is actively being used, activating a vacuum motor of the vacuum cleaner (Ref. 24, Fig. 2, [Pg. 9, Lines 5-21] describes detecting the signals to shut down power to the motor or to continue the power), wherein the vacuum motor (24) is housed in the main body (3, Fig. 1).
Lawerence teaches generating first sensor signals by one or more motion sensors (Ref. 21&23, Fig. 1 teach motion sensors, [Pg. 9, Lines 5-21]). However, Lawerence fails to explicitly teach one or more time of flight sensors configured to generate first sensor signals dependent on the proximity of an object to the one or more time of flight sensors. Reindle teaches a vacuum cleaner with a main body, sensors, and controllers and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of vacuums cleaners. Reindle further teaches a vacuum cleaner with one or more time of flight sensors (Ref. 96, Fig. 3, [0055]) using lasers ([0056] describes the sensors as infrared sensors that are old and known in the art to use infrared lasers) configured to generate sensor signals dependent on the proximity of an object to the one or more time of flight sensors ([0055-0056] teaches a proximity sensor for detecting the distance from the floor that is sent to a controller to command the vacuum to stop or reverse). Given Lawerence teaches a motion sensor and the time of flight sensor is a proximity sensor to detect if the device is moving towards and away the floor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the motion sensors, as taught by Lawerence, with the time of flight sensors, as taught by Lawerence, to achieve the predictable result of detecting movement of the vacuum cleaner and to add further functionality of determining if the device is in proper contact with a surface or if the surface area is hazardous ([0056]).
Regarding Claim 18, as best understood in light of the 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections above, Lawerence teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising a computer program comprising a set of instructions, which, when executed by a computerized device ([Pg. 9, Line 5-12] describe a power management system), cause the computerized device to perform a method of operating a vacuum cleaner (Ref. 1, Fig. 1), the method comprising:
generating first sensor signals by one or more motion sensors (Ref. 21&23, Fig. 1 teach motion sensors, [Pg. 9, Lines 5-21]);
generating second sensor signals by a capacitive sensor (Ref. 17&19, Fig. 2, [Pg. 6, Line 1-2] teaches a capacitive sensor) located in proximity to a handle of the vacuum cleaner (Ref. 14, Fig. 1), the second sensor signals dependent on whether a user gripping the handle;
processing the first and second sensor signals to determine whether the vacuum cleaner is actively being used by the user ([Pg. 9, Lines 5-12]); and
in response to determining that the vacuum cleaner is actively being used, activating a vacuum motor of the vacuum cleaner (Ref. 24, Fig. 2).
Lawerence teaches generating first sensor signals by one or more motion sensors (Ref. 21&23, Fig. 1 teach motion sensors, [Pg. 9, Lines 5-21]). However, Lawerence fails to explicitly teach one or more time of flight sensors configured to generate first sensor signals dependent on the proximity of an object to the one or more time of flight sensors. Reindle teaches a vacuum cleaner with a main body, sensors, and controllers and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of vacuums cleaners. Reindle further teaches a vacuum cleaner with one or more time of flight sensors (Ref. 96, Fig. 3, [0055]) using lasers ([0056] describes the sensors as infrared sensors that are old and known in the art to use infrared lasers) configured to generate sensor signals dependent on the proximity of an object to the one or more time of flight sensors ([0055-0056] teaches a proximity sensor for detecting the distance from the floor that is sent to a controller to command the vacuum to stop or reverse). Given Lawerence teaches a motion sensor and the time of flight sensor is a proximity sensor to detect if the device is moving towards and away the floor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the motion sensors, as taught by Lawerence, with the time of flight sensors, as taught by Lawerence, to achieve the predictable result of detecting movement of the vacuum cleaner and to add further functionality of determining if the device is in proper contact with a surface or if the surface area is hazardous ([0056]).
Regarding Claim 19, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the capacitive sensor (Ref. 17&19, Fig. 2) is located on the handle (14, Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 20, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches wherein the vacuum cleaner is a handheld vacuum cleaner (Fig. 1 shows a vacuum cleaner with the handle (14) and a handle on the main body (3) that is capable of manipulating and lifting the vacuum cleaner by hand, examiner notes a handheld vacuum cleaner is interpreted as a vacuum cleaner capable of being moved and lifted by a user).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawerence as modified as applied to claims 1-5, 10-14, and 17-18 above, and further in view of Jyouraku (US 5,155,885, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 6, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 5, as described above, and further teaches a stalk and floor nozzle (Fig. 2) but fails to explicitly teach one or more detachable tools, wherein the predetermined threshold distance is dependent on the type of detachable tool attached to the vacuum cleaner. Jyouraku teaches a vacuum cleaner with a floor nozzle and stalk and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of vacuums. Jyouraku further teaches one or more detachable nozzles (Ref. 8,9,&10, Fig. 1) and the concept of a sensor (Ref. 12, fig. 1) that given the input can detect the different nozzles and change variables based upon the nozzle ([Col. 8, Lines 12-16]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the stalk and floor nozzle, as taught by Lawerence as modified, to be detachable tools and replaceable with other detachable tools, as taught by Jyouraku, to allow for the user to clean different spaces more efficiently by allowing different attachments. Further given the teachings in Lawerence as modified of the proximity sensors on the removable nozzle head and Jyouraku teaching different commands and responses based upon the different nozzle heads, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify that the proximity sensor, as taught by Lawerence as modified, on the predetermined threshold distance is dependent on the type of detachable tool attached to the vacuum cleaner, as taught by Jyouraku, to better accommodate different nozzles to the same system optimize cleaning of surfaces.
Regarding Claim 7, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 6, as described above, and Lawerence further teaches wherein each of the one or more detachable tools comprises one of the one or more time of flight sensors (Fig. 1-2 teach at least the floor nozzle has a time of flight sensor).
Regarding Claim 8, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 6, as described above, and given the teaching of the multiple detachable tools as taught by Jyouraku, Lawerence as modified further teaches a crevice tool (Ref. 9, Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to replace the stalk and floor nozzle, as taught by Lawerence as modified, with the crevice tool, as taught by Jyouraku, to allow for the user to clean cramped areas more efficiently.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawerence as modified as applied to claims 1-5, 10-14, and 17-18 above, and further in view of Erkek (US 2018/0360282, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 9, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Lawerence further teaches a wand (Ref. 13, Fig. 2 shows a wand but not detachable) wherein the wand comprises one of the one or more time of flight sensors (Fig. 1-2 teach at least the floor nozzle has a time of flight sensor). Lawerence as modified fails to explicitly teach the wand as detachable. Erkek teaches a vacuum cleaner with a floor nozzle and stalk and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor of vacuums. Erkek further teaches a detachable wand ([0033] describes the stalk and floor nozzle are removable). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the wand, as taught by Lawerence as modified, to be detachable, as taught by Erkek, to allow for the user to clean different spaces more efficiently by allowing different attachments to be connected ([0029]) and for easy and compact storage when not in use.
Claim 15-16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawerence as modified as applied to claims 1-5, 10-14, and 17-18 above, and further in view of Broz (2021/0030226, previously presented).
Regarding Claim 15, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the classification step comprises processing the extracted features using machine learning. Broz teaches a vacuum cleaner with a controller to process various input data and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Broz further teaches wherein the classification step comprises processing the extracted features using a machine learning classifier ([0017] describes a controller capable of identifying and sorting different data and storing using machine learning). wherein the classification step comprises processing the extracted features using a machine learning classifier ([0017] describes a controller capable of identifying and sorting different data and storing using machine learning).
Regarding Claim 16, Lawerence as modified teaches the limitations of claim 15, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the machine learning classifier comprises one or more of: an artificial neural network, a random forest and a support- vector machine. Broz teaches a vacuum cleaner with a controller to process various input data and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Broz further teaches wherein the machine learning classifier comprises one or more of: an artificial neural network, a random forest and a support- vector machine ([0017&0032] describes a controller capable of identifying and sorting different data and storing using machine learning including artificial neural networks). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the controller, as taught by Lawerence as modified, with a classifying system using an artificial neural network, as taught by Broz, to provide more efficient and customized recommendations for actions in response to data from the machine to achieve the predictable result of determining if the device should be on or off ([0030-0032]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 February, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claims 1, 17, and 18 have amended the claims to recite “a capacitive sensor located on a main body of the vacuum cleaner” thereby changing the scope of the claim necessitating a new grounds of rejection and reinterpretation of the prior art. Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the capacitive sensor on the main body has been fully considered and is not persuasive. Examiner has applied a 35 USC 112(a) and 35 USC 112(b) rejection above. It is unclear to the examiner how the capacitive sensors would work on the main body due to when in use the sensor needs to be touched by the user. Further dependent claim 19 recites the capacitive sensor located on the handle. It is unclear if applicant intended for the capacitive sensor to be located on the handle or the main body or if the handle is a part of the main body. For purpose of examination, examiner interprets the handle as part of the main body. Given the 112(a) and 112(b), as best understood, examiner has applied Lawerence to the 35 USC 103 rejection above. Lawerence teaches a vacuum motor (Ref. 24, Fig. 2), a main body (Ref. 3&14-15, Fig. 2) housing the vacuum motor (24, Fig. 2), and a capacitive sensor (Ref. 17&19, Fig. 2, [Pg. 6, Line 1-2] teaches a capacitive sensor) located on the main body (3&14) in proximity to a handle of the vacuum cleaner (Ref. 14, Fig. 1) and configured to generate second sensor signals dependent on whether a user is gripping the handle ([Pg. 8, Lines 15-19] describes the touch sensor is use to indicate if the user is holding the handle). If applicant intends for the vacuum to have multiple capacitance sensors requiring multiple hands such a limitation has not been required.
Claims 1, 17, and 18 have amended the claims to recite the main body houses the vacuum motor thereby changing the scope of the claim necessitating a new grounds of rejection and reinterpretation of the prior art. Applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the main body housing the vacuum motor has been fully considered and is not persuasive. Examiner has applied Lawerence a 35 USC 103 rejection above. Lawerence teaches a main body (Ref. 3&14-15, Fig. 2) housing the vacuum motor (24, Fig. 2).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gordon (2017/0000305) teaches a vacuum cleaner with a sensor and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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, David Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723