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 .
Remarks
This office action is responsive to the reconsideration request filed on 11/20/2025.
Claim(s) 1-27 is/are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's argument(s), regarding the portion(s) as recited in independent claim 1 (and similarly in independent claim(s) 25-26), filed 11/20/2025, have/has been fully considered and is/are not persuasive. Upon further consideration, Examiner still views that the prior art(s) of Marshall and Cai, used in the previous rejection of claim(s) 1, 25-26, can be relied upon for the aforementioned portion(s).
In response to applicant’s arguments, as noted above, arguments are not persuasive. Regarding applicant’s arguments for the features of “receiving a second input defining a modification…” and “modifying the selected … according to the second input”, Examiner disagrees. As shown previously and in the updated rejection below, Marshall discloses in paragraph [0242] that the “computer system may also receive user input indicating selection of at least a first tooth as moveable, a second tooth as fixed, and/or a third tooth as invisible” and “if a tooth is identified as moveable, then the tooth can be automatically repositioned by the computer system when the motion data is applied to the model.” This shows that a user may select a specific tooth corresponding to that of a first input, and the indication of it being moveable, fixed, or invisible would correspond to that of a second input. Then, based on these inputs, teeth indicated as being moveable would automatically be repositioned by the system. Additionally, while applicant argues that these actions constitute a single input, Examiner would like to note that “first input” and “second input” are not claimed to be different inputs, and thus the inputs as named may correspond to the same thing/input. Further, while Marshall is silent on the process in how the indications of being moveable, fixed, or invisible are made, paragraph [0243] discloses different implementations, where teeth may be selected to be moved, and non-selected teeth are fixed, and one where teeth may be selected to be fixed, and the non-selected teeth are moved. As such, it may be suggested that the indication of being moveable, fixed or invisible would be a selection/input made prior to or after selection of a tooth to be indicated. Regarding applicant’s argument that the modification is a specific modification defined by the second input, rather than a general modifiability. Examiner disagrees. The claim states “receiving a second input defining a modification…”, and as such, the indication of the tooth being “moveable”, defines the specific modification setting of the tooth as being moveable. The claim itself does not actually claim a specific type or amount of modification.
Regarding applicant’s arguments for the feature of “… automatically calculating adjustments of a geometric form”, Examiner disagrees. As shown previously and in the updated rejection below, Marshall discloses in paragraph [0242] that the “computer system may also receive user input indicating selection of at least a first tooth as moveable, a second tooth as fixed, and/or a third tooth as invisible”. Marshall furthers in paragraph [0244] that “for each motion frame, the selected moveable teeth can be automatically repositioned to avoid interferences with fixed teeth”. This may be viewed as and shows that the position of the tooth model (the geometric form) is adjusted.
Regarding applicant’s arguments for the feature of “automatically applying the calculated adjustments to the remaining three-dimensional digital tooth models…”, Examiner disagrees. As a primary matter, applicant argues that the initial tooth and target tooth arrangements are the same for each set, but this is not true. For example, paragraph [0055] states that “the best tooth arrangement set may be chosen from either a tooth arrangement set that has an optimal target tooth arrangement, or a tooth arrangement set that is optimal based on a balanced consideration of the target tooth arrangement and orthodontic treatment step parameter.” This shows that the arrangements may differ based on the different modifications/optimizations made through the steps according to the multi-objective optimization model. As noted in paragraph [0125], arrangements may be calculated by a global optimization algorithm based on a multi-objective optimization model defined by various medical parameters and orthodontic treatment constraints. These medical parameters and orthodontic treatment constraints are described in paragraphs [0012]-[0047], which also note that these parameters and constraints may be set by the user. As such, operator may set the parameters and constraints, and ultimately select a target tooth arrangement, which includes intermediate arrangement steps, that has automatically calculated positioning and movement of target tooth/teeth and the remaining teeth for each step. For example, if treatment is to correct an overjet, which is specific to the upper incisor and lower incisor, the rest of the teeth would also be modified based on other medical parameters and constraints, such as dental arch width or symmetry, and dental crowding.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 16-17, 19-21, 24-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Marshall et al. (US 2023/0035538 A1) in view of Cai et al. (US 2016/0175068 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Marshall teaches a computer-implemented method for adjusting an arrangement of a plurality of three-dimensional digital tooth models for a dental restoration (e.g. [0008]: for generating a digital tooth setup, which can be used to produce any of a variety of physical dental appliances, such as dentures, orthodontia, liners, dental implants (e.g. crowns, bridges), and/or other dental appliances), the method comprising:
receiving a three-dimensional digital teeth model comprising the plurality of the three-dimensional digital tooth models, the three-dimensional digital teeth model defining an arrangement of a plurality of artificial teeth for the dental restoration, each of the three-dimensional digital tooth models defining an individual artificial tooth of the plurality of artificial teeth (e.g. [0241],Fig.22A: computer system can receive a model of at least a portion of upper and/or lower teeth of the patient; the model can be digital dental model that can be generated using imaging data and/or motion data of the patient's teeth; see also [0144]: the imaging data can include a 3D digital dental model of the patient's dentition; [0282],Fig.24: digital representation of teeth 2402),
receiving a first input selecting one or more of the three-dimensional digital tooth models (e.g. [0242]: computer system may also receive user input indicating selection of at least a first tooth as moveable, a second tooth as fixed, and/or a third tooth as invisible; Examiner’s note: where selection of tooth is first input),
receiving a second input defining a modification of the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models (e.g. as above, [0242]: user input indicating selection of at least a first tooth as moveable; Examiner’s note: where indication of being moveable is second input),
modifying the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models according to the second input (e.g. further in [0242]: if a tooth is identified as moveable, then the tooth can be automatically repositioned by the computer system when the motion data is applied to the model),
while the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models are modified according to the second input, automatically calculating adjustments of a geometric form of the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models and automatically applying the calculated adjustments to the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models, the adjustments being calculated in order to satisfy one or more first geometric criteria for the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models (e.g. as above, [0242]: if a tooth is identified as moveable, then the tooth can be automatically repositioned by the computer system when the motion data is applied to the model; [0244]: for each motion frame, the selected moveable teeth can be automatically repositioned to avoid interferences with fixed teeth; for example, the at least first tooth can be moved in such a way that avoids interference(s) with other teeth, such as the fixed, non-movable teeth in the model; Examiner’s note: this shows calculation of positioning while using criteria),
providing the resulting adjusted three-dimensional digital teeth model for manufacturing the dental restoration (e.g. as above, [0008]: generating a digital tooth setup, which can be used to produce any of a variety of physical dental appliances, such as dentures, orthodontia, liners, dental implants (e.g., crowns, bridges), and/or other dental appliances; Examiner’s note: the above is used to reposition teeth in the 3D model to be used to produce dental appliances),
but does not explicitly teach the method, comprising:
automatically calculating adjustments of a set of remaining three-dimensional digital tooth models of the three-dimensional digital teeth model depending on the modification of the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models,
automatically applying the calculated adjustments to the remaining three-dimensional digital tooth models.
However, Cai teaches a method, comprising:
automatically calculating adjustments of a set of remaining three-dimensional digital tooth models of the three-dimensional digital teeth model depending on the modification of the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models (e.g. [0090]: each orthodontic treatment step parameter represents a number of orthodontic treatment steps for moving the initial tooth arrangement to the expected tooth arrangement; [0097],Fig.1: for each determined orthodontic treatment step parameter, a group of digital models representing a tooth arrangement set, which correspond to the orthodontic treatment step parameter, are generated, thereby K groups of digital models are obtained; [0125]: a group of digital models of a tooth arrangement set … may be calculated by a global optimization algorithm (for example, the simulated annealing algorithm) based on a multi-objective optimization model defined by various medical parameters and orthodontic treatment constraints; then, the above steps may be repeated such that in step S120, a group of digital models of a tooth arrangement set corresponding to each of the K orthodontic treatment step parameters is calculated and thus the K groups of digital models are obtained; Examiner’s note: this shows that positioning of all teeth are calculated based on a target arrangement, such as moving a selected tooth to a target position),
automatically applying the calculated adjustments to the remaining three-dimensional digital tooth models (e.g. as above, [0125]: a group of digital models of a tooth arrangement set … may be calculated by a global optimization algorithm; Examiner’s note: arrangement of all teeth is determined).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings/combination of Marshall to determine teeth arrangement, in the same conventional manner as taught by Cai as both deal with digital dental models. The motivation to combine the two would be that it would allow the calculation and determination of an optimized arrangement of teeth.
In regards to product claim 25 and device claim 26, claim(s) 25-26 recite(s) limitations that is/are similar in scope to the limitations recited in claim 1. Therefore, claim(s) 25-26 is/are subject to rejections under the same rationale as applied hereinabove for claim 1. To note, Marshall discloses the use of a processor in paragraph [0226] and memory/medium in paragraph [0229].
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Marshall and Cai teaches a method, the calculating and applying of at least a part of the adjustments of the remaining three-dimensional digital tooth models being executed upon a completion of the modification of the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models (e.g. Cai as above, [0090]: each orthodontic treatment step parameter represents a number of orthodontic treatment steps for moving the initial tooth arrangement to the expected tooth arrangement; [0125]: a group of digital models of a tooth arrangement set … may be calculated by a global optimization algorithm (for example, the simulated annealing algorithm) based on a multi-objective optimization model defined by various medical parameters and orthodontic treatment constraints; Examiner’s note: this shows that positioning of all teeth are calculated based on a target arrangement, such as moving a selected tooth to a target position).
In addition, the same rationale/motivation of claim 1 is used for claim 2.
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Marshall and Cai teaches a method, the calculating and applying of all the adjustments of the remaining three-dimensional digital tooth models being executed upon a completion of the modification of the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models (e.g. Cai as above, [0090]: each orthodontic treatment step parameter represents a number of orthodontic treatment steps for moving the initial tooth arrangement to the expected tooth arrangement; [0125]: a group of digital models of a tooth arrangement set … may be calculated by a global optimization algorithm (for example, the simulated annealing algorithm) based on a multi-objective optimization model defined by various medical parameters and orthodontic treatment constraints; Examiner’s note: this shows that positioning of all teeth are calculated based on a target arrangement, such as moving a selected tooth to a target position).
In addition, the same rationale/motivation of claim 2 is used for claim 6.
In regards to claim 16, the combination of Marshall and Cai teaches a method, the modification of the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models comprising one or more of the following types of modification: a translational movement, a rotational movement, a scaling, a modification of a geometric form (e.g. Marshall as above, [0242]: computer system may also receive user input indicating selection of at least a first tooth as moveable; if a tooth is identified as moveable, then the tooth can be automatically repositioned by the computer system when the motion data is applied to the model).
In regards to claim 17, the combination of Marshall and Cai teaches a method, the one or more first geometric criteria for the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models comprising one or more of the following criteria: no intersection of the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models with a three-dimensional digital antagonist model of an antagonist of the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models in occlusion, no intersection of the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models with an occlusal offset surface of an occlusal surface of the three-dimensional digital antagonist model in occlusion, preserving an occlusal contact of the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models with the three-dimensional digital antagonist model in occlusion, preserving an occlusal contact of the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models with the occlusal offset surface of the occlusal surface of the three-dimensional digital antagonist model in occlusion, no intersection of the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models with a three-dimensional digital tooth model of an approximal tooth of the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models, no intersection of the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models with an approximal offset surface of an approximal surface of the three-dimensional digital tooth model of the approximal tooth, preserving a contact of the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models with the three-dimensional digital tooth model of the approximal tooth, preserving a contact of the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models with the approximal offset surface of the approximal surface of the three-dimensional digital tooth model of the approximal tooth, preserving of a minimum thickness of the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models (e.g. Marshall as above, [0244]: for each motion frame, the selected moveable teeth can be automatically repositioned to avoid interferences with fixed teeth; see also [0245]: for example, the computer system can move at least one of the selected teeth (e.g. the at least first tooth that has been identified as moveable) that prevents a first contact of the teeth according to the patient's jaw movement (operation 2210); as an illustrative example, an upper tooth can be automatically raised by a threshold amount so that it does not prevent the first contact between the upper tooth and a lower tooth; Examiner’s note: this shows preventing intersection with antagonist tooth).
In regards to claim 19, the combination of Marshall and Cai teaches a method, the adjustments of the remaining three-dimensional digital tooth models comprising one or more of the following types of adjustments: a translational movement, a rotational movement, a scaling, an adjustment of geometric forms of the remaining three-dimensional digital tooth models (e.g. Cai as above, [0090]: each orthodontic treatment step parameter represents a number of orthodontic treatment steps for moving the initial tooth arrangement to the expected tooth arrangement; [0125]: a group of digital models of a tooth arrangement set … may be calculated by a global optimization algorithm (for example, the simulated annealing algorithm) based on a multi-objective optimization model defined by various medical parameters and orthodontic treatment constraints; Examiner’s note: this shows that positioning of all teeth are calculated based on a target arrangement, such as moving a selected tooth to a target position).
In addition, the same rationale/motivation of claim 1 is used for claim 19.
In regards to claim 20, the combination of Marshall and Cai teaches a method, the adjustments of geometric forms of the remaining three-dimensional digital tooth models being calculated in order to satisfy one or more second geometric criteria for the remaining three-dimensional digital tooth models (e.g. Cai as above, [0125]: a group of digital models of a tooth arrangement set … may be calculated by a global optimization algorithm (for example, the simulated annealing algorithm) based on a multi-objective optimization model defined by various medical parameters and orthodontic treatment constraints).
In addition, the same rationale/motivation of claim 19 is used for claim 20.
In regards to claim 21, the combination of Marshall and Cai teaches a method, the one or more second geometric criteria for the remaining three-dimensional digital tooth models comprising one or more of the following criteria: no intersection of the respective remaining three-dimensional digital tooth model with a three-dimensional digital antagonist model of an antagonist of the respective remaining three-dimensional digital tooth model, no intersection of the respective remaining three-dimensional digital tooth model with an occlusal offset surface of an occlusal surface of the three-dimensional digital antagonist model of the antagonist of the respective remaining three-dimensional digital tooth model, preserving an occlusal contact of the respective remaining three-dimensional digital tooth model with the three-dimensional digital antagonist model of the antagonist of the respective remaining three-dimensional digital tooth model in occlusion, preserving an occlusal contact of the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models with the occlusal offset surface of the occlusal surface of the three-dimensional digital antagonist model of the antagonist of the respective remaining three-dimensional digital tooth model in occlusion, no intersection of the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models with a three-dimensional digital tooth model of an approximal tooth of the respective remaining three-dimensional digital tooth model, no intersection of an approximal offset surface of an approximal surface of the respective remaining three-dimensional digital tooth model with an approximal offset surface of an approximal surface of the three-dimensional digital tooth model of the approximal tooth of the respective remaining three-dimensional digital tooth model, preserving a contact of the approximal offset surface of the approximal surface of the respective remaining three-dimensional digital tooth model with the approximal offset surface of the approximal surface of the three-dimensional digital tooth model of the approximal tooth of the respective remaining three-dimensional digital tooth model, preserving of a minimum thickness of the respective remaining three-dimensional digital tooth model (e.g. Cai as above, [0125]: a group of digital models of a tooth arrangement set … may be calculated by a global optimization algorithm (for example, the simulated annealing algorithm) based on a multi-objective optimization model defined by various medical parameters and orthodontic treatment constraints; see also [0038]: orthodontic treatment constraints include: direction and amount of tooth movement in each orthodontic treatment step, a sum of tooth forces in each orthodontic treatment step, limitation on freedom of tooth movements and requirements for avoiding teeth collision, direction and amount of midline adjustment, biting relationship of the upper and lower jaws; Examiner’s note: this shows prevention of intersection/collision of approximal and antagonist teeth).
In addition, the same rationale/motivation of claim 20 is used for claim 21.
In regards to claim 24, the combination of Marshall and Cai teaches a method, the method further comprising: generating a three-dimensional digital dental restoration model of the dental restoration to be manufactured using the adjusted three-dimensional digital teeth model provided for manufacturing the dental restoration (e.g. Marshall as above, [0008]: generating a digital tooth setup, which can be used to produce any of a variety of physical dental appliances, such as dentures, orthodontia, liners, dental implants (e.g., crowns, bridges), and/or other dental appliances; Examiner’s note: the above is used to reposition teeth in the 3D model to be used to produce dental appliances; see also [0182],Fig.9: a digital representation of a denture base can be generated), controlling a manufacturing of the dental restoration using the three-dimensional digital dental restoration model as template, the manufactured dental restoration being a physical copy of the template (e.g. Marshall, [0185],Fig.8: the denture base may be fabricated based on the digital representation).
In regards to device claim 27, claim(s) 27 recite(s) limitations that is/are similar in scope to the limitations recited in claim 24. Therefore, claim(s) 27 is/are subject to rejections under the same rationale as applied hereinabove for claim 24.
Claim(s) 18, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Marshall and Cai as applied to claims 1, 21 above, and further in view of Chekh et al. (US 2023/0132201 A1).
In regards to claim 18, the combination of Marshall and Cai teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the method, the adjustments of the geometric form of the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models comprising one or more of the following types of adjustments: a cutting of one or more sections of the geometric form of the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models, a deforming of the geometric form of the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models.
However, Chekh teaches a method, wherein the adjustments of the geometric form of the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models comprising one or more of the following types of adjustments: a cutting of one or more sections of the geometric form of the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models, a deforming of the geometric form of the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models (e.g. [0061]: the user can modify the treatment plan, such as by changing the positions of one or more teeth, changing an amount of tooth mass addition and/or reduction, changing the shape of a restorative object, changing the number of treatment stages, etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings/combination of Marshall and Cai to modify teeth, in the same conventional manner as taught by Chekh as both deal with dental modeling for restoration. The motivation to combine the two would be that it would allow the changing of the shape of teeth in the arrangement of the teeth.
In regards to claim 22, the combination of Marshall and Cai teaches the method of claim 21, but does not explicitly teach the method, the adjustments of the geometric forms of the remaining three-dimensional digital tooth models comprising one or more of the following types of adjustments: a cutting of one or more sections of the geometric form of the respective remaining three- dimensional digital tooth model, a deforming of the geometric form of the respective remaining three-dimensional digital tooth model.
However, Chekh teaches a method, wherein the adjustments of the geometric forms of the remaining three-dimensional digital tooth models comprising one or more of the following types of adjustments: a cutting of one or more sections of the geometric form of the respective remaining three- dimensional digital tooth model, a deforming of the geometric form of the respective remaining three-dimensional digital tooth model (e.g. [0061]: the user can modify the treatment plan, such as by changing the positions of one or more teeth, changing an amount of tooth mass addition and/or reduction, changing the shape of a restorative object, changing the number of treatment stages, etc.).
In addition, the same rationale/motivation of claim 18 is used for claim 22.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3-5, 7-15, 23 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. To note, claims 4-5 are included as they depend on claim 3, and claims 8-15 are included as they depend on claim 7.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim(s) 3-5, 7-15, 23 was/were carefully reviewed and a search with regards to independent claim(s) 1 and intervening claim(s) 2 (for claims 3-5) has been made. Accordingly, those claim(s) are believed to be distinct from the prior art searched.
Regarding claim(s) 3-5 (and specifically independent claim(s) 1), the prior art search was found to neither anticipate nor suggest the method of claim 2, for a selected first set of types of adjustments the calculating and applying of adjustments of types comprised by the selected first set to the remaining three-dimensional digital tooth models being executed together with the modification of the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models, whereas the calculating and applying of the adjustments of other types of adjustments to the remaining three-dimensional digital tooth models being executed upon the completion of the modification of the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models (emphasis added).
Regarding claim(s) 7-15 (and specifically independent claim(s) 1), the prior art search was found to neither anticipate nor suggest the method of claim 1, the calculating and applying of the adjustments of the geometric form of the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models being executed in discrete steps at a first rate of executions per second, the calculating and applying of at least a part of the adjustments of the remaining three-dimensional digital tooth models being executed in discrete steps at a second rate of executions per second with the second rate being lower than the first rate, the automatically calculating of the adjustments of the remaining three-dimensional digital tooth models being performed, while the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models are modified according to the second input (emphasis added).
Regarding claim(s) 23 (and specifically independent claim(s) 1), the prior art search was found to neither anticipate nor suggest the method of claim 1, for each of the remaining three-dimensional tooth models a degree of the adjustments of the respective remaining three-dimensional digital tooth model being weighted based on a distance of the respective remaining three-dimensional digital tooth model for which the respective adjustment is calculated from the selected one or more three-dimensional digital tooth models (emphasis added).
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 JED-JUSTIN IMPERIAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9am - 6pm.
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, Daniel Hajnik can be reached at (571) 272-7642. 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.
/JED-JUSTIN IMPERIAL/Examiner, Art Unit 2616
/DANIEL F HAJNIK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2616