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 .
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: depth sensing switch in claim 6; hydraulic system in claim 7; and electrical control system in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
Claim 9 recites “a lubricator . . to lubricate internal parts of the finishing boring machine.” The limitation lacks adequate support in the specification to convey to one having ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the invention at the time of filing. In particular, there is no mention in the specification of what constitutes the lubricator. Appropriate correction required.
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 1-10 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 “the hydraulic automatic centering fixture . . . is configured to place a to-be-processed workpiece” in Lines 7-8. The scope of “configured to place” is unclear. The centering fixture is capable of centering the workpiece, but it is unclear how it is capable of placing said workpiece and what that requires. That is, it is unclear if the “placing” is merely positioning or centering as one of ordinary skill would expect or if the term is meant to require something more (e.g., pick up and set in position). Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “CNC vertical sliding table . . . is configured to control the spindle box, the CNC facing head and the cutter assembly to move up and down” in Lines 9-11. It is unclear how the CNC vertical sliding table controls the other features. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “the spindle box . . . is configured to control rotation speeds” in Lines 12-13. It is unclear how the spindle box controls the rotation speeds. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 1 recites “CNC facing head . . . is configured to control a horizontal distance between the cutter assembly and the to-be-processed workpiece” in Lines 14-15. It is unclear how the CNC facing head controls the distance. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 4 recites “a reducer . . . [that] drives the leadscrew nut pair” in Lines 3-7. It is unclear what constitutes a reducer. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 5 recites “the main motor is configured for speed regulation . . . when a frequency is 50 Hz, the spindle box has a rotation speed of 250 rpm.” It is unclear how the main motor is configured for speed regulation. In addition, the term “when” creates a lack of clarity because if the “when” condition is not met, it is unclear whether the limitation is required. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 6 limitation “depth sensing switch” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 7 limitation “hydraulic system” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 7 limitation “electrical control system” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claim 7 does not end with a period. As such, it is unclear whether limitations are missing from the claim or not. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 8 recites “the machine protection component adopts a stainless steel telescopic protective cover.” It is unclear what is required by the machine protection component “adopting” such a cover. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 9 recites “a lubricator” in Lines 1-2. The scope of the lubricator is unclear. Appropriate correction required.
Claim 10 recites “a chain-plate type automatic chip remover” in Lines 3-4. The metes and bounds of a chain-plate type are not clearly delineated. That is, at what point something is or is not considered of the type is unclear. Appropriate correction required.
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, 3-5 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 103639833 A) in view of Amiguet et al. (US Patent No. 5,503,508) and one of Pithery et al. (EP 0022569 A1) or Wong et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0133854 A1).
(Claim 1) Zhang et al. (“Zhang”) discloses a finishing boring machine for a high-precision wheel hub hole (Figs. 1-3). The machine includes: a boring machine body (1), a automatic centering fixture, and a computer numerical control (CNC) vertical sliding table (Fig. 3, holding spindle 12; ¶¶ 0003, 0007 disclosing unmanned operation), a spindle box (12). The boring machine body is a main structure of the finishing boring machine, and is configured to support the finishing boring machine (Figs. 1-3). The automatic centering fixture is arranged on the boring machine body and is configured to place a to-be-processed workpiece (Figs. 1-3; ¶¶ 0002, 0012). The vertical sliding table is arranged on the boring machine body and is configured to, as best understood, control the spindle box and cutter therein to move up and down (Figs. 1-3 showing drilling spindle mounted on guides for axial advancement). The spindle box is arranged on the vertical sliding table and is configured to, as best understood, control rotation speeds of the cutter mounted thereto (spindle drives tool rotation). Yet, Zhang does not explicitly disclose a hydraulic centering device, a CNC facing head as claimed, or a cutter assembly as claimed.
Amiguet et al. (“Amiguet”) discloses a hydraulic automatic centering fixture (Figs. 7-9, 11). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the boring machine disclosed in Zhang with a hydraulic automatic centering fixture as taught by Amiguet in order to automatically clamp a wheel workpiece with a hydraulic system that can take more abuse than motors, as is well-known in the art, the fact of which examiner takes official notice.
Pithery et al. (“Pithery”) discloses a CNC facing head (8, 9) is arranged on a spindle box (5, 3) and is configured to control a horizontal distance between a cutter assembly (10, 11) and the to-be-processed workpiece (Fig. 2). The cutter assembly is arranged on the CNC facing head and is configured to process the to-be-processed workpiece (Fig. 2). The CNC facing head comprises an alternating current servo motor (19), a driving shaft (17), a ball screw (14), a sliding member (9), and a linear guide (Fig. 1; 12). The servo motor is connected with the driving shaft through a coupling (18). The sliding member is fixedly connected with the ball screw (Fig. 2). The driving shaft is engaged with the ball screw, so as to drive the ball screw and the sliding member and move the cutter assembly on the linear guide (Fig. 2). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the boring machine disclosed in Zhang with a facing head and cutter assembly as taught by Pithery in order to bore holes of different sizes via the radial adjustment (i.e., horizontal distance control). While the motor is not explicitly disclosed as being an alternating current motor, at a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the modified Zhang boring machine with an alternating current motor as obvious to try – choosing from a finite number of options – with the predictable result of motive force being provided and/or because it is well-known in the art that an alternating current motor are generally more durable than direct current motors and therefore require less maintenance, the fact of which examiner takes official notice thereof. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (reciting several exemplary rationales that may support a finding of obviousness).
Wong et al. (“Wong”) discloses a CNC facing head (4, 5) is arranged on a spindle box (1) and is configured to control a horizontal distance between a cutter assembly (7; ¶¶ 0008, 0018) and the to-be-processed workpiece (Figs. 1-9). The cutter assembly is arranged on the CNC facing head and is configured to process the to-be-processed workpiece (Figs. 1-9). The CNC facing head comprises an alternating current servo motor (61), a driving shaft (631), a ball screw (633), a sliding member (4), and a linear guide (Fig. 2; 41). The servo motor is connected with the driving shaft through a coupling (64; Figs. 1-9). The sliding member is fixedly connected with the ball screw (Figs. 1-9). The driving shaft is engaged with the ball screw, so as to drive the ball screw and the sliding member and move the cutter assembly on the linear guide (Figs. 1-9). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the boring machine disclosed in Zhang with a facing head and cutter assembly as taught by Wong in order to bore holes of different sizes via the radial adjustment (i.e., horizontal distance control). While the motor is not explicitly disclosed as being an alternating current motor, at a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the modified Zhang boring machine with an alternating current motor as obvious to try – choosing from a finite number of options – with the predictable result of motive force being provided and/or because it is well-known in the art that an alternating current motor are generally more durable than direct current motors and therefore require less maintenance, the fact of which examiner takes official notice thereof. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 at 418 (reciting several exemplary rationales that may support a finding of obviousness).
(Claim 3) In the modified device, the hydraulic automatic centering fixture comprises a fixture positioning base and a fixture three-claw synchronous mechanism (Amiguet Figs. 7-9, 11). The fixture three-claw synchronous mechanism comprises three hydraulic motors (Amiguet Fig. 11). The modified device does not explicitly disclose three trapezoidal lead screws, and each of the hydraulic motors is connected with one end of each of the trapezoidal lead screws; and a first bevel gear is located at a center of the fixture positioning base, a second bevel gear is located at the other end of each of the trapezoidal lead screws, and the first bevel gear and the second bevel gear are engaged with each other, so as to realize synchronous clamping and loosening of the three trapezoidal lead screws. Yet, the lead screw and bevel gear arrangement is known for conversion of movement in Pithery (Fig. 2). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the boring machine disclosed in Zhang with drive assembly as suggested by Pithery in order to move the three-claw mechanism radially inward and outward.
(Claim 4) The Zhang device includes the CNC vertical sliding table comprises a sliding table column and a sliding table body (Figs. 1-3). Yet the modified device does not explicitly disclose a sliding table servo motor, a sliding table balance cylinder, a reducer, a leadscrew nut pair, and a sliding table linear guide; the sliding table column is connected with the boring machine body, and is configured to support the CNC vertical sliding table; the sliding table servo motor is arranged on the sliding table column; the sliding table servo motor is connected with the reducer; the reducer drives the leadscrew nut pair, so as to drive the sliding table body connected with the leadscrew nut pair to move on the sliding table linear guide; the sliding table body is connected with the spindle box; and the sliding table balance cylinder counterweights the CNC vertical sliding table. Yet, this structure is well-known in the art to provide movement and balance to machine parts, the fact of which examiner takes official notice. As such, at a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the modified Zhang device with a protection device as claimed in order to provide movement and balance capability to the vertical sliding table. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 at 418 (reciting several exemplary rationales that may support a finding of obviousness, including use of a known technique to improve devices in the same way).
(Claim 5) The spindle box includes a main motor (inherent); the spindle box is connected with the driving shaft to control the rotation speed of the CNC facing head; and the main motor is configured for speed regulation (Zhang Fig. 3). While a rotation speed of a spindle in the spindle box ranges from 50-500 rpm is not explicitly disclosed, motors with such a capability are well-known in the art such that examiner takes official notice thereof. At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the spindle in the modified Zhang device with such a rotation speed capability as it well-known in the art as a function of the material being worked.
(Claim 7) In the modified device, a hydraulic system and an electrical control system would be inherent. That is, the hydraulic system is connected with the hydraulic automatic centering fixture to provide hydraulic power for the hydraulic automatic centering fixture; and the electrical control system is connected with the finishing boring machine body to control electric energy provided to the finishing boring machine.
(Claim 8) The modified Zhang device does not explicitly disclose a machine protection component, arranged on the boring machine body, and protects internal parts of the finishing boring machine from damage together with the boring machine body; and the machine protection component adopts a stainless steel telescopic protective cover. Yet, such a protection device is well-known in the art, the fact of which examiner takes official notice. As such, at a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the modified Zhang device with a protection device as well-known in the art and as claimed in order to protect the moving parts of the machine from debris. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 at 418 (reciting several exemplary rationales that may support a finding of obviousness, including use of a known technique to improve devices in the same way).
(Claim 9) While the scope of a lubricator is unclear, the regulation of heat and/or the reduction of friction between sliding parts is well-known in the art such that examiner takes official notice. As such, at a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the modified Zhang device with a lubricator arranged on each of the CNC vertical sliding table and the spindle box to lubricate internal parts of the finishing boring machine in order to reduce friction and/or heat in each part.
(Claim 10) Zhang discloses an automatic chip removal system (11), wherein the automatic chip removal system is arranged in the boring machine body; the automatic chip removal system comprises a chain-plate type automatic chip remover and an iron chip collection box; and the chain-plate type automatic chip remover is configured to collect iron chips generated during processing and clear the iron chips to the iron chip collection box, so as to realize automatic cleaning of the iron chips generated (Fig. 3).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 103639833 A) in view of Amiguet et al. (US Patent No. 5,503,508) and Pithery et al. (EP 0022569 A1) further in view of Wong et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0133854 A1).
The modified Zhang device includes the coupling (Pithery 18), a first spiral bevel gear (Pithery 16) and a second spiral bevel gear (Pithery 15). The servo motor drives the driving shaft; and the first spiral bevel gear is located at the other end of the driving shaft, the second spiral bevel gear is located on the ball screw, and the first spiral bevel gear is engaged with the second spiral bevel gear (Pithery Fig. 2). Yet, the device does not explicitly disclose a conductive slip ring for delivering power to the servo motor.
Wong discloses the CNC facing head having a conductive slip ring (Wong 2). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the boring machine disclosed in Zhang with a conductive slip ring as suggested by Wong in order to transfer electric current to the motor.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (CN 103639833 A) in view of Amiguet et al. (US Patent No. 5,503,508) and Pithery et al. (EP 0022569 A1) or Wong et al. (US Pub. No. 2018/0133854 A1) further in view of Johansson et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0206825 A1).
The modified Zhang device does not explicitly disclose a depth sensing switch or first and second cutters for roughing and finishing.
Johansson et al. (“Johansson”) discloses a first cutter, and a second cutter; and the depth sensing switch is configured to determine a distance between the cutter assembly and the to-be-processed workpiece, the first cutter is configured for precision processing, and the second cutter is used for semi-precision processing (Figs. 1-31; ¶ 0007). At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the boring machine disclosed in Zhang with a cutting tool having roughing and finishing cutters as taught by Johansson in order to perform both roughing and finishing operations with the same tool. Furthermore, while the scope of a depth sensing switch is unclear, proximity sensors, limit switches and the like are well-known in the art, the fact of which examiner takes official notice. At a time prior to filing it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide the boring machine disclosed in Zhang with a depth sensing switch in order to stop the tool at a given depth.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Liu (US Pub. No. 2021/0220917 A1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN RUFO whose telephone number is (571)272-4604. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs.
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, Singh Sunil can be reached at (571) 272-3460. 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.
/RYAN RUFO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3722