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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 22, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "ks" and "sw" have both been used to designate “key”.
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference mentioned in the description: "clutch (Eb) figure (3)" on page 6, line 3. Figure 3 does not show a clutch (Eb). The element is shown in Figure 4. 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.
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description: "df" in Figure 15.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the second sentence of the abstract appears to be an incomplete sentence starting with a lowercase letter in the word "refers". The abstract is also more than one paragraph. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are:
Page 5, line 29: The phrase “(SPE). Y (SPMCI); deactivating the actuator (act)” cannot be understood as written.
Page 5, line 30: The reference to two types of internal combustion engine is followed by a definition only for the first type, labeled as “1. Transverse internal combustion engine (mcit)”. The second entry, presumably identifying the second type of internal combustion engine, is missing. Please note that the disclosure attached to the WIPO publication appears to contain this section.
Page 6, line 16: The phrase “on the that the end of the” cannot be understood.
Page 6, line 31: “clutch pedal (pbe)” should read “clutch pedal (peb)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 6, 7, 9-20, and 22-28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: On line 6, the phrase “in hybrid” should read “to hybrid”. The designation “cv” is used to refer both to “gearbox transmission shaft” on line 8 and to “gearbox” on lines 5 and 18. On line 16, improper punctuation in “propeller shaft. output (ats),” renders the adjoining sentences ambiguous.
Claims 1-3, 9-20, and 22-28 end in a semicolon. The terminating punctuation for each claim should be a period.
Claims 4, 6, 7, and 21 are missing a period at the end.
Claim 6: On line 8, the period in “the casing. (ccs)” is misplaced.
Claims 9 and 14: The designation “(atih)” is used to refer to “hybrid intermediate drive shaft”. In other claims “(atih)” refers to “hybrid intermediate transmission shaft”.
Claim 16 includes misplaced punctuation and improper sentence structure that obfuscate the meaning. The claim appears to state that (atih) is to absorb movements caused by engine acceleration. However, that function is likely to be intended for the Guide Fastening Device.
Claim 23: On line 3, the period in “voltage batteries. (bat)” is misplaced.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claims 1-4, 9-13, 15, 17, 20, 24, 26 and 30 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.
Regarding claims 1-4, 9-13, 15, 17, and 30, the phrase "or other" or “or another” renders the claims indefinite because the claims include elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by "or other" or “or another”), thereby rendering the scope of the claims unascertainable. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 11 includes improper sentence structure and punctuation that render the exact installation location of the auxiliary transmission shaft (ata) ambiguous. It is not clear whether (ata) is mounted between (atih) and the transmission shaft or (atih) and the electric motor.
Claim 13 specifies one pulley per transmission shaft but fails to specify which transmission shaft. Preceding claims on which this claim depends on list a number of transmission shafts including auxiliary, intermediate, hybrid intermediate, and output. It is not clear which of these shafts is the subject of this claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "control board. hybrid converted vehicle (TCVCH)" in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Note that claim 20 depends on claim 6 while this limitation is first recited in claim 18 as “hybrid converted vehicle control board (TCVCH)”. Both antecedence and the inconsistent terminology should be corrected.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the pedal for the electric propulsion system (pame)" in line . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 26 recites the limitation "the Propulsion System (SCACSP)" in line 25. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kshatriya (US 2011/0083309 A1) in view of Hoffmann et al. (DE 102009001149) (hereinafter "Hoffmann") and Kydd (US 2009/0000836 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kshatriya discloses a hybrid vehicle conversion method comprising an internal combustion engine (102) (Fig 1A and [0036]), gearbox (transmission 122) (Fig 1A and [0046]), clutch ([0041] and [0065]), alternator ([0004] and [0063]), accelerator pedal ([0055] and right-most pedal in Fig. 15), clutch pedal (228) ([0073] and left-most pedal in Fig. 15) and battery ([0004] and [0063]). Kshatriya further discloses installation of an electric motor (104) (Fig 1A and [0036]), a high voltage battery bank (108) (Fig. 18 and [0061]) configured to provide power to the electric motor ([0037]: “Electric motor 104 is powered by battery 108”), an electronic control (Motor Controller 106) (Fig. 1A) configured to control the amount of current supplied from the battery bank (108) to the electric motor (104) ([0004]: “motor control unit configured to control the amount of power delivered from the energy storage element to the electric motor”). Kshatriya discloses using universal coupling (136) (Fig. 1B and [0051]) or pulleys (128, 130) (Fig. 1A and [0050]) or others ([0051]: “any other suitable coupling system”, [0051]: “shaft coupling (e.g., universal joint, collar, etc.)”) for establishing a mechanical connection to the electric motor. Furthermore, Kydd discloses a hybrid drive assembly comprising a universal joint coupling (16), pulleys (22 and 28), a bearing (56), and a shaft extension (14). See Figures 1-3 and paragraphs [0019], [0020], and [0025]. Kshatriya does not disclose connecting the intermediate drive shaft or countershaft of the gearbox to the electric motor. Hoffmann discloses the output shaft (20) of the electric motor (10) connected to an intermediate shaft (24) or countershaft (22) of the gearbox (4). See Fig. 1 and paragraph [0014]. Before the effective date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to combine, with a reasonable expectation of success, Kshatriya’s conversion method with the connection between electric motor and gearbox shafts as established by Hoffmann while utilizing Kydd’s teachings about couplings, pulleys, bearings, and shafts. The motivation would have been to achieve a hybrid arrangement where the rotational speed of the electric motor is correlated more closely with vehicle speed than the rotational speed of the engine. (Hoffmann [0003]) The combination would predictably achieve the desired result.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination further teaches removing the battery for relocation to the body of the vehicle (Kshatriya [0045]) and attaching brackets for supporting the electric motor by the vehicle body and/or frame (Kshatriya Fig. 9A, 9B and [0066]-[0067]).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination further teaches installation of at least one electric motor (Kshatriya [0066]).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination further teaches relocating, where appropriate, components of the internal combustion engine propulsion system in such a way to allow for installation of the components of the electric propulsion system (Kshatriya [0080]-[0081]). Components of the internal combustion engine propulsion system can include the fuse box, cables, and hoses as they are inherent parts of such system.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kshatriya (US 2011/0083309 A1), Hoffmann (DE 102009001149), and Kydd (US 2009/0000836 A1), as applied above, in further view of Bergelt (US 4,893,779).
Regarding Claim 5, the combination does not recite engine supports that allow three-dimensional movement so that the components of the electric propulsion system can be installed. However, Bergelt discloses a mounting device for the power train assembly that allows adjusting the position along X, Y, and Z axes. See Fig. 1 and Col 3, lines 39-60. Before the effective date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to further add Bergelt’s mounting device to the combination with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to accommodate different assemblies or variances, and allow for optimizing the assembly position even after installation (Bergelt, Col 1, lines 40-45). The combination would predictably achieve the desired result.
Regarding Claim 13, the combination further teaches a hybrid conversion method that involves installing at least one pulley system per transmission shaft. See Kydd, Figure 2 and paragraph [0025].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kshatriya (US 2011/0083309 A1), Hoffmann (DE 102009001149), Kydd (US 2009/0000836 A1), and Bergelt (US 4,893,779), as applied above, in further view of Nimbalkar (WO 2020/183492 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination does not disclose an integrated freewheel rotating a driven shaft. Nimbalkar discloses a freewheel (935) to enable transmission of power to a driven shaft. See Fig. 9 and page 6, lines 1-8. Before the effective date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to further add the freewheel disclosed by Nimbalkar to the combination with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to eliminate drag produced by the motor without physically disengaging the motor (Nimbalkar, page 44, lines 9-12). The combination would predictably achieve the desired result.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kshatriya (US 2011/0083309 A1), Hoffmann (DE 102009001149), Kydd (US 2009/0000836 A1), Bergelt (US 4,893,779), and Nimbalkar (WO 2020/183492 A1), as applied above, in further view of Pearce et al. (US 3,910,651 A) (hereinafter “Pearce”).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination does not disclose installation of a guide fastening device to compensate for shaft misalignment and to absorb lateral shaft movement caused by accelerating the internal combustion engine. Pearce discloses a shaft bearing assembly comprising a shaft member, a structural member and a bearing for supporting the shaft member for rotation relative to the structural member where relative transverse movement between the bearing race and its respective structure comprises a spring. See page 45, claims 1 and 10. Before the effective date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to further add the bearing assembly disclosed by Pearce to the combination with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been damping the vibrations of a shaft carried by the bearing while allowing limited transverse movement of the shaft (Pearce Col 4, lines 57-61). The combination would predictably achieve the desired result.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination further teaches installing a hybrid converted vehicle control board (238) to select between the electric propulsion system or the internal combustion engine propulsion system. See Kshatriya [0077] and Fig. 20.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kshatriya (US 2011/0083309 A1), Hoffmann (DE 102009001149), Kydd (US 2009/0000836 A1), Bergelt (US 4,893,779), Nimbalkar (WO 2020/183492 A1), and Pearce (US 3,910,651 A), as applied above, in further view of Woodward et al. (US 2017/0029054 A1) (hereinafter “Woodward”).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination does not disclose installing an instrument panel to monitor the operating parameters of the electric propulsion system. Woodward discloses a display (318) for reporting sensor data including battery capacity, battery charge and discharge rate, and component temperatures. See Fig. 3 and last sentence of [0036]. Before the effective date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to further add the display disclosed by Woodward to the combination with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been informing the operator of propulsion system status. The combination would predictably achieve the desired result.
Claims 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kshatriya (US 2011/0083309 A1), Hoffmann (DE 102009001149), Kydd (US 2009/0000836 A1), Bergelt (US 4,893,779), Nimbalkar (WO 2020/183492 A1), Pearce (US 3,910,651 A), and Woodward (US 2017/0029054 A1), as applied above, in further view of Kyle (US 2006/0030450 A1).
Regarding Claim 20, although the combination comprises a clutch, it does not disclose an actuator that mechanically articulates to engage the clutch and is activated by a signal from the control board. Kyle teaches a clutch which can connect or disconnect the engine from the driving wheels and is controlled by a controller. See Fig. 1 and paragraph [0012]. Before the effective date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to further add the controller driven clutch disclosed by Kyle to the combination with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to allow “the internal combustion engine to be turned off at various points in the operational cycle of the vehicle, such as when the vehicle is stopped during traffic” (Kyle [0033]). The combination would predictably achieve the desired result.
Regarding Claim 21, the combination further discloses installing a DC to DC high to low voltage converter. See Kshatriya [0075], last sentence: “a DC to DC may need to be provided to reduce the forty-eight (48) volts from battery 108 to the twelve (12) volts”.
Regarding Claim 22, the combination further discloses installation of a battery charger inside the vehicle that allows charging the high voltage battery pack when the vehicle is not in use. See Kshatriya (236) in Fig. 19 and [0076]: “the method of modifying the vehicle also includes installing a separate charger 236 in the trunk of the vehicle that enables a user to selectively charge battery 108 when the vehicle is not in use”.
Regarding Claim 23, the combination further discloses an inverter installed between the battery and the battery charger to take advantage of the energy generated by the alternator to charge the high voltage batteries. See Kyle [0039] and Claim 7.
Claims 24-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kshatriya (US 2011/0083309 A1), Hoffmann (DE 102009001149), Kydd (US 2009/0000836 A1), Bergelt (US 4,893,779), Nimbalkar (WO 2020/183492 A1), Pearce (US 3,910,651 A), Woodward (US 2017/0029054 A1), and Kyle (US 2006/0030450 A1), as applied above, in further view of Kinigadner et al. (DE 102016203571 A1) (hereinafter “Kinigadner”) and He (CN 204263947 U).
Regarding Claim 24, the combination does not disclose installation of an accelerator pedal for a hybrid converted vehicle that mechanically articulates both the pedal for the electric propulsion system and the pedal for the internal combustion engine simultaneously through a hinge type mechanism. Kinigadner teaches an accelerator pedal (Fig. 1 and [0001]) with a hinge type mechanism (12) for a hybrid vehicle. Further, He teaches a double accelerator pedal where two pedals are joined to operate simultaneously and in unison (Fig. 1 and 2). Before the effective date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to those having ordinary skill in the art to further add the accelerator pedals disclosed by Kinigadner and He to the combination with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to arrive at a configuration where separate acceleration pedals function as one (He, page 2, lines 1-5). The combination would predictably achieve the desired result.
Regarding Claim 25, the combination further discloses two articulated pedals installed in parallel, integrating them into the same accelerator pedal for a vehicle converted into a hybrid. See He, Fig. 1 and 2.
Regarding Claim 26, the combination further discloses an automatic control system to change the RPM of the propulsion system. See Kyle [0036]: “The controller provides control outputs for various systems of the vehicle, including a switch control signal to energize and deenergize the motor”.
Regarding Claim 27, the combination further discloses that both propulsion systems can work simultaneously. See Kyle Fig. 2C and [0040]: “driving power is applied to the wheels 40 and 42 through both the internal combustion engine 12 and the electric motor 44”.
Regarding Claim 28, the combination further discloses installation of a sensor control system to monitor and control the operating temperature of batteries and other components of the electric propulsion system. See Kshatriya [0041]: “Motor control unit 106 receives one or more inputs from various sensors … the inputs may include … analog inputs (e.g., motor temperature, engine temperature, temperature of battery 108”.
Regarding Claim 29, the combination further teaches utilizing support elements within the vehicle for holding the components of the electric propulsion system. See Kshatriya [0067]: “According to other embodiments, electric motor 104 may be at least partially supported by the vehicle body and/or frame …”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 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.
Regarding Claim 6, the prior art does not teach a hybrid conversion method that involves replacing the intermediate shaft of a transmission with one of greater length so that it exits through the casing. The closest reference, Hoffmann (DE 102009001149), discloses an intermediate transmission shaft in connection with an electric motor, but does not recite replacing the shaft with a longer one to arrive at such configuration.
Regarding Claim 7, the prior art does not teach a hybrid conversion method where an extension is mechanically installed to increase the length of the intermediate transmission shaft. The closest reference, Hoffmann (DE 102009001149), discloses an intermediate transmission shaft in connection with an electric motor, but does not recite modifying the shaft to arrive at such configuration.
Regarding Claim 8, the prior art does not teach a hybrid conversion method that involves replacing or modifying the output transmission shaft to extend its length. The closest reference, Reed, Jr. et al. (US 6,332,257 B1), discloses connecting an electric motor to the input shaft of a transmission, leaving the output shaft intact.
Claims 9-12, 15, 17, and 30 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 9, the prior art does not teach a hybrid conversion method that involves coupling the output shaft of the electric motor to a hybrid intermediate shaft. The closest reference, Hoffmann (DE 102009001149), discloses the electric motor in connection with the intermediate shaft of the transmission without any other shafts involved in the connection.
Regarding Claim 10, the prior art does not teach a hybrid conversion method that involves installing a pulley system for connecting the hybrid intermediate shaft to the electric motor. The closest reference, Hoffmann (DE 102009001149), discloses the electric motor in connection with the intermediate shaft of the transmission but does not recite installing a pulley system for connecting the hybrid intermediate shaft.
Regarding Claim 11, the prior art does not teach a hybrid conversion method that involves mounting an auxiliary transmission shaft between the hybrid intermediate shaft and the electric motor. The closest reference, Hoffmann (DE 102009001149), discloses the electric motor in connection with the intermediate shaft of the transmission but does not recite installing an auxiliary transmission shaft or a hybrid intermediate shaft.
Regarding Claim 12, the prior art does not teach a hybrid conversion method that involves installing at least one auxiliary transmission shaft between the hybrid intermediate shaft and the drive shaft of the electric motor. The closest reference, Hoffmann (DE 102009001149), discloses the electric motor in connection with the intermediate shaft of the transmission but does not recite at least one auxiliary transmission shaft between the hybrid intermediate shaft and the drive shaft of the electric motor.
Regarding Claim 15, the prior art does not teach a hybrid conversion method that involves mounting a support bearing installed in a support element on the hybrid intermediate shaft. The closest reference, Hoffmann (DE 102009001149), discloses the electric motor in connection with the intermediate shaft of the transmission but does not recite a hybrid intermediate shaft supported by a bearing and its support element.
Regarding Claim 17, the prior art does not teach a hybrid conversion method that involves installing a support bearing on the shaft of the electric motor. The closest reference, Kshatriya (US 2011/0083309 A1), discloses an electric motor assisting the internal combustion engine, but is silent about a support bearing on the shaft of the electric motor.
Regarding Claim 30, the prior art does not teach a hybrid conversion method that involves more than two bearings and pulleys installed for each transmission shaft. The closest reference, Kydd (US 2009/0000836 A1), discloses a center bearing support and longer shafts when the electric motor may be remote, but does not specify installing more than two bearings and pulleys.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD OMID NEYZARI whose telephone number is (571)272-9530. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Allen Shriver can be reached at (303) 297-4337. 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.
/MOHAMMAD O NEYZARI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3613