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 .
Claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
Claim Interpretation
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 limitation(s) is/are: “a processing functionality configured to” in claim 10.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 10 and 14 as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitation “determine a preparedness of the computational function block for updating the computational function block” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of mental processes. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out these functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recites the following additional elements “a computational function block for a vehicle, the computational function block comprising: at least one interface that, in operation, with an apparatus that controls an update process of a computational function block; and a processing functionality,” and “provide information on the preparedness of the computational function block for updating to the apparatus that controls the update process”. The additional elements “a computational function block for a vehicle, the computational function block comprising: at least one interface that, in operation, with an apparatus that controls an update process of a computational function block; and a processing functionality,” are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element “provide information on the preparedness of the computational function block for updating to the apparatus that controls the update process” does nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting the results of the abstract idea to perform a task. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element “a computational function block for a vehicle, the computational function block comprising: at least one interface that, in operation, with an apparatus that controls an update process of a computational function block; and a processing functionality,” are generic computer components and instructions used as the tools to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). As to the additional element “in response to the attempt by the application installer, indicating an absence of the components to the application installer even though at least a subset of the components was previously installed in association with one or more other applications, and wherein the indication prompts the installer to install another version of the components in addition to the subset of the components that was previously installed,” the courts have identified gathering data and displaying the output of the abstract idea is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 11, further defines the “processing functionality” which are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the additional elements are generic computer components and instructions used as the tools to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites the additional elements “obtains” which does nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception, such as data gathering and outputting the results of the abstract idea to perform a task. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the courts have identified gathering data and displaying the output of the abstract idea is well-understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
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.
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 1-6, 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rockwell (US 9,639,344 B2) in view of Coffee (US 2004/0039504 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Rockwell (US 9,639,344 B2) teaches
An apparatus for controlling an update process of a computational function block in a vehicle, the apparatus comprising: at least one interface that, in operation, communicates with the computational function block; and one or more processors that in operation: determine information on a preparedness of the computational function block for updating the computational function block, wherein the information on the preparedness indicates the preparedness of the computational function block;
and trigger an update of the computational function block if the information on the preparedness indicates that the computational function block is ready to be updated. (Abstract, "A vehicle may receive a software update to be installed to a vehicle electronic control unit (ECU); perform compatibility testing for vehicle ECUs according to tokens from the vehicle ECUs indicating respective software version levels of the vehicle ECUs to determine a compatibility result; and switch the software update into active use on the vehicle when the compatibility result indicates an allowable configuration of software version levels.") Examiner Comments: Rockwell teaches an apparatus in a vehicle that controls the update process for an ECU (computational function block) by determining preparedness information (compatibility based on individual ECU tokens indicating version levels) and triggering the update (switching to active use) if ready (compatible configuration); the vehicle bus serves as the interface for communication.
Rockwell did not specifically teach
determine the information on the preparedness based on a ruleset for determining the preparedness of a plurality of computational function blocks based on a state of the computational function block and on a state of the vehicle.
However, Coffee (US 2004/0039504 A1) teaches determine the information on the preparedness based on a ruleset for determining the preparedness of a plurality of computational function blocks based on a state of the computational function block and on a state of the vehicle. (Paragraph [0015], " a method and apparatus are disclosed for automatically determining and reporting events from a vehicle to an owner or dispatcher of the vehicle at a remote location. Events to be reported are changes in status of vehicle operation, location, or measurements of vehicle systems or cargo. A computer (tracking computer, generally referred to herein as the tracker) installed on the vehicle is connected to various sensors which measure parameters of interest to the dispatcher or owner and reports critical changes in parameters over the wireless TDMA network. Computers at a fixed location display these status changes for use by the dispatcher or record the data for later analysis") Examiner Comments: Coffee teaches using a ruleset to determine the individual status (preparedness) of a function block (e.g., truck drum as a computational module) based on vehicle state (location, stationary) and block state (rotation speed), which indicates if the block is ready for an action (analogous to update when not in use).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rockwell’s teaching into Coffee’s in order to enable updates when the function block is not actively in use, thereby reducing vehicle downtime and allowing timely updates without waiting for global vehicle inactivity, by identifying location and direction of movement of each vehicle in the fleet in real-time and automatic communication directly with management offices to report its location and heading, and status of predetermined events in which the vehicle may be engaged ( Abstract/Summary).
Regarding Claim 2, Rockwell, Coffee teach
The apparatus according to claim 1.
Rockwell further teaches wherein the one or more processors, in operation, obtain, from the computational function block, the information on the preparedness of the computational function block for updating the computational function block. (Column 1, lines 25-33, "receive tokens from other of the vehicle ECUs indicating respective software version levels of the other vehicle ECUs") Examiner Comments: Rockwell teaches obtaining preparedness information (tokens indicating version levels for compatibility) directly from the individual ECU (function block).
Regarding Claim 3, Rockwell, Coffee teach
The apparatus according to claim 2.
Rockwell further teaches wherein the apparatus, in operation, controls the update process of a plurality of computational function blocks of the vehicle, wherein the one or more processors, in operation, determine information on a preparedness of the plurality of computational function blocks for updating the plurality of computational function blocks by obtaining the information on the preparedness of the plurality of computational function block individually from each of the plurality of computational function blocks, and to trigger the update of each of the respective computational function blocks if the information on the preparedness indicates that each of the respective computational function blocks is ready to be updated. (Column 1, lines 45-60, "receiving, by a vehicle ECU, tokens from other vehicle ECUs indicating respective software version levels of the other vehicle ECUs; determine whether the vehicle ECU is the most up-to-date ECU based on the tokens; and if so, determine a compatibility result indicative of compatibility of the version levels according to the tokens") Examiner Comments: Rockwell teaches controlling updates for multiple ECUs by obtaining individual preparedness information (tokens) from each and triggering updates if ready (compatible).
Regarding Claim 4, Rockwell, Coffee teach
The apparatus according to claim 3.
Rockwell further teaches wherein the computational function block or the plurality of computational function blocks signal their preparedness for updating. (Claim 1, "receive, from the other vehicle ECUs, identifiers of the ECUs and tokens indicating overall vehicle update levels for the ECUs") Examiner Comments: Rockwell teaches ECUs signaling preparedness (tokens indicating update levels for compatibility check).
Regarding Claim 5, Rockwell, Coffee teach
The apparatus according to claim 4.
Rockwell further teaches wherein the one or more processors, in operation, are configured to read out a flag comprising the information on the preparedness from the computational function block or from each of the individual computational function blocks. (Claim 7, "the tokens include timestamp values corresponding to when software installed to the vehicle ECUs was compiled or signed") Examiner Comments: Rockwell teaches reading tokens (flags) comprising preparedness information (version timestamps) from each ECU.
Regarding Claim 6, Rockwell, Coffee teach
The apparatus according to claim 4.
Rockwell further teaches wherein the one or more processors, in operation, request the information on the preparedness from the computational function block or from each of the individual computational function blocks, and to receive the information on the preparedness from the computational function block or from each of the individual computational function blocks in response to the request. (Claim 1, "receiving tokens from other vehicle ECUs indicating respective overall software update levels of the vehicle ECUs") Examiner Comments: Rockwell teaches requesting and receiving preparedness information (tokens) from each ECU in response.
Regarding Claim 9, Rockwell, and Coffee teach
The apparatus according to claim 1.
Rockwell further teaches wherein the one or more processors, in operation, override the information on the preparedness of the computation function block if the computation function block is deemed to be unresponsive. (Column 7, lines 17-28, " At operation 504, the vehicle ECU 104 determines whether the vehicle 102 configuration is compatible. In an example, the MMCF logic 210 may utilize the module compatibility matrix 208 to any received module IDs 204 that provided module tokens 206 that are incompatible with the software version levels of the vehicle ECUs 104.") Examiner Comments: Rockwell teaches overriding non-responsive or incompatible ECUs by checking core subset and requesting updates, treating unresponsiveness as incompatibility to override and proceed with updates.
Regarding Claim 10, Rockwell teach
A computational function block for a vehicle, the computational function block comprising: at least one interface that, in operation, with an apparatus that controls an update process of a computational function block; and a processing functionality configured to: determine a preparedness of the computational function block for updating the computational function block; and provide information on the preparedness of the computational function block for updating to the apparatus for controlling that controls the update process. (Column 1, lines 25-35, "A vehicle electronic control unit (ECU) of a plurality of ECUs configured to receive tokens from other of the vehicle ECUs indicating respective software version levels of the other vehicle ECUs; determine whether the ECU is a most up-to-date ECU based on the tokens") Examiner Comments: Rockwell teaches the ECU (function block) determining and providing preparedness (version level via tokens) to the controlling apparatus.
Rockwell did not specifically teach
determine the information on the preparedness based on a ruleset for determining the preparedness of a plurality of computational function blocks based on a state of the computational function block and on a state of the vehicle.
However, Coffee (US 2004/0039504 A1) teaches determine the information on the preparedness based on a ruleset for determining the preparedness of a plurality of computational function blocks based on a state of the computational function block and on a state of the vehicle. (Paragraph [0015], " a method and apparatus are disclosed for automatically determining and reporting events from a vehicle to an owner or dispatcher of the vehicle at a remote location. Events to be reported are changes in status of vehicle operation, location, or measurements of vehicle systems or cargo. A computer (tracking computer, generally referred to herein as the tracker) installed on the vehicle is connected to various sensors which measure parameters of interest to the dispatcher or owner and reports critical changes in parameters over the wireless TDMA network. Computers at a fixed location display these status changes for use by the dispatcher or record the data for later analysis") Examiner Comments: Coffee teaches using a ruleset to determine the individual status (preparedness) of a function block (e.g., truck drum as a computational module) based on vehicle state (location, stationary) and block state (rotation speed), which indicates if the block is ready for an action (analogous to update when not in use).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rockwell’s teaching into Coffee’s in order to enable updates when the function block is not actively in use, thereby reducing vehicle downtime and allowing timely updates without waiting for global vehicle inactivity, by identifying location and direction of movement of each vehicle in the fleet in real-time and automatic communication directly with management offices to report its location and heading, and status of predetermined events in which the vehicle may be engaged ( Abstract/Summary).
Regarding Claim 11, Rockwell, and Coffee teach
The computational function block according to claim 10.
Rockwell further teaches wherein the processing functionality, in operation, is configured to expose the information on the preparedness as a flag to the apparatus for controlling that controls the update. (Claim 7, "the tokens include timestamp values corresponding to when software installed to the vehicle ECUs was compiled or signed") Examiner Comments: Rockwell teaches exposing preparedness as a token (flag) to the controlling apparatus.
Regarding Claim 12, Rockwell, and Coffee teach
The computational function block according to claim 10.
Rockwell further teaches wherein the processing functionality, in operation, obtains a request for the information on the preparedness from the apparatus that controls the update process, and provides the information on the preparedness to the apparatus that controls the update process in response to the request. (Claim 8, " performing software update compatibility testing for a received software update using a most up-to-date vehicle electronic control unit (ECU) to determine a compatibility result, the most up-to-date vehicle ECU being determined using tokens from other vehicle ECUs indicating respective overall software update levels of the vehicle ECUs that increase across the vehicle ECUs for each version update or set of version updates to the vehicle ECUs") Examiner Comments: Rockwell teaches obtaining a request and providing preparedness (tokens) in response.
Regarding Claim 13, is a method claim corresponding to the appratus claim above (Claim 1) and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14, is a method claim corresponding to the functional block claim above (Claim 10) and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 10.
Regarding Claim 15, Rockwell, and Coffee teach
A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a computer program that when executed by a processor, causes a computer to perform the method of claim 13 (Rockwell [Claim 15, "A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by at least one processor, are configured to cause the at least one processor to maintain a compatibility matrix... determine a compatibility result").
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rockwell (US 9,639,344 B2) in view of Coffee (US 2004/0039504 A1), and further in view of Thornburg (US 10,140,783 B2).
Regarding Claim 7, Rockwell, Coffee teach
The apparatus according to claim 1.
Rockwell and Coffee did not specifically teach wherein the one or more processors, in operation, are configured to determine the information on the preparedness based on a ruleset for determining the preparedness of a plurality of computational function blocks based on a state of the computational function block and on a state of the vehicle, wherein the ruleset includes rules for determining the preparedness of the computational function blocks for updating on a per-computational function block basis.
However, Thornburg (US 10,140,783 B2) teaches wherein the one or more processors, in operation, determine the information on the preparedness based on a ruleset for determining the preparedness of a plurality of computational function blocks based on a state of the computational function block and on a state of the vehicle, wherein the ruleset includes rules for determining the preparedness of the computational function blocks for updating on a per-computational function block basis. (Column 9, lines 1-13, "The ECG 110 may receive a data request or software from a cloud server. The ECG 110 may send the software to a target ECU... The ECG 110 may further monitor the vehicle buses 106 for a response, such as confirmation of receipt of the software update by the target ECU") Examiner Comments: Thornburg teaches a central gateway determining preparedness (confirmation of receipt, readiness) for individual ECUs using rules from a cloud server (repository) based on vehicle state (bus monitoring).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rockwell and Coffee’s teaching into Thornburg’s in order to enable remote over-the-air updates and preparedness checks, improving efficiency and allowing updates without physical access by receiving raw data from an electronic control unit (ECU) via one of the vehicle buses, augmenting the raw data with availability, classification, and context information, publishing the raw data to a publish/subscribe topic hosted to the storage, and subscribing at least a second ECU of the vehicle to the topic.
Regarding Claim 8, Rockwell, Coffee and Thornburg teach
The apparatus according to claim 7.
Thornburg further teaches wherein the computational function block originates from a software repository, wherein the one or more processors, in operation, obtain the ruleset for determining the preparedness of the computational function blocks from the software repository, and/or wherein the apparatus, in operation, controls the update process of the plurality of computational function blocks of the vehicle, wherein the one or more processors, in operation, determine information on the preparedness of the plurality of computational function blocks for updating the plurality of computational function blocks by determining the preparedness of each of the computational function blocks individually using the ruleset, and to trigger the update of each of the respective computational function blocks if the information on the preparedness indicates that each of the respective computational function blocks is ready to be updated. (Column 4, lines 20-28, "The ECG 110 may receive a data request or software from a cloud server. The ECG 110 may send the software to a target ECU... The ECG 110 may further monitor the vehicle buses 106 for a response, such as confirmation of receipt of the software update by the target ECU") Examiner Comments: Thornburg teaches obtaining software and rules (update logic) from a repository (cloud server) for individual ECUs, determining preparedness (receipt confirmation), and triggering updates per ECU.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Rockwell and Coffee’s teaching into Thornburg’s in order to enable remote over-the-air updates and preparedness checks, improving efficiency and allowing updates without physical access by receiving raw data from an electronic control unit (ECU) via one of the vehicle buses, augmenting the raw data with availability, classification, and context information, publishing the raw data to a publish/subscribe topic hosted to the storage, and subscribing at least a second ECU of the vehicle to the topic.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIR SOLTANZADEH whose telephone number is (571)272-3451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am - 5pm ET.
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, Wei Mui can be reached at (571) 272-3708. 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.
/AMIR SOLTANZADEH/Examiner, Art Unit 2191
/WEI Y MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191