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 01/07/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the submission of information disclosure statement is/are being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim(s) 5, 11 and 13-17 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 5 recites the limitation “wherein the central portion" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the central portion" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the lever" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “wherein the second end" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
By virtue of dependency on claim 11, claims 13-16, are likewise also 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 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 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.
Claim(s) 1-8, and 10-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiguchi Akira (JPS5213688U, hereinafter referred to as “Akira”) in view of Paulse (CA2770758A1, hereinafter referred to as “Paulse”).
Regarding claim 1, Akira discloses a carrier for a sampling bag (Figs 1 and 2, urine storage bag support holder 6, English translation of col. 1, lines 13-21: urine bag support device), the carrier (6) comprising: a body (Figs 1 and 3, handle 7) having: a first segment (Figs 1 and 3, portion of handle 7 identified as locking piece 8 adjacent to bearing 9); a second segment (Figs 1 and 3, portion of handle 7 identified as locking piece 8 adjacent to receiving hook 10); and a central segment (Fig 3, holding arm 11) integrated with and extending between the first segment and the second segment (Fig 3, holding arm 11 integrated with and extending between the two locking pieces 8 of handle 7, via bearing 9 and hook 10, respectively), the central segment (11) being laterally spaced apart from a longitudinal axis of the body (Fig 3, 11 spaced from extending axis of handle 7), the first segment and the second segment being coaxial with the longitudinal axis (Fig 3, the two locking pieces 8 are coaxial with extending axis of handle 7);
However, Akira fails to disclose the following: and a pair of clamps coupled to the body and spaced apart from each other along the longitudinal axis, each clamp of the pair of clamps being configured to retain the sampling bag against the body of the carrier when the sampling bag is hanging downwardly relative to the body.
However, Paulse teaches the following: and a pair of clamps (Fig 16, high friction tapes pairs 392, 394, 392d, 394d alongside projections 397d combined, to form pair of clamps for clamping and firmly holding together elements 387d, 377 to 25D, respectively) coupled to the body (Fig 16, element 25D) and spaced apart from each other along the longitudinal axis (Fig 16, 365d and 365 are spaced apart from each other), each clamp of the pair of clamps being configured to retain the sampling bag against the body of the carrier (Fig 18, bag 508 held at 453, 453d) when the sampling bag is hanging downwardly relative to the body (Fig 18, bag 508 is hanging downwardly relative to body 25D).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Akira by Paulse based on the following rationales: referring to Akira in English translation of col 2 lines 25-31, the upper and lower edges 14 for the urine collection bag 13 have to be welded together at opening 13 thereof to be attached to the central segment (11) of the carrier (6), and see Fig 3 for more details, thus the entire urine storage bag support holder 6 of Akira is specifically designed for such specific type of urine collection bag 13 having extended tab-like upper and lower edges 14 for mounting to bag support holder 6. On the other hand, other types of urine bags without such edges 14 would not be mountable to the bag support holder 6 due to potentially slipping off without the presence of edge 14 due to heavy of fluid or urine carried. Meanwhile, referring to Paulse, the high friction tapes pairs 392, 394, 392d, 394d alongside projections 397d combined, form pair of clamps that can clamp and firmly holding together elements 387d, 377 to 25D, respectively shown in Figs 16 and 18, thus facilitating firm support and holding of various other common types of fluid bags including storage bag 508 with convenient closure slider 615 (without having any flap or edge 14 of Akira), as well as aperture bag 8C of Fig 6, or template bag 88 of Fig 1D, or resealable bag 8E, or storage bag 8. As a result, Paulse offers much improved flexibility over Akira for accommodating various types of bags to be held. As a result, above discussed advantages taught by Paulse over Akira serve as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Akira by Paulse, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because both Akira and Paulse belong to analogous art in the field of apparatus for hanging a bag.
Regarding claim 2, Akira discloses wherein the first segment (Figs 1 and 3, portion of handle 7 identified as locking piece 8 adjacent to bearing 9) includes a free end and a joined end (Figs 1 and 3, free end of 8 is towards 4, and joined end is towards 12 of 11), the joined end being coupled to the central segment of the carrier (Fig 3, locking piece 8 adjacent to bearing hook 9 is coupled to central segment (11), while other end of locking piece 8 is free from central segment (11)).
Regarding claim 3, Akira discloses wherein the second segment (Figs 1 and 3, portion of handle 7 identified as locking piece 8 adjacent to receiving hook 10) includes a free end and a joined end (Figs 1 and 3, free end is towards 1, and joined end is towards 10), the joined end being coupled to the central segment of the carrier (Fig 3, locking piece 8 adjacent to hook 10 is coupled to central segment (11), while other end of locking piece 8 is free from central segment (11)).
Regarding claim 4, Akira discloses wherein the central segment (11) comprises a first portion and a second portion (Fig 3, bend part 12 can be first portion, and end part of 11 adjacent 10 can be second portion), the first portion of the central segment being coupled to the joined end of the first segment and the second portion of the central segment being coupled to the joined end of second segment (Fig 3, bend part 12 coupled to locking piece 8 adjacent to bearing 9 of handle 7, and end part of 11 adjacent 10 is coupled to joined end of 8 adjacent to 10).
Regarding claim 5, Akira discloses wherein the central portion further comprises a middle portion coupled to each of the first portion and the second portion (Fig1, the elongated middle part of 11 can be considered middle portion).
Regarding claim 6, Akira fails to discloses wherein the pair of clamps includes a first clamp and a second clamp, the first clamp being positioned between the free end and the joined end of the first segment and the second clamp being positioned between the free end and the joined end of the second segment.
However, Paulse teaches wherein the pair of clamps includes a first clamp and a second clamp (Fig 16, high friction tapes pairs 392, 394, 392d, 394d alongside projections 397d combined, to form first and second clamps for clamping and firmly holding together elements 387d, 377 to 25D, respectively), the first clamp being positioned between the free end and the joined end of the first segment and the second clamp being positioned between the free end and the joined end of the second segment. (Paulse: first and second clamps at 365d and 365 in Fig 16 can be positioned between ends of first segment (portion of handle 7 identified as locking piece 8 adjacent to bearing 9) and ends of second segment (portion of handle 7 identified as locking piece 8 adjacent to receiving hook 10) of Horiguchi Akira in a manner similar to the bag 13 shown in Fig 3 of Horiguchi Akira).
Regarding claim 7, Akira fails to disclose wherein each clamp of the pair of clamps is one of a c-clamp, a screw clamp, a hand screw clamp, a spring clamp, a bar clamp, a hose clamp, a magnetic clamp, a pneumatic clamp, and a clip.
However, Paulse teaches wherein each clamp of the pair of clamps is one of a c-clamp, a screw clamp, a hand screw clamp, a spring clamp, a bar clamp, a hose clamp, a magnetic clamp, a pneumatic clamp, and a clip (note: “one of” in above limitation appears to require just one clamp alone as being sufficient, while other options of clamps can be considered optional and be omitted; Paulse: Fig 1D, clip at 958, Fig 4B, 453 and 453d serve as c-clamp or clip, Fig 4H is another type of clamp, hinge clamp at 172 and 801, 810 with locking members 80, 84).
Regarding claim 8, Akira fails to discloses wherein the body has a ribbon-like shape having a length greater than a height and the height greater than a thickness.
However, Paulse teaches wherein the body has a ribbon-like shape having a length greater than a height and the height greater than a thickness (Fig 1B, body (25) has ribbon-like shape, Fig 1E, body (26) has a ribbon shape, Fig 4C also, 25W is ribbon-like shape, horizontal length is greater than vertical height, which is greater than thickness).
Regarding claim 10, Akira discloses wherein the body as a top edge, a bottom edge, a first side and a second side, the first side and the second side extending between the top edge and the bottom edge (Figs 1 and 3, handle 7 has top edge at label for 6, bottom edge away from label for 6, first side adjacent to 4, second side adjacent to 1).
Regarding claim 11, Akira discloses wherein the central portion is offset laterally in a direction towards the second side of the body (Figs 1 and 3, central portion (11) is offset at end near 10).
Regarding claim 12, Akira fails to sufficiently disclose wherein each clamp of the pair of clamps is a compression clamp having a spring coupled to the second side of the body and a lever hingedly coupled to the spring and extending though an aperture of the body, the lever being configured to retain the sampling bag against the body of the carrier.
However, Paulse teaches wherein each clamp of the pair of clamps is a compression clamp having a spring coupled to the second side of the body (paragraph [205]: resilient clip 64, spring clip around living hinge 174) and a lever hingedly coupled to the spring and extending though an aperture of the body (paragraph [205] resilient clip 64, spring clip around living hinge 174, groves 68), the lever being configured to retain the sampling bag against the body of the carrier (Figs 14 and 18, lever (453, 453d) has inner surface securing and contacting sampling bag 508 in Fig 18).
Regarding claim 13, Akira fails to disclose wherein the lever has an inner surface and an outer surface, the inner surface contacting the sampling bag when each clamp is in a first position.
However, Paulse teaches wherein the lever has an inner surface and an outer surface, the inner surface contacting the sampling bag when each clamp is in a first position (Figs 14 and 18, lever (453, 453d) has inner surface facing 365 and 452, and outer surface facing outside, inner surface contacting sampling bag 508 in Fig 18).
Regarding claim 14, Akira fails to disclose wherein each clamp has a first position and a second position and is biased to the first position, the first position being configured to retain the sampling bag against the carrier and the second position being configured to release the sampling bag from the carrier.
However, Paulse teaches wherein each clamp has a first position and a second position and is biased to the first position (Fig 16, high friction tapes pairs 392, 394, 392d, 394d alongside projections 397d combined, to form pair of clamps for clamping and firmly holding together elements 387d, 377 to 25D, respectively; Fig 18, clamp is biased to first position holding a bag 508), the first position being configured to retain the sampling bag against the carrier (Fig 18, bag 508 against 25D) and the second position being configured to release the sampling bag from the carrier (Fig 4B, to release Bag 508 from carrier 25D via detaching from 453).
Regarding claim 15, Akira alone fails to sufficiently disclose wherein, when the carrier is retaining the sampling bag, the sampling bag generally extends along the longitudinal axis of the carrier and the central segment being laterally spaced apart from the longitudinal axis provides for the sampling bag to be opened when retained by the carrier.
However, Paulse and Akira combined teach wherein, when the carrier is retaining the sampling bag, the sampling bag generally extends along the longitudinal axis of the carrier and the central segment being laterally spaced apart from the longitudinal axis provides for the sampling bag to be opened when retained by the carrier (Paulse: Fig 18, carrier 25D is retaining bag 508, bag 508 extends along extending axis of carrier 25D, central segment of Akira can be lateral spaced part from extending axis of carrier (6) , so that bag 508 remains open as shown in Fig 18).
Regarding claim 16, Akira discloses wherein the lever has a U-shape (Fig 3, lever (1) is U-shaped vertically upward).
Regarding claims 6-8, and 12-15, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Akira by Paulse based on the same rationales previously discussed for claim 1 above, thereby omitted here for brevity.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiguchi Akira (JPS5213688U, hereinafter referred to as “Akira”) in view of Paulse (CA2770758A1, hereinafter referred to as “Paulse”), and further in view of Schmidt (US 3558039, hereinafter referred to as “Schmidt”).
Regarding claim 9, Akira and Paulse, singularly or in combination, fails to disclose or teach wherein the body has a ribbon-like shape having a length greater than a height and the height less than a thickness.
However, Schmidt teaches wherein the body has a ribbon-like shape having a length greater than a height and the height less than a thickness (Fig 1, body (11, 12 combine) is ribbon-like shape, length is greater than height, while height less than thickness of 11 and 12 combined).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Akira by Schmidt in view of Paulse based on the following rationales: referring to Akira in English translation of col 2 lines 25-31, the upper and lower edges 14 for the urine collection bag 13 have to be welded together at opening 13 thereof to be attached to the central segment (11) of the carrier (6), and see Fig 3 for more details, thus the entire urine storage bag support holder 6 of Akira is specifically designed for such specific type of urine collection bag 13 having extended tab-like upper and lower edges 14 for mounting to bag support holder 6. On the other hand, other types of urine bags without such edges 14 would not be mountable to the bag support holder 6 due to potentially slipping off the carrier due to heavy of fluid or urine carried and without the presence of edges 1. Meanwhile, referring to Schmidt, carrier bag adopts a unitary means including elongated strips 11 and 12 joined at ends 13 and 14 to be joined with bag 10 at end by heating sealing method, thus facilitating firm support and holding of a fluid bag. Meanwhile, the handle 15 facilitate ease of hanging the entire bag. As a result, Schmidt offers simplicity over Akira for accommodating different types of bags to be supported. As a result, above discussed advantages taught by Schmidt over Akira serve as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Akira by Schmidt, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because both Akira and Schmidt belong to analogous art in the field of apparatus for hanging a bag.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiguchi Akira (JPS5213688U, hereinafter referred to as “Akira”) in view of Paulse (CA2770758A1, hereinafter referred to as “Paulse”), and further in view of Visinoni (EP2524595B1, hereinafter referred to as “Visinoni”).
Regarding claim 17, Akira fails to discloses wherein the second end of the carrier is configured to be retained in a rack of a sampling bar carrier shelving unit
However, Visinoni teaches wherein the second end of the carrier is configured to be retained in a rack of a sampling bar carrier shelving unit (Figs 6-8, carrier 30, shelfing units (storage cabinets 43, 50)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Akira by Visinoni in view of Paulse based on the following rationales: referring to Akira in Figs 2 and 3, the bag support holder 6 is only designed to physically support and hang one urine collection bag 13 at a time to a surface. However, the bag support holder 6 of Akira is not designed to handle or hold multiple bags at once. Meanwhile, Paulse teaches of using a singular support rod 7 to hang the bags at the hooks 23A, while the bag opening remains closed. Furthermore, referring further to Paulse, the bags 8 are forced to be secured at one spot at 23A while hanging with potential heavy weight of fluids in the bags 8. On the other hand, Visinoni enables handling a bag filling using a holder while bag is opened to perform liquid filling at a station as shown in Fig 9. In addition, the carrier 30 taught by Visinoni (shown in Figs 6 and 8) securely supports and hangs each of multiple bags on a rack easily. As a result, above discussed advantages taught by Visinoni over Akira serve as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Akira by adding bag filling system and bag carrier storage system shown in Figs 6, 8 and 9 of Visinoni, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Visinoni appears to be analogous art with respect to Paulse in the field of organic bag filling and storing and hanging system.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiguchi Akira (JPS5213688U, hereinafter referred to as “Akira”) in view of Paulse (CA2770758A1, hereinafter referred to as “Paulse”), and further in view of Adsure RFID security bags online product page dated by archive.org to 06/20/2021, (hereinafter referred to as “Adsure”).
Regarding claim 18, Akira and Paulse, singularly or in combination, fail to disclose or teach further comprising a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag positioned on a first end of the carrier.
However, Akira and Adsure combined teach the following: further comprising a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag positioned on a first end of the carrier.
(Akira: Figs 1 and 2, urine storage bag support holder 6, English translation of col. 1, lines 13-21: urine bag support device; Adsure: see roll-over images in page 1 showing a RFID security bag with RFID transmitter chip (see page 1) and multiple security levels of levels 2 and 4 (see page 2), and bag options tailored made to suit customization usage scenarios (see page 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Akira by Adsure based on the following rationales: referring to Akira in Fig 3, the urine collection bag 13 is only identified by a patient name data entry label 16 while mounting to bag support holder 6. However, the information written by hand on patient name data entry label 16 can easily be duplicated by writing. As a result, there is a lack of information security regarding the urine collection bag 13 for Akira. On the other hand, urine bags configured in accordance with the RFID security chip imbedded into the bag of Adsure would ensure at least level 2 up to level 4 security. Thus, any potential tampering can be instantly detected in view of real time RFID data signals. Thus, Adsure offers much improved security and tamper resistance of bags over Akira. As a result, above discussed advantages taught by Adsure over Akira serve as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Akira by Adsure, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because Adsure specifically advertises many different bag options, including opacity, and sizes can be tailored made to suit customization usage scenarios (see page 2).
Claim(s) 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horiguchi Akira (JPS5213688U, hereinafter referred to as “Akira”) in view of Paulse (CA2770758A1, hereinafter referred to as “Paulse”), and further in view of Visinoni (EP2524595B1, hereinafter referred to as “Visinoni”) and further in view of VMECA “Demo, Pick and Place, Magic Grippers @Doosan Robotics” youtube video dated 11/02/2022, (hereinafter referred to as “VMECA”).
Regarding claim 18, Akira and Paulse, singularly or in combination, fail to disclose or teach further comprising a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag positioned on a first end of the carrier.
However, Akira and Visinoni combined teach the following: further comprising a radio frequency identification (RFID) tag positioned on a first end of the carrier.
(Akira: Figs 1 and 2, urine storage bag support holder 6, English translation of col. 1, lines 13-21: urine bag support device; Visinoni: [0033]: carrier comprise RFID-chip).
Regarding claim 19, Akira and Paulse, singularly or in combination, fail to disclose or teach wherein a first end of the carrier is configured to be held by a gripper of a robot or manipulator.
However, VMECA and Visinoni combined teach wherein a first end of the carrier is configured to be held by a gripper of a robot or manipulator (Visninoi: Fig 9, one end of flexible bag 115 with carrier features at top held by u-shaped holding arm 117a and holder 117; Fig 8 carriers 30, Fig 6 carrier 30; [0030] by means of such carrier, flexible bags can be easily stored and handled; VMECA: video shows a robot arm with at least 6 degrees of freedom of movement capability with set of grippers capable of handling various objects relating to bags).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Akira by VMECA and Visinoni combined in view of Paulse based on the following rationales: referring to Akira in Figs 2 and 3, the bag support holder 6 is only designed to physically support and hang one urine collection bag 13 at a time to a surface. However, the bag support holder 6 of Akira is not designed to handle or hold multiple bags at once. Meanwhile, Paulse teaches of using a singular support rod 7 to hang the bags at the hooks 23A, while the bag opening remains closed. On the other hand, combined teachings of VMECA and Visinoni enables robot arm gripper having 6 degrees of movement freedom of handling a bag and carrier/holder while opened to perform liquid filling at a station as shown in Fig 9 of Visinoni. As a result, above discussed advantages taught by VMECA and Visinoni combined over Akira serve as teaching, suggestion, or motivation, in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Akira by adding the robot arm gripper of VMECA joined with the bag filling system and bag carrier storage system shown in Figs 8 and 9 of Visinoni, and there would have been reasonable expectation of success because VMECA robot arm and gripper appears to be very capable and adaptable in handling objects of different shapes and sizes, meanwhile Visinoni appears to be analogous art with respect to Paulse in the field of organic bag filling and storing and hanging system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Alspaugh (US 10836525B1) discloses a robotic gripper for bagging items. Schmidt (US 3558039) discloses a carrying bag made of plastic and sealable opening. DuCorday (USD407310) disclose a bag closure with handle. Collis (US 20210380314 A1) discloses a securable clip for a bag. Mendels (US 9074920B2) discloses an apparatus for beside collection of body fluids.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DING Y TAN whose telephone number is (303)297-4271. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00am MT--5:00pm MT. 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, Terrell McKinnon. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DING Y TAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3632
/TERRELL L MCKINNON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3632