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 .
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.
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 1-2, 5, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollmer 8424282 in view of Li 8408006.
Regarding Claim 1, Vollmer teaches a power plant (Fig 2) comprising:
a gas turbine engine (incl. 12, 13, 14) comprising a compressor (12) having a compressor outlet (to 14), the gas turbine engine further comprising a turbine (13) configured to discharge a first exhaust gas stream (to 16) therefrom;
a heat recovery steam generator (16) configured to:
extract heat from the first exhaust gas stream (to heat water 20 to steam 18); and
discharge a second exhaust gas stream (to 22) therefrom;
a cooler (22) configured to cool the second exhaust gas stream, thereby defining a cooled exhaust gas stream (exiting 22), wherein the cooler discharges the cooled exhaust gas stream (Fig 2);
an exhaust gas recirculation line (28) configured to channel a first cooled stream portion of the cooled exhaust gas stream (in 28) towards the compressor (Fig 2); and
a valve (32) configured to adjust and control the first cooled stream portion of the cooled exhaust gas stream for discharge to the compressor outlet (just as Applicant’s recirculated portion of cooled exhaust gas stream (194) enters the compressor (106) for discharge to the compressor outlet (170); the recirculated portion of the cooled exhaust stream in 28 of Vollmer flows enters the compressor 12 for discharge to the compressor outlet of 12).
Vollmer does not teach a recirculation compressor to selectively pressurize the first cooled stream portion for discharge to the compressor outlet.
However, Li teaches a power plant (Figs 1, 4) comprising:
a gas turbine engine (6) comprising a compressor (1) having a compressor outlet (to 4), the gas turbine engine further comprising a turbine (7) configured to discharge a first exhaust gas stream (8) therefrom (Figs 1, 4);
a heat recovery steam generator (9) configured to:
extract heat from the first exhaust gas stream (Figs 1, 4; stated and intended use of a HRSG; cool.8 ll.11-12); and
discharge a second exhaust gas stream (19) therefrom (Figs 1, 4);
an exhaust gas recirculation line (21) configured to channel a first cooled stream portion of the second exhaust gas stream towards the compressor (Figs 1, 4); and
a recirculation compressor (11) configured to selectively pressurize the first cooled stream portion of the cooled exhaust gas stream for discharge to the compressor outlet (via 1, as similarly discussed above).
Li further teaches the recirculation compressor being “advantageous to reduce equipment size as the allowable pressure drop is increased. Practical equipment sizes can only be realized with a reasonable pressure drop over the capture system and recirculation lines. Limitations from the gas turbine and HRSG design can be overcome” (col.7 ll.2-9,23-25). Additionally, in one option “[t]o control the recirculation rate[,] the exhaust flow and/or recirculation flow can be controlled by at least one control organ…for example a flap or valve” (col.6 l.58 – col.7 l.1). However, Li further teaches that “to minimize the power consumption of the blower, a variable speed control is proposed. Thus, the blower can be used to control the recirculation rate. Variable dampers, flaps or control valves, which inherently cause a pressure drop, can be avoided. Therefore, the total system pressure drops can be reduced by the use of variable speed blowers” (col.7 ll.16-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exhaust gas recirculation valve of Vollmer with the recirculation compressor of Li, in order to reduce equipment sizes by counteracting reasonable pressure drops in the system while minimizing power consumption and eliminating unnecessary pressure drops (due to valves)(Li, col.6 l.58 – col.7 l.25).
Regarding claim 2, Vollmer in view of Li teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Vollmer further teaches the heat recovery steam generator configured to discharge a steam stream (18);
a steam turbine (19) configured to:
receive a first stream portion of the steam stream therein (Fig 2); and
discharge a first extraction flow (23);
a carbon capture system (25) configured to receive the first extraction flow (Fig 4); and
a controller (33) configured to modulate both a supplemental firing of the HRSG and a flow of the first cooled stream portion of the cooled exhaust gas stream recirculated towards the compressor to facilitate increasing an output and/or an efficiency of the power plant (i.e. increase supplemental firing and decrease recirculation for increased power, or decrease supplemental firing and increase recirculation for increased efficiency; col.4 ll.41-66).
Regarding claim 5, Vollmer in view of Li teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Vollmer further teaches the carbon capture system configured to receive a second cooled stream portion of the cooled exhaust gas stream (via 24; Fig 2).
Regarding Claim 8, Vollmer teaches a power plant (Fig 2) comprising:
a gas turbine engine (incl. 12, 13, 14) comprising a compressor (12) having a compressor outlet (to 14), the gas turbine engine further comprising a turbine (13) configured to discharge a first exhaust gas stream (to 16) therefrom;
a heat recovery steam generator (16) configured to:
extract heat from the first exhaust gas stream (to heat water 20 to steam 18); and
discharge a second exhaust gas stream (to 22) and a steam stream (18) therefrom;
a cooler (22) configured to cool the second exhaust gas stream, thereby defining a cooled exhaust gas stream (exiting 22), wherein the cooler discharges the cooled exhaust gas stream (Fig 2);
an exhaust gas recirculation line (28) configured to channel a first cooled stream portion of the cooled exhaust gas stream (in 28) towards the compressor (Fig 2); and
a valve (32) configured to adjust and control the first cooled stream portion of the cooled exhaust gas stream for discharge to the compressor outlet (just as Applicant’s recirculated portion of cooled exhaust gas stream (194) enters the compressor (106) for discharge to the compressor outlet (170); the recirculated portion of the cooled exhaust stream in 28 of Vollmer flows enters the compressor 12 for discharge to the compressor outlet of 12);
a steam turbine (19) configured to:
receive a first stream portion of the steam stream therein (Fig 2); and
discharge a first extraction flow (23);
a carbon capture system (25) configured to receive the first extraction flow (Fig 4) and a second cooled stream portion of the cooled exhaust gas stream (via 24).
Vollmer does not teach a recirculation compressor to selectively pressurize the first cooled stream portion for discharge to the compressor outlet.
However, Li teaches a power plant (Figs 1, 4) comprising:
a gas turbine engine (6) comprising a compressor (1) having a compressor outlet (to 4), the gas turbine engine further comprising a turbine (7) configured to discharge a first exhaust gas stream (8) therefrom (Figs 1, 4);
a heat recovery steam generator (9) configured to:
extract heat from the first exhaust gas stream (Figs 1, 4; stated and intended use of a HRSG; cool.8 ll.11-12); and
discharge a second exhaust gas stream (19) therefrom (Figs 1, 4);
an exhaust gas recirculation line (21) configured to channel a first cooled stream portion of the second exhaust gas stream towards the compressor (Figs 1, 4); and
a recirculation compressor (11) configured to selectively pressurize the first cooled stream portion of the cooled exhaust gas stream for discharge to the compressor outlet (via 1, as similarly discussed above).
Li further teaches the recirculation compressor being “advantageous to reduce equipment size as the allowable pressure drop is increased. Practical equipment sizes can only be realized with a reasonable pressure drop over the capture system and recirculation lines. Limitations from the gas turbine and HRSG design can be overcome” (col.7 ll.2-9,23-25). Additionally, in one option “[t]o control the recirculation rate[,] the exhaust flow and/or recirculation flow can be controlled by at least one control organ…for example a flap or valve” (col.6 l.58 – col.7 l.1). However, Li further teaches that “to minimize the power consumption of the blower, a variable speed control is proposed. Thus, the blower can be used to control the recirculation rate. Variable dampers, flaps or control valves, which inherently cause a pressure drop, can be avoided. Therefore, the total system pressure drops can be reduced by the use of variable speed blowers” (col.7 ll.16-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exhaust gas recirculation valve of Vollmer with the recirculation compressor of Li, in order to reduce equipment sizes by counteracting reasonable pressure drops in the system while minimizing power consumption and eliminating unnecessary pressure drops (due to valves)(Li, col.6 l.58 – col.7 l.25).
Regarding claim 9, Vollmer in view of Li teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Vollmer further teaches a controller (33) configured to modulate both a supplemental firing of the HRSG and a flow of the first cooled stream portion of the cooled exhaust gas stream recirculated towards the compressor to facilitate increasing an output and/or an efficiency of the power plant (i.e. increase supplemental firing and decrease recirculation for increased power, or decrease supplemental firing and increase recirculation for increased efficiency; col.4 ll.41-66).
Claims 3-4, 7, 10-11, and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollmer in view of Li, and further in view of Iijima 9243517 and AFPM (Question 47, 2015, https://www.afpm.org/data-reports/technical-papers/qa-search/question-47-how-does-recycle-compressor-driver-type-steam).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Vollmer in view of Li teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Vollmer specifically teaches using steam (non-condensed) (23) from the steam system (incl. HRSG 16 and steam turbine 19) for heating the carbon capture system for heat-based carbon capture (Fig 2; col.1 l.62 – col.2 l.4)
Vollmer in view of Li as discussed so far, does not teach a second, non-condensing, steam turbine configured to: receive a second stream portion of the steam stream therein; provide power to the recirculation compressor; and discharge a second extraction flow; and the carbon capture system configured to also receive the second extraction flow.
However, Iijima teaches a CO2 recovery system including a steam generator (30) discharging a steam stream (31); a first steam turbine (32-1, which may drive either a CO compressor 27 or a power generator; col.6 ll.28-30) configured to receive a first portion of the steam stream therein (Fig 3) and discharge a first extraction flow (33 from 32-1); a second, non-condensing, steam turbine (32-2; steam 33 to 22 is saturated water vapor) configured to: receive a second stream portion of the steam stream therein (Fig 3); provide power to a blower pump (Fig 3); and discharge a second extraction flow (33 from 32-3); and the carbon capture system (24) configured receive the first extraction flow and the second extraction flow (at 22).
And, AFPM teaches two common options of variable speed drive for recycle compressors including electric motor and steam turbine driving; there being advantages and disadvantages to each, depending on the specific circumstance. AFPM further teaches steam turbines being advantageous over electric motors specifically for reliable variable speed drive applications and for avoiding depressuring events resulting from power failure scenarios (all of p.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nondescript driver of the recirculation compressor of Vollmer in view of Li, to use a second non-condensing turbine arrangement as taught by Iijima because Iijima teaches the substitutional equivalence of using either a single steam turbine supplying steam to the carbon capture heater (Iijima, Figs 1-2) or two steam turbines supplying the steam to the carbon capture heater (Iijima, Fig 3), and because AFPM teaches certain advantages of using steam turbine driving over electric motor for variable speed recycle compressors (AFPM, p.1).
Regarding claim 7, Vollmer in view of Li, Iijima, and AFPM teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above (including discharging both the first and second extraction flows to the carbon capture system, both extraction flows sourced from the same steam generator; Iijima, Fig 3). Vollmer further teaches the controller is further configured to:
determine performance of the power plant (power and/or efficiency) resulting from discharging the first extraction flow to the carbon capture system (extraction flow discharge to carbon capture system occurs during all operating conditions, thus determination of power and efficiency at any point in time takes into consideration the results of discharging the extraction flow to the carbon capture system).
Regarding claim 13, Vollmer in view of Li, Iijima, and AFPM teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above (including discharging both the first and second extraction flows to the carbon capture system, both extraction flows sourced from the same steam generator; Iijima, Fig 3). Vollmer further teaches the controller is further configured to:
determine power consumption (total power being net of power out – power in) resulting from discharging the first extraction flow to the carbon capture system (extraction flow discharge to carbon capture system occurs during all operating conditions, thus determination of power at any point in time takes into consideration the results of discharging the extraction flow to the carbon capture system).
Regarding Claim 14, Vollmer teaches a power plant (Fig 2) comprising:
a gas turbine engine (incl. 12, 13, 14) comprising a compressor (12) having a compressor outlet (to 14), the gas turbine engine further comprising a turbine (13) configured to discharge a first exhaust gas stream (to 16) therefrom;
a heat recovery steam generator (16) configured to:
extract heat from the first exhaust gas stream (to heat water 20 to steam 18); and
discharge a second exhaust gas stream (to 22) and a steam stream (18) therefrom;
a cooler (22) configured to cool the second exhaust gas stream, thereby defining a cooled exhaust gas stream (exiting 22), wherein the cooler discharges the cooled exhaust gas stream (Fig 2);
an exhaust gas recirculation line (28) configured to channel a first cooled stream portion of the cooled exhaust gas stream (in 28) towards the compressor (Fig 2); and
a valve (32) configured to adjust and control the first cooled stream portion of the cooled exhaust gas stream for discharge to the compressor outlet (just as Applicant’s recirculated portion of cooled exhaust gas stream (194) enters the compressor (106) for discharge to the compressor outlet (170); the recirculated portion of the cooled exhaust stream in 28 of Vollmer flows enters the compressor 12 for discharge to the compressor outlet of 12);
a steam turbine (19) configured to:
receive a first stream portion of the steam stream therein (Fig 2); and
discharge a first extraction flow (23); and
a carbon capture system (25) configured to receive the first extraction flow (Fig 4) and a second portion of the cooled exhaust gas stream (via 24).
Vollmer specifically teaches using steam (non-condensed) (23) from the steam system (incl. HRSG 16 and steam turbine 19) for heating the carbon capture system for heat-based carbon capture (Fig 2; col.1 l.62 – col.2 l.4)
Vollmer does not teach a recirculation compressor to selectively pressurize the first cooled stream portion for discharge to the compressor outlet; a second, non-condensing, steam turbine configured to: receive a second stream portion of the steam stream therein; provide power to the recirculation compressor; and discharge a second extraction flow; and the carbon capture system configured to also receive the second extraction flow.
However, Li teaches a power plant (Figs 1, 4) comprising:
a gas turbine engine (6) comprising a compressor (1) having a compressor outlet (to 4), the gas turbine engine further comprising a turbine (7) configured to discharge a first exhaust gas stream (8) therefrom (Figs 1, 4);
a heat recovery steam generator (9) configured to:
extract heat from the first exhaust gas stream (Figs 1, 4; stated and intended use of a HRSG; cool.8 ll.11-12); and
discharge a second exhaust gas stream (19) therefrom (Figs 1, 4);
an exhaust gas recirculation line (21) configured to channel a first cooled stream portion of the second exhaust gas stream towards the compressor (Figs 1, 4); and
a recirculation compressor (11) configured to selectively pressurize the first cooled stream portion of the cooled exhaust gas stream for discharge to the compressor outlet (via 1, as similarly discussed above).
Li further teaches the recirculation compressor being “advantageous to reduce equipment size as the allowable pressure drop is increased. Practical equipment sizes can only be realized with a reasonable pressure drop over the capture system and recirculation lines. Limitations from the gas turbine and HRSG design can be overcome” (col.7 ll.2-9,23-25). Additionally, in one option “[t]o control the recirculation rate[,] the exhaust flow and/or recirculation flow can be controlled by at least one control organ…for example a flap or valve” (col.6 l.58 – col.7 l.1). However, Li further teaches that “to minimize the power consumption of the blower, a variable speed control is proposed. Thus, the blower can be used to control the recirculation rate. Variable dampers, flaps or control valves, which inherently cause a pressure drop, can be avoided. Therefore, the total system pressure drops can be reduced by the use of variable speed blowers” (col.7 ll.16-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the exhaust gas recirculation valve of Vollmer with the recirculation compressor of Li, in order to reduce equipment sizes by counteracting reasonable pressure drops in the system while minimizing power consumption and eliminating unnecessary pressure drops (due to valves)(Li, col.6 l.58 – col.7 l.25).
Vollmer in view of Li as discussed so far, still does not teach a second, non-condensing, steam turbine configured to: receive a second stream portion of the steam stream therein; provide power to the recirculation compressor; and discharge a second extraction flow; and the carbon capture system configured to also receive the second extraction flow.
However, Iijima teaches a CO2 recovery system including a steam generator (30) discharging a steam stream (31); a first steam turbine (32-1, which may drive either a CO compressor 27 or a power generator; col.6 ll.28-30) configured to receive a first portion of the steam stream therein (Fig 3) and discharge a first extraction flow (33 from 32-1); a second, non-condensing, steam turbine (32-2; steam 33 to 22 is saturated water vapor) configured to: receive a second stream portion of the steam stream therein (Fig 3); provide power to a blower pump (Fig 3); and discharge a second extraction flow (33 from 32-3); and the carbon capture system (24) configured receive the first extraction flow and the second extraction flow (at 22).
And, AFPM teaches two common options of variable speed drive for recycle compressors including electric motor and steam turbine driving; there being advantages and disadvantages to each, depending on the specific circumstance. AFPM further teaches steam turbines being advantageous over electric motors specifically for reliable variable speed drive applications and for avoiding depressuring events resulting from power failure scenarios (all of p.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nondescript driver of the recirculation compressor of Vollmer in view of Li, to use a second non-condensing turbine arrangement as taught by Iijima because Iijima teaches the substitutional equivalence of using either a single steam turbine supplying steam to the carbon capture heater (Iijima, Figs 1-2) or two steam turbines supplying the steam to the carbon capture heater (Iijima, Fig 3), and because AFPM teaches certain advantages of using steam turbine driving over electric motor for variable speed recycle compressors (AFPM, p.1).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 15, Vollmer in view of Li, Iijima, and AFPM teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Vollmer further teaches the heat-based carbon capture system requiring heat from the steam to operate (col.1 l.62 – col.2 l.4).
Vollmer in view of Li, Iijima, and AFPM as discussed so far, does not explicitly teach the carbon capture system comprising a reboiler that receives the steam flow(s).
However, Iijima teaches the carbon capture system (24) comprising a reboiler (22) configured to receive the first extraction flow and the second extraction flow (Fig 3) in order to regenerate the CO2 absorber of the carbon capture system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the non-descript heat-based carbon capture system of Vollmer in view of Li, Iijima, and AFPM included, or could have been modified to include the reboiler as taught by Iijima because Iijima teaches the system (24) being heat-based, using steam for CO2 absorbent regeneration, and CO2 capture (Fig 3); and because it has been held that combining or simple substitution of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results renders the limitation obvious (see MPEP 2141 (III)). In this case, the suitable steam-heat-based carbon capture system (24 with reboiler 22) of Iijima replacing the nondescript steam-heat-based carbon capture system (25) of Vollmer (in view of Li, Iijima, and AFPM) yields the predictable results of a functional system for combined cycle carbon capture as desired by Vollmer.
Claims 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollmer in view of Li, and further in view of AFPM.
Regarding claims 6 and 12, Vollmer in view of Li teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention as discussed above. Vollmer in view of Li, as discussed so far, does not teach a motor configured to provide power to the recirculation compressor.
However, AFPM teaches two common options of variable speed drives for recycle compressors including electric motor and steam turbine driving; there being advantages and disadvantages to each, depending on the specific circumstance. AFPM further teaches electric motors being advantageous over steam turbines in the sense of requiring fewer parts and less maintenance (all of p.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the non-descript driving of the recirculation compressor of Vollmer in view of Li to be an electric motor as taught by AFPM, in order to minimize complexity and maintenance and increase reliability (p.1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 26 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the limitation of “a recirculation compressor configured to selectively pressurize the first cooled stream portion…for discharge to the compressor outlet” was not addressed/taught by the prior art, because Vollmer and Li teach the first cooled stream portion being sent to a compressor inlet rather than a compressor outlet.
However, as discussed in the rejections above (and in the same rejections of the previous office action), by passing the first cooled stream portion to the compressor inlet, the same first cooled stream portion also passes to the compressor outlet. This reads on the claim language above (the first cooled stream portion passing to the compressor outlet). This also seems to be how Applicant reads this limitation on Applicant’s own invention per Applicant’s Figs 1-3, depicting 194 as passing into the compressor 106 before passing to the compressor’s outlet at 170.
Applicant argues there is no reason to add the recirculation compressor of Li to the recirculation line of Vollmer because the recirculation line of Vollmer already passes to the inlet of compressor 12 in Vollmer. Thus, the additional compressor from Li would be redundant.
However, Li also teaches placing the recirculation compressor in the recirculation line feeding the inlet of compressor 1 in Li. Thus, the prior art teaches the precise modification of Vollmer as taught by Li. Regardless of whether Applicant considers the design redundant, it is known in the prior art and reads on the claim.
Applicant argues that the “variable speed flue gas blower for recirculation 11” of Li does not read on the claimed recirculation compressor that selectively pressurizes the first cooled stream.
However, the terms compressor and blower are used synonymously in the art as evidenced by various references including Oelfke 9463417 and Bairamijamal 11512402. Note that the recited function of the compressor is also how a blower operates (both compressors and blowers increase fluid pressure). A google search of the terms compressor and blower provides additional evidence of this substitutional/functional equivalence. Thus the blower of Li reads on the claimed compressor.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE SEBASCO CHENG whose telephone number is (469)295-9153. The examiner can normally be reached on 1000-1600 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, Devon Kramer can be reached on (571-270-5426. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/STEPHANIE SEBASCO CHENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741