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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/20/2026 has been entered. Claims 9-17, 19-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 21-22 are new. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 10/22/2025.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group 2, claims 9-17, 19-20 in the reply filed on 03/20/2026 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 22 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. Additionally, claims directed to carbon steel thread need to be cancelled as they cannot have the limitations of claim 22.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Hejazi, US 20190387787 (hereafter Hejazi) teaches in paragraph [62] “ in some implementations one or more of the plurality of porous susceptor particles may have a diameter in the inclusive range of approximately 100 microns (0.1 mm) to approximately 2 mm.” However, Hejazi teaches embedding the particles in a tobacco substrate in Fig. 4. Hejazi is silent about fusing the metal particles into a compact unitary piece to reduce spaces therebetween. It would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Hejazi to Chong, Fraser, and TWI because Hejazi relies on embedding the susceptor particles in a gel body structure with spaces therebetween. However, Chong, Fraser, and TWI teaches forming susceptor from metal materials by sintering.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-22 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.
Claims 21-22 recite “about”. However, the specification does not describe the range for “about”. It is not clear if the dimensions are for example 1 micrometer, or 2 millimeter, or 0.95 micrometer, or 2.5 millimeter.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 9-10, 13, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong et al., US 20190200677 (hereafter Chong), and further in view of Fraser et al., US 20180192700 (hereafter Fraser), and TWI, www.twi-global.com/technical-knowledge/faqs/what-is-sintering, Jan 2022 (hereafter TWI).
Regarding claim 9,
“ A method of manufacturing a susceptor, comprising:” (Paragraph [45] in Chong teaches different methods to manufacture a susceptor.)
“a) collecting a plurality of metal pieces;” (Paragraph [45] teaches “the susceptor 106 may be comprised of fine filaments of steel wool bundled together in the form of a pad.”)
“ b) incorporating the collected metal pieces together;” (Paragraph [45] teaches “the susceptor 106 may be comprised of fine filaments of steel wool bundled together in the form of a pad.”)
…“wherein the created susceptor is configured to degrade when exposed to an aerosolizing temperature.” (Abstract teaches “A device for converting a consumable into an aerosol with high heat without burning the consumable by packaging the consumable containing an internal susceptor inside an encasement having a plurality of holes with an induction heating element wrapped around the consumable-containing package to heat the susceptor using a magnetic field generated by the induction heating element.” Thus, Chong teaches heating the susceptor to aerosolizing temperature.
Paragraph [45] teaches susceptor is made of steel wool. Paragraph [46] teaches “Advantages of the steel wool, include, but are not limited to, easy disposability from an environmental standpoint in that it begins to oxidize soon after it is heated; and thereby, becomes friable and degrades easily without dangerous sharp edges.” Thus, the susceptor in Chong made of steel wool is configured to degrade when exposed to aerosolizing temperature.)
“c) fusing the incorporated metal pieces into a compact unitary piece to reduce spaces therebetween, whereby the susceptor is created,” (Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Fraser teaches in paragraph [59] “the e-cigarette 510 does not have a wick, but rather relies upon a porous heater element 555 to act both as the heating element (susceptor) and the wick to control the flow of liquid out of the reservoir 570. The porous heater element may be made, for example, of a material formed from sintering or otherwise bonding together steel fibers.” It is implied that sintering of fibers reduces spaces therebetween.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use sintering of steel fibers as taught in Fraser to make susceptor in the method of Chong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “In response to the airflow (and/or in response to the user pressing button 529), the coil 550 is activated to supply power to heater 555, which therefore produces a vapor from the liquid in reservoir 570. This vapor is then drawn into the airflow caused by the inhalation, and travels along the passageway 561 (as indicated by the arrows) and out through mouthpiece 535” as taught in paragraph [61] in Fraser.
Primary combination of references is silent about “fusing”.
TWI teaches “Sintering, which is also called ‘frittage,’ is the process of forming a solid mass of material through heat and pressure without melting to the point of liquefaction. This process involves the atoms in materials diffusing across the particle boundaries and fusing together into one piece” in the screenshot below.
PNG
media_image1.png
764
1742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Screenshot of TWI teaches sintering
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use pressure and heat to fuse metal pieces together as taught in TWI in the sintering method of Fraser. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “Sintering is used to increase material properties, including thermal and electrical conductivity, material strength and integrity, and translucency” as taught on page 4 of TWI.)
Regarding claim 10,
“The method of claim 9, further comprising flattening the unitary piece into a flat sheet with a press.” (Paragraph [45] in Chong teaches “the susceptor 106 could be stamped from flat metal stock”. It is implied that stamping is done in a stamping press.)
Regarding claim 13,
“ The method of claim 10, wherein flattening the unitary piece further comprises exposing the unitary piece to heat to fuse the metal pieces together into the flat sheet.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Fraser teaches in paragraph [59] “the e-cigarette 510 does not have a wick, but rather relies upon a porous heater element 555 to act both as the heating element (susceptor) and the wick to control the flow of liquid out of the reservoir 570. The porous heater element may be made, for example, of a material formed from sintering or otherwise bonding together steel fibers.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use sintering of steel fibers as taught in Fraser to make flat sheet in the method of Chong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “In response to the airflow (and/or in response to the user pressing button 529), the coil 550 is activated to supply power to heater 555, which therefore produces a vapor from the liquid in reservoir 570. This vapor is then drawn into the airflow caused by the inhalation, and travels along the passageway 561 (as indicated by the arrows) and out through mouthpiece 535” as taught in paragraph [61] in Fraser.
Primary combination of references is silent about “fuse”.
TWI teaches “Sintering, which is also called ‘frittage,’ is the process of forming a solid mass of material through heat and pressure without melting to the point of liquefaction. This process involves the atoms in materials diffusing across the particle boundaries and fusing together into one piece” in the screenshot below.
PNG
media_image1.png
764
1742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Screenshot of TWI teaches sintering
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use pressure and heat to fuse metal pieces together as taught in TWI in the sintering method of Fraser. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “Sintering is used to increase material properties, including thermal and electrical conductivity, material strength and integrity, and translucency” as taught on page 4 of TWI.)
Regarding claim 19,
“The method of claim 9, wherein fusing the metal pieces together is by sintering.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Fraser teaches in paragraph [59] “the e-cigarette 510 does not have a wick, but rather relies upon a porous heater element 555 to act both as the heating element (susceptor) and the wick to control the flow of liquid out of the reservoir 570. The porous heater element may be made, for example, of a material formed from sintering or otherwise bonding together steel fibers.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use sintering of steel fibers as taught in Fraser to make flat sheet in the method of Chong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “In response to the airflow (and/or in response to the user pressing button 529), the coil 550 is activated to supply power to heater 555, which therefore produces a vapor from the liquid in reservoir 570. This vapor is then drawn into the airflow caused by the inhalation, and travels along the passageway 561 (as indicated by the arrows) and out through mouthpiece 535” as taught in paragraph [61] in Fraser.)
Regarding claim 20,
“The method of claim 19, wherein the metal pieces are sintered” (Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Fraser teaches in paragraph [59] “the e-cigarette 510 does not have a wick, but rather relies upon a porous heater element 555 to act both as the heating element (susceptor) and the wick to control the flow of liquid out of the reservoir 570. The porous heater element may be made, for example, of a material formed from sintering or otherwise bonding together steel fibers.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use sintering of steel fibers as taught in Fraser to make flat sheet in the method of Chong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “In response to the airflow (and/or in response to the user pressing button 529), the coil 550 is activated to supply power to heater 555, which therefore produces a vapor from the liquid in reservoir 570. This vapor is then drawn into the airflow caused by the inhalation, and travels along the passageway 561 (as indicated by the arrows) and out through mouthpiece 535” as taught in paragraph [61] in Fraser.)
“ using a method selected from the group consisting of microwave sintering, ultrasonic assisted sintering, direct pressure sintering, electric current assisted sintering, e-beam sintering, and powdered metallurgy sintering.” (Fraser is silent about this.
TWI teaches microwave sintering on page 7, electric current assisted sintering on page 6, and powdered metallurgy sintering on page 5 in TWI.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to fuse metal pieces together as taught in TWI in the sintering method of Fraser. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “Sintering is used to increase material properties, including thermal and electrical conductivity, material strength and integrity, and translucency” as taught on page 4 of TWI.)
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong, Fraser, TWI as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Patel, "How Exactly is Steel Wool Made?", Lifestyle, University of Florida, June 18, 2017 (hereafter Patel).
Regarding claim 11,
“The method of claim 9, wherein the metal pieces are carbon steel thread.”( Paragraph [45] in Chong teaches susceptor is made of steel wool.
Chong is silent about carbon steel thread.
Patel teaches steel wool is made of carbon steel on page 2 of the applicant submitted document.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use carbon steel to make steel wool as taught in Patel in the method of Chong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The steel coils are then fed through a series of die machines: cutting devices that thin the steel by over half of its original width. This narrowing of the metal creates a stronger material that can pass the tensile strength test” on page 2 of the applicant submitted document.)
Regarding claim 12,
“The method of claim 11, wherein incorporating the metal pieces together comprises weaving the carbon steel thread together.” (Patel teaches on page 3 “After shaving, the steel winds onto rolls and is weaved together (similar to a crotchet pattern).”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use carbon steel to make steel wool as taught in Patel in the method of Chong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The steel coils are then fed through a series of die machines: cutting devices that thin the steel by over half of its original width. This narrowing of the metal creates a stronger material that can pass the tensile strength test” on page 2 of the applicant submitted document.)
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong, Fraser, TWI as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Sollau, https://www.sollau.com/magnetic-drums-mb, Aug 2020 (hereafter Sollau) .
Regarding claim 14,
“The method of claim 9, wherein the metal pieces are collected with a magnetic drum.”( Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Sollau teaches a magnetic drum to separate magnetic iron metals from inert materials on page 1.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the magnetic drum in Sollau to collect metal pieces in the method of Chong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The permanent magnet systems simplify the separation of ferrous particles, allowing for automatic recovery without production stoppage. At the same time the magnetic drum protects the subsequent machinery (e. g., shredders, mills, grinders) from breakage” as taught in page 1 of Sollau.)
Regarding claim 15,
“The method of claim 14, wherein the metal pieces are fused together” (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Fraser teaches in paragraph [59] “the e-cigarette 510 does not have a wick, but rather relies upon a porous heater element 555 to act both as the heating element (susceptor) and the wick to control the flow of liquid out of the reservoir 570. The porous heater element may be made, for example, of a material formed from sintering or otherwise bonding together steel fibers.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use sintering of steel fibers as taught in Fraser to make flat sheet in the method of Chong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “In response to the airflow (and/or in response to the user pressing button 529), the coil 550 is activated to supply power to heater 555, which therefore produces a vapor from the liquid in reservoir 570. This vapor is then drawn into the airflow caused by the inhalation, and travels along the passageway 561 (as indicated by the arrows) and out through mouthpiece 535” as taught in paragraph [61] in Fraser.)
“with pressure and heat” (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
TWI teaches “Sintering, which is also called ‘frittage,’ is the process of forming a solid mass of material through heat and pressure without melting to the point of liquefaction. This process involves the atoms in materials diffusing across the particle boundaries and fusing together into one piece” in the screenshot below.
PNG
media_image1.png
764
1742
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Screenshot of TWI teaches sintering
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use pressure and heat to fuse metal pieces together as taught in TWI in the sintering method of Fraser. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “Sintering is used to increase material properties, including thermal and electrical conductivity, material strength and integrity, and translucency” as taught on page 4 of TWI.)
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong, Sollau, Fraser, and TWI as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Cui, J., Ormerod, J., Parker, D. et al. Manufacturing Processes for Permanent Magnets: Part I—Sintering and Casting, JOM 74, 1279–1295 (February, 2022) (hereafter Cui).
“The method of claim 15, wherein after the susceptor is created, the susceptor is exposed to a magnetic field to test a magnetic property.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this limitation.
Cui teaches a typical sintering process for alnico magnets. Cui teaches testing the magnets for hysteresis graph, gauss meter, or flux meter in Fig. 11.
PNG
media_image2.png
498
485
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 11 of Cui
Even though Cui is silent about testing a susceptor, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to test the magnetic properties of susceptor after sintering as taught in Cui in the method of Chong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The performance of magnets varies from batch to batch, block to block, and magnet to magnet. These differences can be attributed to the slight variation of thermal history each magnet experienced during the fabrication process” as taught in page 1293, column 2 in Cui.)
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong, Sollau, Fraser, TWI, Cui as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Campbell et al., US 5613505 (hereafter Campbell).
“The method of claim 16, further comprising flattening the compact unitary piece into a flat sheet with a press, ( (Similar scope to claim 10 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
and adjusting the amount of metal pieces flattened in the press based on the magnetic property.”(The claim is interpreted as the thickness of susceptor is adjusted to obtain a certain magnetic property. Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Campbell teaches “If the susceptor layer is too thin, e.g., much less than the skin depth, a low conversion of the magnetic field to heat energy via eddy currents occurs. If the susceptor layer is too thick, e.g., greater than three skin depths, a high conversion efficiency results but the susceptor thermal load, i.e., the mass, reduces the rate of thermal rise. Most non-permeable metals reach an optimum magnetic field of, e.g., approximately 550 gauss at about a 2 mil thickness at an excitation frequency of 500 KHz” in column 9, lines 52-60. Thus, it is implied that the thickness of susceptor is adjusted to obtain a certain magnetic property.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to adjust the thickness of susceptor to obtain a certain magnetic property as taught in Campbell in the method of Chong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The susceptor layer 300 should have a thickness which is relatively thin relative to its particularized, excitation frequency-dependent skin depth so that the vast majority of the magnetic field creates heat producing eddy currents in the susceptor” as taught in column 9, lines 43-47 in Campbell.)
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chong, Fraser, and TWI as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Chew et al., US 20250204612 (hereafter Chew).
The method of claim 9, wherein the plurality of metal pieces each have a dimension ranging from about 1 micrometer to about 2 millimeters. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Chew teaches a multi-layer susceptor wherein each layer has a thickness in the micrometer range in paragraph [71, 72, 81]. Thus, the claimed range overlaps the ranges taught in Chew. MPEP 2144.05-I sets forth “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to collect metal pieces with thickness in micrometer range as taught by Chew in the method of Chong. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for mass production of multi-layer susceptors as taught in paragraph [67] in Chew.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/20/2026 with respect to claim(s) 9-17, 19-21 have been considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant amended the claim 9 to recite that “ fusing the incorporated metal pieces into a compact unitary piece to reduce spaces therebetween,” and argued that this makes the claimed invention distinguishable from prior art. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of prior art as discussed above.
In response to applicant’s argument on pages 8-9 that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Fraser teaches sintering metal materials as a method to form a susceptor in paragraph [59]. TWI teaches the sintering process as fusing metals to form one piece.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200375256, paragraph [77]
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights