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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: reference numbers “13” and “14” are not in drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: reference to operating element 13 and 14 in Figure 7 are not shown in the Figure, and therefore need to be updated.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 8-15, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, line 3, “control device” should be changed to --one or more controllers--.
In claim 8, line 3, “controller” should be changed to -- one or more controllers --.
In claim 9, line 2, “controller” should be changed to -- one or more controllers --.
In claim 10, line 2, “controller” should be changed to -- one or more controllers --.
In claim 11, line 2, “controller” should be changed to -- one or more controllers --.
In claim 12, line 1, “controller” should be changed to -- one or more controllers --.
In claim 13, line 2, “controller” should be changed to -- one or more controllers --.
In claim 14, line 2, “controller” should be changed to -- one or more controllers --.
In claim 15, line 2, “controller” should be changed to -- one or more controllers --.
In claim 18, line 1, “controller” should be changed to -- one or more controllers --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“inhibiting device” in claim 2: 1) the term “device” here is a generic placeholder, 2) the functional language is “inhibiting”, 3) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The claim includes “a locked position”, however, that is not sufficient enough structure detail to provide the claimed function.
“output element” in claim 3: 1) the term “element” here is a generic placeholder, 2) the functional language is “output”, 3) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. The claim includes “lock the output element against adjustment”, however, that is not sufficient enough structure detail to provide the claimed function.
“operating element” in claim 6: 1) the term “element” here is a generic placeholder, 2) the functional language is “configured to adjust the interior assembly”, 3) the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
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 such as:
“inhibiting device” corresponds to a brake (paragraph [0144]).
“output element” corresponds to a worm having worm teeth (paragraph [0142]).
“operating element” corresponds to a button (paragraph [0147]).
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 § 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.
Claims 1-24 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “one or more controllers” in line 4, and then discusses a servo controller and a current controller in lines 8 and 10 respectively. Prior to the amendment, it was understood that the controller included the current and servo controllers, however, now it is unclear as to if the current controller and the servo controller are each one of the one or more controllers (and in that case would require two or more controllers, which would incorporate new matter), or are the current controller and servo controller part of each of the one or more controllers?
Claims 13-15 recite the limitation "the adjustment mode" in line 3, 2, and 2-3 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claim 18 depends inappropriately upon a cancelled claim. As a dependent claim, it is unclear which claim dependence is relied upon by applicant for claim 18. For examination purposes, claim 18 has been examined as if depending upon claim 1.
Claims 2-12, 19-24 are rejected as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
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 1-12, 14-15, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frye et al. (US 2017/0166089) in view of Hirota et al. (WO 2007004416, machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Frye et al. discloses a drive device (16) for adjusting an interior assembly (10) of a vehicle (Fig. 1), comprising: an electromotive adjustment drive (Fig. 3) for adjusting the interior assembly and one or more controllers (24) configured to control the adjustment drive, wherein the one or more controllers are further configured to control the adjustment drive in a servo operation for providing a supporting force during a manual adjustment of the interior assembly by a user (Figs. 13A-14C, paragraphs [0004] and [0046]).
Frye et al. does not explicitly disclose wherein the setpoint is in dependence on a load acting on the interior assembly, wherein the one or more controllers include a current controller configured to control a current of the adjustment drive, wherein the current controller is further configured to control the current of the adjustment drive based on the setpoint supplied by the servo controller.
Hirota et al., like Frye et al., teaches a drive device, and further teaches wherein the setpoint (CM) is in dependence on a load acting on the interior assembly (paragraph [0063] of the machine translation teaches the setpoint, or target, is set based on the forces identified acting on the interior assembly), wherein the one or more controllers include a current controller (8) configured to control a current of the adjustment drive (1), wherein the current controller is further configured to control the current of the adjustment drive (1) based on the setpoint supplied by the servo controller ((CC), paragraph [0057] of the machine translation, based on (CM)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the drive device of Frye et al. to include a setpoint dependent upon a load acting on the interior assembly, and a current controller to control the adjustment drive based on the setpoint as taught by Hirota et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to improve the operating feel and reduce the possibility of hunting and a poor operating feel for the user.
Regarding claim 2, Frye et al. as modified by Hirota et al. teaches the drive device of claim 1, and teaches (references to Frye et al.) wherein the drive device includes an inhibiting device (worm gear set (120) configured to inhibit an adjusting movement of the interior assembly in a locked position (paragraph [0050], when motor is not rotating), the control device being further configured to transfer the inhibiting device from the locked position to an unlocked position for adjusting the interior assembly (unlocking when the motor is controlled to rotate).
Regarding claim 3, Frye et al. as modified by Hirota et al. teaches the drive device of claim 1, and teaches (references to Frye et al.) wherein the drive device further includes an output element (threaded rod (114) operatively connected to the adjustment drive, wherein the inhibiting device is operatively connected to the output element in order to lock the output element against adjustment in the locked position and to release it for adjustment in the unlocked position (paragraph [0050] teaches that the worm gear set (120) provides a braking, i.e. locked position and releasing when unlocked).
Regarding claim 4, Frye et al. as modified by Hirota et al. teaches the drive device of claim 1, and teaches (references to Frye et al.) wherein the interior assembly (10) is a vehicle seat (Fig. 1) or an assembly of a vehicle seat.
Regarding claim 5, Frye et al. as modified by Hirota et al. teaches the drive device of claim 4, and teaches (references to Frye et al.) wherein the interior assembly is configured to be pivotable about a pivot axis or displaceable along a longitudinal direction (longitudinal along track (15), Figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 6, Frye et al. as modified by Hirota et al. teaches the drive device of claim 5, and teaches (references to Frye et al.) wherein the interior assembly (10) includes an operating element (60) configured to be operable by a user to adjust the interior assembly (paragraph [0047]).
Regarding claim 7, Frye et al. as modified by Hirota et al. teaches the drive device of claim 6, and teaches (references to Frye et al.) wherein the operating element is formed by a pushbutton to be actuated mechanically (paragraph [0047], pushbutton (61) of (60)).
Regarding claim 8, Frye et al. as modified by Hirota et al. teaches the drive device of claim 1, and teaches (references to Frye et al.) wherein the interior assembly includes a sensor (22) configured to detect a contact, an approach, an acceleration or a movement speed at the interior assembly, wherein the controller is configured to evaluate a detection signal of the sensor to identify an adjustment request of a user (paragraphs [0046] and [0051]).
Regarding claim 9, Frye et al. as modified by Hirota et al. teaches the drive device of claim 1, and teaches (references to Frye et al.) wherein the drive device further includes an interior monitoring device (checking the enablement button and gesture adjustment requests), wherein the controller is further configured to evaluate a detection signal of the interior monitoring device for detecting an adjustment request of a user (Figs. 19-21, paragraphs [0037], [0128]).
Regarding claim 10, Frye et al. as modified by Hirota et al. teaches the drive device of claim 1, and teaches (references to Frye et al.) wherein the controller is further configured to evaluate a detection signal for detecting a predetermined gesture and, when the predetermined gesture is detected, conclude an adjustment request (Figs. 19-21, paragraphs [0037], [0128], examples in Fig. 19).
Regarding claim 11, Frye et al. as modified by Hirota et al. teaches the drive device of claim 1, and teaches (references to Frye et al.) wherein the controller is further configured to activate an adjustment mode to adjust the interior assembly in servo operation as a function of at least one trigger criterion (step 1012 of Fig. 6, paragraph [0055], controller (24) operating the slide mover (110) in a servo operation based on the manual forces indicating the adjustment request).
Regarding claim 12, Frye et al. as modified by Hirota et al. teaches the drive device of claim 11, and teaches (references to Frye et al.) wherein the controller is further configured to evaluate as a trigger criterion an occupancy state of the interior assembly (step 1012 of Fig. 6), an opening state of a vehicle door (through vehicle status indicator (1664), detection of door status (1670), Fig. 21), or a driving state of the vehicle (through (1664), (1672), Fig. 21).
Regarding claim 14, Frye et al. as modified by Hirota et al. teaches the drive device of claim 1, and teaches (references to Frye et al.) wherein the controller is further configured to adapt to control the adjustment device in the adjustment mode for providing a supporting force in a manual adjustment of the interior assembly by a user (Figs. 13A-14C, paragraphs [0004] and [0046]), in response to an adjustment request of a user is detected after activating the adjustment mode (Fig. 6, in response to an adjustment request by the user detected/confirmed).
Regarding claim 15, Frye et al. as modified by Hirota et al. teaches the drive device of claim 1, and teaches (references to Frye et al.) wherein the controller is further configured to generate an indication signal as an indication of the adjustment mode for output to a user after activation of the adjustment mode (dash display (64) provides an indication signal).
Regarding claim 24, Frye et al. as modified by Hirota et al. teaches the drive device of claim 1, and teaches (references to Hirota et al.) wherein the current control module is designed to control the current of the adjustment drive on the basis of the supplied setpoint value and the resulting actual motor current ((CC), paragraphs [0022], [0057] of the machine translation, based on (CM)).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frye et al. (US 2017/0166089) in view of Hirota et al. (WO 2007004416, machine translation attached) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Feineis et al. (US 2020/0039400).
Regarding claim 13, Frye et al. as modified by Hirota et al. teaches the drive device of claim 1. However, Frye et al. as modified by Hirota et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to drive the adjustment drive with a pulse-width modulated current signal upon or after activation of the adjustment mode.
Feineis et al., like Frye et al., teaches a drive device for adjusting an interior assembly, and teaches wherein the controller is further configured to drive the adjustment drive with a pulse-width modulated current signal upon or after activation of the adjustment mode (paragraphs [0019]-[0020] teach the benefits of using a pulse-width modulated current signal when adjusting a variable on an interior assembly).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the drive device of Frye et al. modified by Hirota et al. to include a pulse-width modulated current signal as taught by Feineis et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce the number of potential electric lines used to reduce costs (Feineis et al.: paragraph [0020]).
Claims 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frye et al. (US 2017/0166089) in view of Hirota et al. (WO 2007004416, machine translation attached) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Battlogg et al. (US 12188286).
Regarding claim 18, Frye et al. as modified by Hirota et al. teaches the drive device of claim 1, and teaches (references to Hirota et al.) wherein the controller includes a load calculation controller configured to calculate a load acting on the interior assembly as a function of an angle of inclination of the vehicle measured about a vehicle longitudinal axis (p. 6 of the machine translation).
However, Frye et al. as modified by Hirota et al. does not explicitly teach wherein an angle of inclination of a pivot axis of the interior assembly measured about the vehicle longitudinal axis, an angle of inclination of the vehicle measured about a vehicle transverse axis, an angle of inclination of the pivot axis of the interior assembly measured about the vehicle transverse axis, or a position of the interior assembly.
Battlogg et al., like Frye et al., teaches a drive device and further teaches wherein an angle of inclination of a pivot axis of the interior assembly measured about the vehicle longitudinal axis, an angle of inclination of the vehicle measured about a vehicle transverse axis, an angle of inclination of the pivot axis of the interior assembly measured about the vehicle transverse axis, or a position of the interior assembly (col. 8, lines 42-55 and col. 15, lines 55-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the drive device of Frye et al. modified by Hirota et al. with angle of pivot axis and inclination of the vehicle in the load calculation controller, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a more accurate value of the total load for the adjustment drive.
Regarding claim 19, Frye et al. as modified by Hirota et al. and Battlogg et al. teaches the drive device of claim 18, and teaches (references to Hirota et al.) wherein the servo controller is further configured to determine a target force to be provided by the adjustment drive on the basis of a load acting on the interior assembly and a target force value to be applied by a user (through (82)).
Regarding claim 20, Frye et al. as modified by Hirota et al. and Battlogg et al. teaches the drive device of claim 19, and teaches (references to Hirota et al.) wherein the load acting on the interior assembly is determined by utilizing a static load force acting on the interior assembly and a dynamic load force acting on the interior assembly (paragraphs [0027]-[0031] (not bolded) teach that static and dynamic forces are considered when setting the force).
Regarding claim 21, Frye et al. as modified by Hirota et al. and Battlogg et al. teaches the drive device of claim 20, and teaches (references to Hirota et al.) wherein the target force is determined by a force balance of the static load force, the dynamic load force and a user force resulting from the target force value to Fset = Fstat + Fdyn – Fuser, where Fset is the nominal force, Fstat is the static load force, Fdyn is the dynamic load force, and Fuser is the user force (paragraphs [0025], [0028], [0032], setpoint dependent upon loads acting on the interior assembly include static, dynamic, and user load forces).
Regarding claim 22, Frye et al. as modified by Hirota et al. and Battlogg et al. teaches the drive device of claim 21, and teaches (references to Hirota et al.) wherein the servo-controller is configured to determine the setpoint value on the basis of the setpoint force to be provided by the adjustment drive (paragraph [0030] setpoint value based on the setpoint force for the adjustment drive).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frye et al. (US 2017/0166089) in view of Hirota et al. (WO 2007004416, machine translation attached) and Battlogg et al. (US 12188286) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Feineis et al. (US 2020/0039400).
Regarding claim 23, Frye et al. as modified by Hirota et al. and Battlogg et al. teaches the drive device of claim 22. However, Frye et al. as modified by Hirota et al. and Battlogg et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is further configured to drive the adjustment drive with a pulse-width modulated current signal upon or after activation of the adjustment mode.
Feineis et al., like Frye et al., teaches a drive device for adjusting an interior assembly, and teaches wherein the controller is further configured to drive the adjustment drive with a pulse-width modulated current signal upon or after activation of the adjustment mode (paragraphs [0019]-[0020] teach the benefits of using a pulse-width modulated current signal when adjusting a variable on an interior assembly).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the drive device of Frye et al. modified by Hirota et al. and Battlogg et al. to include a pulse-width modulated current signal as taught by Feineis et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce the number of potential electric lines used to reduce costs (Feineis et al.: paragraph [0020]).
Response to Arguments
With respect to the 112f interpretation, please note the expansion of the explanation above. As noted by Applicant, the specification provides the structure required, however, there is not enough structure within the claim recitation itself, therefore, 112f interpretation is still being used as shown above.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Schüẞler et al. (US 7398142) teaches a controller with setpoint for motor. Shiraki (US 7925408) teaches method of controlling a parking brake system. Meister et al. (US 6211639) teaches a drive system with a servomotor.
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 CARLY W. LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-5:30pm, Eastern Time, alternate Friday.
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, Peter M Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/CARLY W. LYNCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3643
Prosecution Insights