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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As summarized in MPEP § 2106, subject matter eligibility is determined based on a Two-Part Analysis for Judicial Exceptions. In Step 1, it must be determined whether the claimed invention is directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The instant application includes claims concerning a system (i.e., a machine) in claims 1-12, and a method of managing content (i.e., a process) in claims 13-20.
In Prong 1 of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon.
In particular exemplary presented claim 1 includes the following underlined claim elements:
1. A system configured to manage content on an electronic gaming machine ("EGM"), the system comprising:
a processor circuit; and
a memory coupled to the processor circuit, the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
determining information associated with the EGM;
determining that a first adjustment to the EGM is desired;
determining that the first adjustment will be unsuccessful due to technical limitations based on the information;
responsive to determining that the first adjustment will be unsuccessful due to the technical limitations, determining a second adjustment to the EGM based on the first adjustment and the information; and
transmitting a signal to the EGM, the signal including instructions to perform the second adjustment to the EGM.
The claim elements underlined above, concern the court enumerated abstract ideas of Mental Processes including observation, evaluation, and judgement because the claims are directed to series of steps for observing and evaluating a adjustment to a system and judging when to make an alternative/subsequent adjustment as well as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including commercial interactions involving business relations and following rules or instructions because the claims set forth interactions involving changing and presenting content on player/user machines in a gaming environment.
As the exemplary claim recites an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature or a Natural Phenomenon it is further considered under Prong 2 of Step 2A to determine if the claim recites additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Wherein the practical applications are set forth by MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) are broadly directed to: the improvement in technology, use of a particular machine and applying or using the judicial exception in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a technology environment. Limitations that explicitly do not support the integration of the judicial exception in to a practical application are defined by MPEP 2106.05(f-h) and include merely using a computer to implement the abstract idea, insignificant extra solution activity, and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technology environment or field of use.
With respect to the above the claimed invention is not integrated into a practical application because it does not meet the criteria of MPEP §2106.05(a-c,e) and although it is performed on an electronic gaming machine ("EGM") a processor circuit and a memory it is not directed to a particular machine because the hardware elements are not linked to a specific device/machine and would reasonably include other devices such as generic computers, tablets, smart phones, game consoles, and the like. Accordingly, the claims limitations are not indicative of the integration of the identified judicial exception into a practical application, and the consideration of patent eligibility continues to step 2B.
Step 2B requires that if the claim encompasses a judicially recognized exception, it must be determined whether the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea(s) per se including an electronic gaming machine ("EGM") a processor circuit and a memory amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structures that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry per the applicant’s description (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0001], [0035], [0038], [0044], [0047]). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, as presented the claimed invention when considered as a whole, amounts to the mere instructions to implement an abstract idea [i.e. software or equivalent process steps] on a generic computer [i.e. controller or processor] without causing the improvement of the generic computer or another technology field.
The applicant’s specification is further noted as supporting the above rejection wherein neither the abstract idea nor the associated generic computer structure as claimed are disclosed as improving another technological field, improvements to the function of the computer itself, or meaningfully linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Applicant’s specification Paragraphs [0001], [0035], [0038], [0044], [0047]). In particular the applicant’s specification only contains computing elements which are conventional and generally widely known in the field of the invention described, and accordingly their exact nature or type is not necessary for an understanding and use of the invention by a person skilled in the art per the requirements of 37 CFR 1.71. Were these elements of the applicant’s invention to be presented in the future as non-conventional and non-generic involvement of a computing structure, such would stand at odds with the disclosure of the applicant's invention as found in their specification as originally filed.
“[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . .a computer,’ . . . that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132S. Ct. at 1301). In this case, the claims recite a generic computer implementation of the covered abstract idea.
The remaining presented claims 2-20 incorporate substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with respect to the exemplary claim 1, while the additional elements recited by the additional claims including one or more of an electronic gaming machine ("EGM") a processor circuit and a memory as respectively presented that when considered both individually and as a whole in the respective combinations of the additional claims are not sufficient to support patent eligibility under prong 2 of step 2A or step 2B for the reasons set forth above with respect to the exemplary claim 1 and further present substantially similar abstract concepts as noted with reflection to exemplary claim 1 above and therefore are similarly directed to or otherwise include abstract ideas.
Therefore, the listed claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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, 9-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brosnan et al (US 2008/0108405) in view of Sethi et al (US 2021/0157562).
Claim 1: The combination of Brosnan & Sethi teaches a system configured to manage content on an electronic gaming machine ("EGM") (Brosnan Figure 7; Paragraphs [0039]-[0042] ), the system comprising:
a processor circuit (Brosnan Figures 7, 10; Elements 104, 1063); and
a memory coupled to the processor circuit (Brosnan Figures 7, 10; Elements 106, 1061), the memory comprising machine-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor circuit, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
determining information associated with the EGM (-loading configuration options and ranges- Brosnan Figures 1-2; Elements 220, 230; Paragraphs [0039]-[0043]);
determining that a first adjustment to the EGM is desired (Brosnan Figures 1-2; Element 105; Paragraph [0045]);
determining that the first adjustment will be unsuccessful due to technical limitations based on the information (Sethi Abstract, Paragraphs [0071]-[0074]);
responsive to determining that the first adjustment will be unsuccessful due to the technical limitations, determining a second adjustment to the EGM based on the first adjustment and the information (-Reasonable alternative- Brosnan Figures 1-2; Elements 110, 112, 120; Paragraphs [0047]-[0049]); and
transmitting a signal to the EGM (Brosnan Figures 1-2; Elements 135, 140; Paragraph [0058]),
the signal including instructions to perform the second adjustment to the EGM (Brosnan Figure 1-2; Elements 135, 140; Paragraph [0058]).
Brosnan teaches the invention including the consideration of rule violations and detrimental effects when installing software (-rule violation/detrimental effect? -Brosnan Figures 1; Element 110; Paragraphs [0045]). While the prior art Brosnan does not explicitly teach that the self-correcting configuration items of rule violations and detrimental effects would include technical limitations including software and hardware conflicts, Sethi teaches that this was a known concern in an analogous invention involving ensuring device update compatibility (Sethi Abstract, Paragraphs [0071]-[0074]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the preventing software installations that would be unsuccessful due to technical limitations, as taught by Sethi into installation rules of games as taught by Brosnan because such would have provided the expected and predictable result of enhancing the likelihood that the installed updates functioned as intended.
Claim 2: The combination of Brosnan & Sethi teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the first adjustment comprises installing a first game on the EGM (Brosnan Paragraph [0055])
wherein determining that the first adjustment will be unsuccessful comprises determining an issue with installing the first game on the EGM based on the information associated with the EGM (-jurisdictional violation- Brosnan Paragraph [0055] & Sethi Abstract, Paragraphs [0071]-[0074]), and
wherein determining the second adjustment to the EGM comprises
determining that implementing the second adjustment will avoid the issue (-installation of a class II game in place of the requested class III game- Brosnan Paragraph [0055]).
Claim 9: The combination of Brosnan & Sethi teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein determining that the first adjustment to the EGM is desired comprises receiving an indication that the first adjustment to the EGM is desired from a user (-wherein the term user and operator are utilized somewhat interchangeably- Brosnan Paragraphs [0023], [0055]).
Claim 10: The combination of Brosnan & Sethi teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein determining the information associated with the EGM comprises receiving the information from the EGM (-configuration information is stored on and hosted by the gaming device- Brosnan Paragraphs [0041]-[0042], [0058]).
Claim 11: The combination of Brosnan & Sethi teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the EGM is a first EGM of a plurality of EGMs, wherein the signal is a first signal, the operations further comprising:
determining information associated with a second EGM of the plurality of EGMs that is different than the first EGM (-configuration success/failure of additional EGM- Brosnan Figure 5; Element 535; Paragraph [0063]);
determining that the first adjustment to the second EGM is desired (Brosnan Figure 5; Element 505; Paragraph [0060]);
determining a third adjustment to the second EGM based on the first adjustment and the information associated with the second EGM, the third adjustment being different than the second adjustment (Brosnan Figure 5; Element 540, 545, 550; Paragraph [0063]); and
transmitting a second signal to the second EGM, the second signal including instructions to perform the third adjustment to the second EGM (Brosnan Figure 5; Element 530, 540, 545, 550; Paragraph [0063]).
Claim 12: The combination of Brosnan & Sethi teaches the system of Claim 11, the operations further comprising:
determining a first issue with performing the first adjustment on a first set of EGMs of the plurality of EGMs based on information associated with the first set of EGMs (-configuration success/failure of additional EGM- Brosnan Figure 5; Element 535; Paragraph [0063]);
displaying an indication of the first issue (Brosnan Figure 5; Element 545; Paragraphs [0053], [0060], [0063]);
receiving an indication of a fourth adjustment to be made to the first set of EGMs from a user (Brosnan Figures 1, 5; Element 550; Paragraph [0063]); and
transmitting a third signal to each of EGM of the first set of EGMs, the third signal including instructions to perform the fourth adjustment to each EGM of the first set of EGMs (Brosnan Figure 5; Element 505;).
Claim 13: The combination of Brosnan & Sethi teaches a method of managing content on an electronic gaming machine ("EGM") of a plurality of EGMs, the method comprising:
receiving information associated with each EGM of the plurality of EGMs (-loading configuration options and ranges- Brosnan Figures 1-2; Elements 220, 230; Paragraphs [0039]-[0043]);
receiving a request to perform an adjustment to content available at a set of EGMs of the plurality of EGMs (Brosnan Figures 1; Element 105; Paragraph [0045]);
determining that performing the adjustment to the content available at the set of EGMs will be unsuccessful due to technical limitations based on the information associated with each EGM of the plurality of EGMs (Brosnan Figures 1; Element 110; Paragraphs [0045] & Sethi Abstract, Paragraphs [0071]-[0074]); and
displaying an indication that performing the adjustment to the content available at the set of EGMs will be unsuccessful due to the technical limitations (-indication of rule violations if present- Brosnan Figures 1, 4; Elements 110, 135, 430; Paragraphs [0045], [0053]).
Brosnan teaches the invention including the consideration of rule violations and detrimental effects when installing software (-rule violation/detrimental effect? -Brosnan Figures 1; Element 110; Paragraphs [0045]). While the prior art Brosnan does not explicitly teach that the self-correcting configuration items of rule violations and detrimental effects would include technical limitations including software and hardware conflicts, Sethi teaches that this was a known concern in an analogous invention involving ensuring device update compatibility (Sethi Abstract, Paragraphs [0071]-[0074]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated the preventing software installations that would be unsuccessful due to technical limitations, as taught by Sethi into installation rules of games as taught by Brosnan because such would have provided the expected and predictable result of enhancing the likelihood that the installed updates functioned as intended.
Claim 14: The combination of Brosnan & Sethi teaches the method of Claim 13, wherein the adjustment is a first adjustment, the method further comprising:
subsequent to displaying the indication of that performing the first adjustment to the content available at the set of EGMs will be unsuccessful due to technical limitations, receiving a request to perform a second adjustment to the content available at a subset of the EGMs (Brosnan Figures 1, 5; Elements 110, 112 140; & Sethi Abstract, Paragraphs [0071]-[0074]); and
responsive to receiving the request to perform the second adjustment, transmitting instructions to each EGM of the subset of the EGMs to perform the second adjustment (-Each EGM considered- Brosnan Figures 1, 5; Elements 110, 505, 530;).
Claim 15: The combination of Brosnan & Sethi teaches the method of Claim 14, wherein the first adjustment comprises installing a first game (Brosnan Paragraphs [0023], [0055]), and
wherein determining that performing the first adjustment to the content available at the set of EGMs will be unsuccessful comprises determining that performing the first adjustment to the content available at the subset of the EGMs will result in issues at each EGM of the subset of the EGMs (-Each EGM considered- Brosnan Figures 1, 5; Elements 110, 535).
Claim 17: The combination of Brosnan & Sethi teaches the method of Claim 15, wherein the first adjustment comprises replacing a first game with a second game (Brosnan Paragraphs [0023], [0055]),
wherein determining that performing the first adjustment to the content available at the set of EGMs will be unsuccessful comprises determining that performing the first adjustment to the content available at the subset of the EGMs will result in issues at each EGM of the subset of the EGMs. (-Each EGM considered- Brosnan Figures 1, 5; Elements 110, 535;).
Claims 4-6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brosnan et al (US 2008/0108405) in view of Sethi et al (US 2021/0157562) as applied to at least claims 1-2, 9-15, and 17 above, and further in view of Wolf et al (US 2007/0207854).
Claim 4: The combination of Brosnan, Sethi & Wolf teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the first adjustment comprises removing a first game on the EGM,
wherein determining that the first adjustment will be unsuccessful comprises determining an issue with removing the first game on the EGM based on the information associated with the EGM (Wolf Figure 7; Elements 704), and
wherein determining the second adjustment to the EGM comprises determining that implementing the second adjustment will avoid the issue (Wolf Figure 7; Elements 706-718).
The combination of Brosnan & Sethi t teaches the invention including the use of self-correcting configuration items including the enabling and disabling of games (Brosnan Paragraphs [0023], [0055]). While the prior art Brosnan does not explicitly teach the determining an issue with removing the first game on the EGM based on the information associated with the EGM and determining that implementing the second adjustment will avoid the issue, Wolf teaches that this was a known concern in an analogous invention involving the configuration of gaming machines (Wolf Figures 4, 7; Elements 704, 706-718 Paragraphs [0017], [0037], [0092]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated determining an issue with removing the first game on the EGM based on the information associated with the EGM and determining that implementing the second adjustment will avoid the issue, as taught by Wolf into the enablement and downloading of games as taught by Brosnan because such would have provided the expected and predictable result of enabling the self-correcting configuration of Brosnan & Sethi to address issues of limited memory capacity without requiring an additional manual memory management process and/or gaming machine memory upgrades to enable the downloading and enablement of additional games on a gaming machine without the loss of accumulated game information.
Claim 5: The combination of Brosnan, Sethi & Wolf teaches the system of Claim 1, wherein the first adjustment comprises replacing a first game on the EGM with a second game,
wherein determining that the first adjustment will be unsuccessful comprises determining an issue with replacing the first game on the EGM with the second game (-in this case determining that accumulated information needs to be maintained- Wolf Figure 7; Elements 704), and
wherein determining the second adjustment to the EGM comprises determining that implementing the second adjustment will avoid the issue (Wolf Figure 7; Elements 706-718)).
Claim 6: The combination of Brosnan, Sethi & Wolf teaches the system of Claim 5, wherein the issue comprises at least one of:
the first game being associated with a first pay schedule and the second game being associated with a second pay schedule that is different than the first pay schedule (-wherein the accumulated game information includes wide area progressive information- Wolf Paragraphs [0017], [0092]); and
the first game being part of a progressive pool and the second game not being part of the progressive pool (-wherein the selectable different game may differ in being a progressive or non-progressive- Wolf Paragraph [0037]).
Claim 18: The combination of Brosnan, Sethi & Wolf teaches the method of Claim 17, wherein the issue comprises at least one of:
the first game being associated with a first pay schedule and the second game being associated with a second pay schedule that is different than the first pay schedule (-wherein the accumulated game information includes wide area progressive information- Wolf Paragraphs [0017], [0092]); and
the first game being part of a progressive pool and the second game not being part of the progressive pool (-wherein the selectable different game may differ in being a progressive or non-progressive- Wolf Paragraph [0037]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 26th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Commencing on pages 8-9 of the Applicant’s above dated remarks, the Applicant proposes that the prior art combination of Brosnan & Sethi does not teach the feature of determining that an adjustment will be unsuccessful due to technical limitations based on the information as presented in claims 1 and 13, because the cited portion of Sethi Paragraphs [0071]-[0074] concerns considerations of compatibility issues with a software update and the Applicant proposes that this is not the same as determining that an adjustment will be unsuccessful due to technical limitations associated with the EGM itself.
Responsive to the preceding, the claimed invention determines information associated with the EGM and subsequently determines in a first adjustment would be unsuccessful due to technical limitations based on the first information. The applicant’s claims do not limit what is included or excluded by the information associated with the EGM or what would or would not constitute the referenced “technical limitation”. In addressing this feature, the prior art of Sethi teaches consideration of the current state of the computing device including “(e.g., memory, disk or other storage space, installed software, device drivers, OSes, system components, etc.)”. “to provide proactive advice or recommendations on whether software updates are likely to cause compatibility issues for the computing devices.” Sethi Paragraph [0074], that reasonably teaches the claimed feature as particularly presented.
Continuing on page 9 of the Applicant’s above dated remarks, the Applicant proposes that the claims 2-12 and 14-20 are allowable based on incorporation of features from claims 1 and 13.
Responsive to the preceding, claims 1 and 13 remain rejected as presented herein above and are accordingly not suitable to support the separation of additional claims from the applied prior art based on the incorporation of the same through claim dependency as proposed.
Claims 7 and 19 are noted as being separately amended to separate these claims from the applied prior art combination and according the prior art rejection has been withdrawn for these claims as reflected herein above.
Continuing on pages 10-11 of the Applicant’s above dated remarks, the Applicant proposes that the claims are not directed to an enumerated grouping of abstract idea under 35 U.S.C. §101 because:
i. the claimed invention is performed on processing circuitry and EGM and accordingly not software per se(Remarks Page 10);
ii. the claimed invention is integrated into a practical application involving the proposed improvement in technology by reducing downtime and installing software remotely (Remarks Page 10); and
iii. the applicant’s specification paragraph [0008] explains that the process to modify content on an EGM can be time consuming and have technical limitations/considerations that would discourage operators from routinely modifying content on the EGM and proposes that the claimed system reflects an unconventional functionality that can predict and resolve issues prior to making a modification that provides a practical application of a technical improvement (Remarks Pages 10-11).
Responsive to the Applicant’s arguments as summarized above, the following is respectfully noted in corresponding order:
i.a) The claims are directed to the identified enumerated grouping of abstract ideas as reflected in the rejection presented herein above and including the court enumerated abstract ideas of Mental Processes including observation, evaluation, and judgement because the claims are directed to series of steps for observing and evaluating a adjustment to a system and judging when to make an alternative/subsequent adjustment as well as Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity including commercial interactions involving business relations and following rules or instructions because the claims set forth interactions involving changing and presenting content on player/user machines in a gaming environment. The application of a judicial exception on a computer or processor wherein the same is utilized merely as a tool to perform the abstract idea is not sufficient to support patent eligibility and would not exclude the claimed invention from the groupings of abstract ideas as proposed (See MPEP 2106.05(f) & 2106.04(a)(2) Sub III.c);
ii.a) While the claimed invention utilizes a computer to apply the judicial exception it uses the same merely as a tool and does not support the argued practical application involving an improvement in technology as described by MPEP 2106.05(a) & 2106.04(d)(1) because the courts have previously noted “[I]f a patent’s recitation of a computer amounts to a mere instruction to ‘implemen[t]’ an abstract idea ‘on . . .a computer,’ . . . that addition cannot impart patent eligibility.” Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358 (quoting Mayo, 132S. Ct. at 1301). Additionally, the applicant’s specification while describing alternative approaches to modifying EGM content in paragraph [0008] does not describe the remote installation of software and reduction of downtime as unconventional functionality and the same functionality is further noted as known features of the applied prior art of record; and
iii.a) The Applicant’s proposed practical application of a technical improvement as argued reflects the implementation known processes on a computer wherein the same is utilized merely as tool that would not support the presence of a practical application or the unconventionality of the claimed invention as proposed (See MPEP 2106.05(a) & 2106.05(f)).
In view of the preceding the rejection of claims is respectfully maintained as presented herein above.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT E MOSSER whose telephone number is (571)272-4451. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:45-3:45.
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, David Lewis can be reached at 571-272-7673. 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.
ROBERT E. MOSSER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3715
/ROBERT E MOSSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights