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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claim 16 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 24 August 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites "moiety C is...a fused ring system comprising Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 and 17-20 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 a compound comprising a first ligand LA of Formula 1 wherein a structure of Formula II is fused to ring A and RA is di-substituted to tetra-substituted. The confusion arises wherein Ring A of Formula 1 contains a total of four positions for substitution, two of which are occupied by the structure of Formula II; therefore, it is unclear how RA may be tri- and tetra-substituted. Therefore, it is unclear how to interpret RA in claim 1 wherein possible interpretations include:
RA is only di-substituted
RA is tri-substituted and tetra-substituted wherein the structure of Formula II is selected from two adjacent RA that are fused to form a condensed ring.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner chooses to interpret claim 1 as both (A) and (B). Claims 2-15 and 17-20 are also rejected as they depend from claim 1 and do not cure the deficiencies of the claim from which they depend.
Claim 14 is 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 14 recites a compound of claim 11 wherein LA can be selected from a set of possibilities, and LB can be selected from a set of possibilities; however, claim 14 does not explicitly state that LC can be selected from a set of possibilities. Claim 14 also defines a group of organometallic compounds containing LC wherein ligand LC has a formula that is further defined. Thus, the confusion lies wherein LC is not explicitly allowed to be selected, and yet the compounds containing LC are still defined in the claim allowing for interpretations including:
LC can NOT be selected
LC can be selected from LCJ-1 to LCJ-II.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner chooses to interpret claim 14 as both (A) and (B).
Additionally, claim 14 recites a compound of claim 11 wherein LA can be selected from LAi-m-E , LAi’-m’-E , and LAi”-m”-E; however none of LAi-m-E , LAi’-m’-E , and LAi”-m”-E are defined in claim 11 or claim 1. Claim 10 defines the Ligand A as selected from the group consisting of LAi-m-EE , LAi’-m’-EE , and LAi”-m”-EE , along with additional limitations. Therefore, the confusion arises wherein two interpretations may arise:
LAi-m-E , LAi’-m’-E , and LAi”-m”-E is a group for the Ligand LA that is defined by LA in claims 11 and 1 OR
LAi-m-E , LAi’-m’-E , and LAi”-m”-E is the same as the definitions for LAi-m-EE , LAi’-m’-EE , and LAi”-m”-EE, respectively in claim 10.
For the purposes of examination, the examiner chooses to interpret claim 14 as (A) and (B).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 8-9 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claims 8-9 recite a compound of claim 1 wherein ligand LA is selected from the group listed. For example, the first group listed defines RAA as a substituent of ring A and represents mono to the maximum allowable substitution or no substitution. However, RA is defined as disubstituted to up to tetra-substituted in claim 1.
Therefore, the groups, including but not limited to the examples shown above, appear to be outside the scope of Formula I as defined in claim 1; and claim 8-9 fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 14 recites a compound of claim 11 wherein LA can be selected from LAi-m-E , LAi’-m’-E , and LAi”-m”-E; however none of LAi-m-E , LAi’-m’-E , and LAi”-m”-E are defined in claim 11 or claim 1. Therefore, the ligand LA selected from LAi-m-E , LAi’-m’-E , and LAi”-m”-E, appear to be outside the scope of Formula Ir(La)p(LB)q(LC)r as defined in claim 11 and fails to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-13, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Choi et al. (US 2019/0326527 A1, hereinafter "Choi").
In the pertinent art of organic light-emitting devices, Choi discloses an organometallic compound represented by Formula 1 and an organic light-emitting device including the organometallic compound (abstract) including the specific compound, Compound 1 shown below (¶ [0141]).
PNG
media_image1.png
520
1075
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Compound 1 of Choi is a compound of instant claim 1 wherein:
X1 – X4 are C;
K is a direct bond;
Formula II is fused to ring A by X3 and X4
E is H and C1 is C;
Moiety C is 6-membered carbocyclic “substituted phenylene”;
Moiety B is 6-membered carbocyclic “substituted phenylene”;
RA is di-substituted and H;
RB is alkyl “dimethyl”;
RC is alkyl “tert-butyl”;
LA is coordinated to metal Ir.
Therefore, Compound 1 of Choi anticipates claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, the Compound 1 of Choi is a compound of claim 1 wherein RA is hydrogen, RB is alkyl, an RC is alkyl.
Regarding claim 3, the Compound 1 of Choi is a compound of claim 1 wherein X1 – X4 is C and K is a direct bond.
Regarding claim 5, the Compound 1 of Choi is a compound of claim 1 wherein Formula II is fused to ring A by X3 and X4.
Regarding claim 6, the Compound 1 of Choi is a compound of claim 1 wherein moiety B is phenyl and moiety C is phenyl.
Regarding claim 7, the Compound 1 of Choi is a compound of claim 1 wherein RC is alkyl.
Regarding claim 8, the Compound 1 of Choi is a compound of claim 1 wherein LA is selected from
PNG
media_image2.png
209
221
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wherein X5 – X9 are C and RAA is H.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, the Compound 1 of Choi is a compound of claim 1 wherein LA and LB are bidentate, p is 2, q is 1, r is 0, the oxidation state of Ir is 3, and the formula is Ir(LA)2(LB).
Regarding claim 13, the compound 1 of Choi is a compound of claim 1 wherein LB is selected from
PNG
media_image3.png
297
320
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wherein Ra1 is alkyl “methyl”, Rb1 is hydrogen, and Rc1 is alkyl “methyl”.
Regarding claim 17, Choi teaches the organic light-emitting device Example 1 which contains the structure ITO anode; an organic layer including CBP as host and Compound 1 as dopant in the emission layer; and Mg/Ag cathode (¶ [0279] – [0282]).
Regarding claim 18, the Example 1 contains CBP host that comprises a carbazole group.
Regarding claim 20, Choi teaches the light-emitting device may be used in an organic light-emitting device that are self-emission devices that can produce full-color images that reads on the consumer product of claim 20 (¶ [0003] – [0005]).
Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2020/0328360 A1, hereinafter "Lee").
In the pertinent art of organic light-emitting devices, Lee discloses an organometallic compound represented by Formula 1, an organic light-emitting device including the organometallic compound (abstract), and a specific compound of Formula 1 including Compound 11, shown below (pg 45).
PNG
media_image4.png
1127
1247
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Compound 11 of Lee
The Compound 11 of Lee is a compound of instant claims 1 and 4 wherein:
X1 – X4 are C;
K is a direct bond;
Formula II is fused to ring A by X2 and X3;
E is H and C1 is C;
Moiety C is 6-membered carbocyclic “substituted phenylene”;
Moiety B is 6-membered carbocyclic “substituted phenylene”;
RA is di-substituted and H;
RB is hydrogen;
RC is alkyl “tert-butyl”;
LA is coordinated to metal Ir.
Therefore, Compound 1 of Choi anticipates claim 1-4, 6-7, and 11-13.
Regarding claim 8, Compound 11 is a compound of instant claim 1 wherein LA is selected from
PNG
media_image5.png
601
320
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
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 9-10 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2019/0326527 A1, hereinafter "Choi") as applied to claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-13, 17-18, and 20 described above.
Choi teaches the Compound 1 that reads on instant claims 1-3, 5-8, 11-13, 17-18, and 20 as described above. Choi teaches that the Compound 1 of Choi is a compound of the Formula 2 wherein CY21 is a substituted phenylene group, shown below (¶ [0014]).
Formula 2 of Choi
Compound 1
PNG
media_image6.png
1068
1447
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
520
1075
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Choi does not necessarily limit the identity of CY21 to substituted phenylene: Choi defines CY21 as a C3-C60 carbocyclic group (¶ [0018]) and is further selected from benzene, naphthalene, and anthracene (¶ [0055]). Choi teaches specific compounds such as compound 17 where CY21 is two phenyl groups that are not fused, as well as compound 33 where CY21 is a fused ring system, both shown below (pg 43-44).
PNG
media_image7.png
1092
1905
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
1058
1867
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Compound 17
Compound 33
Choi teaches that the organic light - emitting device may have, due to the inclusion of an organic layer including the organometallic compound represented by Formula 1, a low driving voltage, high efficiency, high power, high quantum efficiency, a long lifespan, a low roll-off ratio, excellent color purity, or a combination thereof (¶ [0152]). Choi teaches the above, however, Choi does not teach a specific compound of Formula 2 wherein CY21 is a naphthalene group.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include the CY21 as naphthalene in the Compound 1 of Choi in the light-emitting device Example 1 of Choi, based on the teachings of Choi. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a device with low driving voltage, high efficiency, high power, high quantum efficiency, a long lifespan, a low roll-off ratio, excellent color purity, or a combination thereof, as taught by Choi (¶ [0152]).
The resulting Modified Compound 1 of Choi is shown below and reads on claim 9 wherein RAA is H, RBB is H, and RC is alkyl “tert-butyl”.
PNG
media_image9.png
698
1191
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Modified Compound 1 of Choi
Regarding claim 10, the Modified Compound 1 of Choi is a compound of claim 1 wherein the ligand LA is selected from the group consisting of LAi-m-EE wherein i is an integer 231; m is an integer 1; and EE is 1, as demonstrated below.
Code
Structure
ai = 231
R55
G3
PNG
media_image10.png
79
481
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
262
155
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
375
200
media_image12.png
Greyscale
m = 1
PNG
media_image13.png
280
372
media_image13.png
Greyscale
EE = 1
PNG
media_image14.png
280
377
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the Modified Compound 1 of Choi reads on claim 10.
Regarding claim 14, the Modified Compound 1 of Choi contains LA selected from of LAi-m-EE wherein i is an integer 231; m” is an integer 1; and EE is 1, or “LA231-1-1”. The Modified Compound 1 of Choi contains LC-1 wherein J is selected from 1, shown below.
Code
Structure
LCJ-1
PNG
media_image15.png
402
321
media_image15.png
Greyscale
J = 1
PNG
media_image16.png
141
693
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
196
151
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Therefore, the Modified Compound 1 of Choi is a compound of claim 14 wherein the compound has formula Ir(LA231-1-1)2(LC1-1).
Regarding claim 15, Choi teaches the Modified Compound 1 which is a compound of the Formula 2 of Choi wherein CY1 is phenylene and R1 is tert-butyl; CY21 is naphthalene and R21 is H; and Ir contains a ligand of the Formula 3-111 of Choi wherein Z11 and Z13 is methyl and Z12 is H (pg 38); however, Choi does not particularly limit the moieties listed above to just these possibilities.
PNG
media_image18.png
342
340
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Formula 3-11 of Choi
Formula 2 of Choi
Modified Compound 1
PNG
media_image6.png
1068
1447
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
698
1191
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Choi teaches that a group represented by CY1 and R1 may be represented by formula 10-44 featuring a phenylene substituted with a TMS group (¶ [0090]).
PNG
media_image19.png
383
702
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Formula 10-44
Choi teaches the Compound B wherein R21 is tert-butyl group, shown below (¶ [0148] – [0154]).
PNG
media_image20.png
774
1285
media_image20.png
Greyscale
Choi teaches the Compound C wherein Z11 and Z13 may be a pentyl group, shown below (¶ [0148] – [0154]).
PNG
media_image21.png
763
1135
media_image21.png
Greyscale
Choi teaches the above; however, Choi does not teach a single specific compound that contains all three elements above: (1) CY1 and R1 is a TMS-substituted phenylene; (2) R21 is tert-butyl; and (3) Z11 and Z13 is a pentyl group. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include the (1) CY1 and R1 is a TMS-substituted phenylene; (2) R21 is tert-butyl; and (3) Z11 and Z13 is a pentyl group of Choi in the light-emitting device of Choi, based on the teachings of Choi. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a device with low driving voltage, high efficiency, high power, high quantum efficiency, a long lifespan, a low roll-off ratio, excellent color purity, or a combination thereof, as taught by Choi (¶ [0152]).
The Modified Compound II-1 of Choi is shown below and reads on the second compound of claim 15.
PNG
media_image22.png
565
1022
media_image22.png
Greyscale
Modified Compound II-1 of Choi
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2019/0326527 A1, hereinafter "Choi") as applied to claims 1-3, 5-15, 17-18, and 20 described above in view of Wolohan et al. (US 2020/0168812 A1, hereinafter "Wolohan").
Regarding claim 19, Choi teaches the Modified Device of Choi containing the Modified Compound II-1 of Choi and the house compound CBP (¶ [0279] – [0282]), which is a compound similar to the group depicted below in that they both feature at least two carbazole groups that are linked by a biphenyl moiety; however, Choi does not teach a host compound that is identical to the formula of the instant host listed below.
Instant Host
CBP
PNG
media_image23.png
427
418
media_image23.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image24.png
257
580
media_image24.png
Greyscale
In the relevant art of organic light-emitting devices, Wolohan teaches an organic light-emitting device containing an emissive layer with the host Compound 3, shown below, with an organometallic dopant featuring pyridine and phenyl ligands (¶ [0171]).
PNG
media_image25.png
286
465
media_image25.png
Greyscale
Wolohan teaches that the organic light-emitting devices of Woholan result in increased stability (¶ [0168]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further include the Compound 3 of Wolohan in the Modified Device of Choi, based on the teachings of Wolohan. The motivation for doing so would have been to obtain a device with increased stability, as taught by Wolohan (¶ [0168]).
The resulting Modified Device II of Park and Wolohan reads on claim 19.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, and 11-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 16 of copending Application No. 18/297,744, hereinafter '744 (reference application).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the compounds comprising a first ligand LA of Formula I in instant claim 1 are obvious variants due to the overlap in scope with compounds of Formula Ir(La)p(LB)q(LC)r of application ‘744. The overlap in scope is demonstrated by the iridium organometallic complex in claim 16 of ‘744 shown below (‘744, claim 16).
PNG
media_image26.png
374
551
media_image26.png
Greyscale
The compound shown above is a compound of claim 1 wherein:
X1 – X4 are C;
K is a direct bond;
Formula II is fused to ring A by X3 and X4;
E is H and C1 is C;
Moiety C is 6-membered carbocyclic “substituted phenylene”;
Moiety B is 6-membered carbocyclic “phenylene”;
RA is alkyl “methyl”;
RB is H;
RC is alkyl “1, 3, 5-trimethyl”;
LA is coordinated to metal Ir.
Therefore, the compound of ‘744 reads on instant claims 1-3, 5-8, and 11-13.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCAS Q NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1199. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm Fridays 7:45 am to 12:00 pm.
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, Jennifer Boyd can be reached at 571-272-7783. 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.
/L.Q.N./Examiner, Art Unit 1786
/JENNIFER A BOYD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights