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
Applicant argues that Chen fails to disclose a frangible portion located on the electrode post and instead teaches a pressure-relief mechanism formed on the shell.
The Examiner agrees that Chen alone does not disclose the presently amended limitations. Accordingly, the rejection has been revised to rely upon Yu et al. (CN 113517501), hereinafter Yu, which expressly teaches an explosion-proof notch and safety valve formed directly on the electrode post itself, together with Hermann et al. (US 20100316894), hereinafter Hermann, which teaches a circumferential weakened groove surrounding a raised terminal portion that ruptures under excessive internal pressure. Therefore, the prior-art combination now teaches the amended limitation that the frangible portion is located on the electrode post and is defined by a groove.
Applicant further argues that neither Chen nor Guen teaches a groove formed at the flange/body junction. Hermann expressly teaches scoring a groove surrounding the raised body portion of a battery terminal at the transition between the raised terminal and surrounding flange, thereby addressing this limitation. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying Hermann/s known rupture groove geometry to the electrode post of Guen, in view of the electrode-post pressure-relief structure taught by Yu, would predictably improve controlled venting while maintaining sealing integrity.
Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
Claims 1, 2, 4-13, 15, 16, and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guen, Min Hyung (KR 20190043797 A), hereinafter Guen, in view of Yu et al. (CN 113517501), hereinafter Yu, and in further view of Hermann et al. (US 20100316894), hereinafter Hermann.
Regarding claim 1, Guen teaches an electrochemical device including a shell and an electrode post disposed through a through-hole of the shell. Guen teaches an electrode post comprising a terminal column portion 141 and flange portion 142 (Claim 4, [0043], Figs. 2-4). In particular, terminal column portion 141 corresponds to the claimed body portion penetrating the through-hole, and flange portion 142 extends laterally/radially beyond terminal column portion 141, thereby corresponding to the claimed flange portion protruding beyond an outer peripheral surface of the body portion (Claim 4, [0043], Figs. 2-4, terminal column portion 141, flange 142).
Guen, however, does not expressly teach:
The flange portion being partially recessed at a junction between the flange portion and the body portion along a thickness direction of the flange portion to form a groove;
The groove defining a frangible portion on the electrode post; and
The frangible portion being configured to burst open when pressure in the shell reaches a threshold to communicate between the inside and outside of the shell.
Yu teaches a battery comprising a battery core 1, shell wall 2, pole 3, and insulating material 4. Yu teaches that pole 3 is electrically connected to battery core 1 and that, before pole 3 is combined with shell wall 2 “a through-hole matched with the pole 3” is formed in shell wall 2 for receiving pole 3, after which pole 3 is fixed by insulating material 4 (Detailed Description, pole 3/shell wall 2 embodiment; Figs. 1-4). Yu further teaches expressly that an explosion-proof notch 5 is provided on shell wall 2 or on pole 3. Yu explains that the explosion-proof notch may be laser etched as a semicircle on the surface of pole 3 and that, because the strength of the notch is reduced, increased internal battery pressure breaks the explosion-proof notch so that pressure is discharged, thereby providing a safety-valve function (Detailed Description, explosion-proof notch 5; Example 1; Figs. 1-4). Yu's Example 1 additionally states that a semicircle is laser etched on the surface of the positive pole away from the battery cell “so that the safety valve is realized.” Accordingly, Yu expressly teaches a frangible pressure-relief portion located directly on the electrode post, rather than a separate pressure-relief member positioned elsewhere on the shell. Yu, however, does not expressly teach forming the explosion-proof groove specifically at the junction between Guen's flange portion 142 and terminal column/body portion 141.
Hermann teaches a battery terminal that itself functions as the pressure-relief vent. Hermann teaches that battery 101 vents through terminal 107 and that region 111 of terminal 107 is designed to rupture during an over-pressure event (Figs. 1A-1B). Hermann further teaches embodiments in which a single element 201 or 301 acts as both the cell terminal and the safety vent and includes scoring 203 or 303 to facilitate venting (Figs. 2-3). More particularly, Hermann teaches a conventional raised battery terminal 401 and states that cell 400 includes “scoring 403 around the raised portion of the terminal” so that the terminal moves in the desired direction during a venting event (Fig. 4, raised terminal 401, scoring 403). Hermann further teaches that the vent is defined by scoring on the battery terminal and ruptures when internal battery pressure exceeds the predefined operating range.
Guen, Yu, and Hermann are considered analogous in the art of battery safety. Guen teaches the particular terminal structure having the body/terminal-column portion 141 and radially extending flange portion 142; Yu teaches forming a burstable explosion-proof weakened portion directly on an electrode pole; and Hermann teaches forming pressure-relief scoring around the raised portion of a battery terminal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the electrode post of Guen to include the explosion-proof notch taught by Yu and to configure the notch as the scoring taught by Hermann around the raised body portion of the terminal.
The motivation for such a modification is to integrate the pressure-relief function into the electrode post itself, thereby permitting excessive internal pressure to be released through a predetermined weakened terminal region. Yu expressly teaches that reducing the strength of the explosion-proof notch on pole 3 allows increased internal pressure to break the notch and discharge pressure, thereby providing the effect of a safety valve and preventing further thermal runaway. Hermann likewise teaches that a terminal vent defined by scoring ruptures during an over-pressure event and expressly places scoring 403 around the raised portion of terminal 401. Further, applying Hermann's scoring around Guen's terminal column portion 141 would have predictably positioned the scoring in the flange material surrounding the terminal column/body portion, i.e., at or immediately adjacent the transition between terminal column portion 141 and flange portion 142. Such a location would retain the central terminal column for electrical connection and shell penetration while providing a weakened surrounding region capable of controlled rupture.
Guen teaches the claimed body-and-flange electrode-post configuration; Yu teaches a burstable pressure-relief notch located directly on the electrode post; and Hermann teaches forming pressure-relief scoring around the raised portion of a battery terminal, which scoring ruptures during an over-pressure event.
Regarding claim 2, Guen, Yu, and Hermann teach all the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Guen teaches a shell having a wall through which the electrode terminal extends (Claim 4, [0043], Figs. 2-4, terminal column portion 141).
Yu expressly teaches that shell wall 2 is provided with a through-hole matched with pole 3 for placement of pole 3, and that pole 3 is thereafter fixed by insulating material 4 (Detailed Description, pole 3 and shell wall 2; Figs. 1-4). Yu further teaches explosion-proof notch 5 on pole 3, while Hermann teaches scoring formed on the battery terminal to define a pressure-relief region (Yu, explosion-proof notch 5; Hermann, Figs. 2-4, scoring 203, 303, 403).
Guen and Yu are considered analogous in the art of battery safety. It would have been obvious to form the groove along the thickness direction of the first wall/electrode-post interface because the electrode post extends through the wall and the scored weakened region is intended to provide a rupture path through the terminal. Such placement provides predictable controlled venting through the existing electrode-post location.
Regarding claim 4, Guen, Yu, and Hermann teach all the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Yu teaches pole 3 positioned in a through-hole matched to pole 3 in shell wall 2 (Detailed Description, shell wall 2/pole 3; Figs. 1-4).
Hermann teaches scoring around the raised portion of terminal 401 (Fig. 4, scoring 403 around raised terminal 401). The references do not expressly recite that along the thickness direction of the first wall, an orthogonal projection of the frangible portion on the first wall falls within the through-hole. However, when Hermann's scoring is formed about Guen's body portion penetrating the through-hole, the frangible/scored portion is positioned about the terminal immediately adjacent the through-hole.
Guen, Yu, and Hermann are considered analogous in the art of battery safety. It would have been obvious to align the pressure-relief portion with the shell opening because the opening provides an unobstructed path through which internal pressure may act upon and subsequently discharge through the terminal vent. Such alignment represents a predictable placement of the known pressure-relief structure relative to the known terminal opening.
Regarding claim 5, Guen, Yu, and Hermann teach all the limitations of claim 4, as stated above. Claim 5 further recites that along the thickness direction of the first wall, a thickness of the flange portion is L1, a depth of the groove is L2, and 30% ≤ L2/L1 ≤ 98%.
Hermann teaches a scored battery-terminal vent and further teaches that the scoring may have variable depth, including a substantially circular scored configuration in which the deepest portion defines the rupture portion while the shallower portion forms the hinge region. Hermann therefore expressly recognizes scoring depth as a parameter affecting how the vent ruptures (terminal scoring; variable-depth embodiment).
Guen, Yu, and Hermann are considered analogous in the art of battery safety. Terminal/flange thickness and groove/scoring depth are design parameters that directly affect residual material thickness, mechanical strength, and rupture behavior. Hermann's express use of scoring depth to determine rupture behavior establishes groove depth as a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the relationship between flange thickness and groove depth to provide sufficient terminal strength under ordinary operating conditions while permitting predictable rupture at the desired over-pressure condition. The claimed ratio reflects selection from the range that one of ordinary skill would routinely adjust through ordinary engineering optimization to meet expected pressure-relief requirements.
Regarding claim 6, Guen, Yu, and Hermann teach all the limitations of claim 5, as stated above. Claim 6 further recites 0.1 mm ≤ L1 ≤ 0.2 mm and 30% ≤ L2/L1 ≤ 95%. As discussed above, Hermann expressly teaches controlling the depth of terminal scoring to control rupture behavior. Flange thickness is likewise a routine dimensional consideration that determines available structural material and residual thickness after scoring.
Guen, Yu, and Hermann are considered analogous in the art of battery safety. It would have been obvious to select a flange thickness within the claimed range as a matter of routine dimensional optimization based upon battery packaging, manufacturing capability, mechanical strength, and intended burst pressure, while correspondingly selecting the scoring depth to achieve reliable rupture. Maintaining the claimed relationship between thickness and groove depth would have been an expected result of such routine optimization.
Regarding claim 7, Guen, Yu, and Hermann teach all the limitations of claim 5, as stated above. Claim 7 further recites 0.2 mm ≤ L1 ≤ 0.5 mm and 60% ≤ L2/L1 ≤ 98%. For the reasons stated with respect to claims 5 and 6, flange thickness and groove depth represent result-effective dimensional variables governing terminal mechanical strength and vent rupture behavior. Hermann expressly teaches modifying scoring depth to obtain desired vent behavior.
Guen, Yu, and Hermann are considered analogous in the art of battery safety. It would have been obvious to select the claimed thickness and corresponding groove-depth relationship through routine optimization to retain sufficient terminal rigidity while leaving an appropriately weakened residual section for pressure-responsive rupture.
Regarding claim 8, Guen, Yu, and Hermann teach all the limitations of claim 5, as stated above. Claim 8 further recites a strength S of the flange portion satisfying 100 MPa ≤ S ≤ 500 MPa, and 30% ≤ L2/L1 ≤ 95%. Yu expressly teaches that pole 3 is made from metal and, in Example 1, identifies aluminum, nickel, and stainless steel as materials from which pole 3 may be formed (Detailed Description; Example 1, pole 3). The particular mechanical strength of the terminal is a known material-property consideration directly affecting the force required to deform or rupture the scored region.
Guen, Yu, and Hermann are considered analogous in the art of battery safety. It would have been obvious to select from known electrode-terminal metals according to required conductivity, mechanical strength, manufacturability, corrosion resistance, and desired rupture pressure, and to coordinate that selected strength with the groove depth taught by Hermann. The claimed strength range therefore constitutes predictable material selection and optimization of known terminal materials for their known purpose.
Regarding claim 9, Guen, Yu, and Hermann teach all the limitations of claim 5, as stated above. Claim 9 further recites S > 500 MPa and 60% ≤ L2/L1 ≤ 98%. Yu expressly identifies nickel and stainless steel, in addition to aluminum, as suitable materials for electrode pole 3 (Example 1). Where greater mechanical robustness is required, substitution of a higher-strength known terminal metal would have been an obvious material-selection choice.
Guen, Yu, and Hermann are considered analogous in the art of battery safety. Further, upon employing a stronger terminal material, it would have been obvious to correspondingly increase scoring depth to maintain the desired pressure-responsive rupture characteristic. Accordingly, the claimed combination represents predictable optimization of known material strength and groove-depth parameters.
Regarding claim 10, Guen, Yu, and Hermann teach all the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Hermann expressly teaches that the scoring on the terminal/vent may be in the form of an arc, and additionally teaches substantially circular scoring (terminal scoring embodiments; Figs. 8-9). Hermann further teaches scoring 403 around the raised portion of the terminal (Fig. 4). Accordingly, Hermann teaches or at least expressly suggests extending the groove along a circumferential direction of the terminal body portion.
Regarding claim 11, Hermann teaches the limitations of claim 10, as stated above. Hermann expressly teaches that in one embodiment the terminal/vent scoring is “in the form of an arc, for example a 300-degree arc,” as illustrated in Fig. 8 (Fig. 8, scoring 807).
Guen and Hermann are considered analogous in the art of battery safety. It is well established that where the claimed ranges overlap or lie within the ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art to select a degree arc within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optimization of a result-effective variable.
Regarding claim 12, Guen, Yu, and Hermann teach all the limitations of claim 11, as stated above. Claim 12 further requires 135° ≤ α ≤ 270°. Hermann expressly teaches arcuate terminal scoring and teaches that the arc leaves an unscored region between the first and second ends that forms a hinge (terminal scoring/hinge embodiment; Figs. 8-9). Hermann therefore identifies the angular extent of the score as a selectable design parameter affecting the relative sizes of the rupturing portion and remaining hinge portion. Although Hermann's expressly stated example is 300°, the precise angular extent would have been routinely selected according to the desired vent-opening area, hinge size, rupture force, and direction of opening. It would therefore have been obvious to select an arc within the claimed 135°-270° range as a matter of routine optimization of Hermann's known arcuate terminal vent.
Regarding claim 13, Guen, Yu, and Hermann teach all the limitations of claim 10, as stated above. Claim 13 recites a groove width of 0.04 mm to 0.4 mm. Hermann expressly teaches forming terminal scoring using known processes including laser scribing, mechanical scribing, and stamping (Fig. 8 discussion).
Guen and Hermann are considered analogous in the art of battery safety. Groove width is necessarily selected in performing the disclosed scribing or stamping operation and directly affects the amount of removed or deformed material, the stress concentration, and the manufacturability of the vent. It would have been obvious to select a groove width within the claimed range through routine optimization based upon the selected scoring process, terminal dimensions, and desired vent performance. The claimed width reflects a predictable selection of workable dimensions for a micro-scale scored terminal.
Regarding claim 15, Guen, Yu, and Hermann teach the electrochemical device limitations for the reasons stated regarding claim 1. Yu additionally expressly teaches an electrical device comprising the disclosed battery. Yu states as another object of the invention the provision of an electric device including the battery (Disclosure of Invention; electrical-device embodiment). Accordingly, incorporation of the modified electrochemical device into an electrical device is expressly taught by Yu.
Regarding claim 16, Guen, Yu, and Hermann teach all the limitations of claim 15, as stated above. Guen teaches a shell having a wall through which the electrode terminal extends (Claim 4, [0043], Figs. 2-4, terminal column portion 141).
Yu expressly teaches that shell wall 2 is provided with a through-hole matched with pole 3 for placement of pole 3, and that pole 3 is thereafter fixed by insulating material 4 (Detailed Description, pole 3 and shell wall 2; Figs. 1-4). Yu further teaches explosion-proof notch 5 on pole 3, while Hermann teaches scoring formed on the battery terminal to define a pressure-relief region (Yu, explosion-proof notch 5; Hermann, Figs. 2-4, scoring 203, 303, 403).
Guen and Yu are considered analogous in the art of battery safety. It would have been obvious to form the groove along the thickness direction of the first wall/electrode-post interface because the electrode post extends through the wall and the scored weakened region is intended to provide a rupture path through the terminal. Such placement provides predictable controlled venting through the existing electrode-post location.
Regarding claim 18, Guen, Yu, and Hermann teach all the limitations of claim 15, as stated above. Yu teaches pole 3 positioned in a through-hole matched to pole 3 in shell wall 2 (Detailed Description, shell wall 2/pole 3; Figs. 1-4).
Hermann teaches scoring around the raised portion of terminal 401 (Fig. 4, scoring 403 around raised terminal 401). The references do not expressly recite that along the thickness direction of the first wall, an orthogonal projection of the frangible portion on the first wall falls within the through-hole. However, when Hermann's scoring is formed about Guen's body portion penetrating the through-hole, the frangible/scored portion is positioned about the terminal immediately adjacent the through-hole.
Guen, Yu, and Hermann are considered analogous in the art of battery safety. It would have been obvious to align the pressure-relief portion with the shell opening because the opening provides an unobstructed path through which internal pressure may act upon and subsequently discharge through the terminal vent. Such alignment represents a predictable placement of the known pressure-relief structure relative to the known terminal opening.
Regarding claim 19, Guen, Yu, and Hermann teach all the limitations of claim 18, as stated above. Claim 19 further recites that along the thickness direction of the first wall, a thickness of the flange portion is L1, a depth of the groove is L2, and 30% ≤ L2/L1 ≤ 98%.
Hermann teaches a scored battery-terminal vent and further teaches that the scoring may have variable depth, including a substantially circular scored configuration in which the deepest portion defines the rupture portion while the shallower portion forms the hinge region. Hermann therefore expressly recognizes scoring depth as a parameter affecting how the vent ruptures (terminal scoring; variable-depth embodiment).
Guen, Yu, and Hermann are considered analogous in the art of battery safety. Terminal/flange thickness and groove/scoring depth are design parameters that directly affect residual material thickness, mechanical strength, and rupture behavior. Hermann's express use of scoring depth to determine rupture behavior establishes groove depth as a result-effective variable. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the relationship between flange thickness and groove depth to provide sufficient terminal strength under ordinary operating conditions while permitting predictable rupture at the desired over-pressure condition. The claimed ratio reflects selection from the range that one of ordinary skill would routinely adjust through ordinary engineering optimization to meet expected pressure-relief requirements.
Regarding claim 20, Guen, Yu, and Hermann teach all the limitations of claim 19, as stated above. Claim 20 further recites 0.1 mm ≤ L1 ≤ 0.2 mm and 30% ≤ L2/L1 ≤ 95%. As discussed above, Hermann expressly teaches controlling the depth of terminal scoring to control rupture behavior. Flange thickness is likewise a routine dimensional consideration that determines available structural material and residual thickness after scoring.
Guen, Yu, and Hermann are considered analogous in the art of battery safety. It would have been obvious to select a flange thickness within the claimed range as a matter of routine dimensional optimization based upon battery packaging, manufacturing capability, mechanical strength, and intended burst pressure, while correspondingly selecting the scoring depth to achieve reliable rupture. Maintaining the claimed relationship between thickness and groove depth would have been an expected result of such routine optimization.
Regarding claim 21, Guen, Yu, and Hermann teach all the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Claim 21 further recites a bonding layer, wherein the shell comprises a first wall having the through-hole, the flange portion is connected to the first wall by the bonding layer, and, along a radial direction of the body portion, a distance between the bonding layer and an outer peripheral surface of the body portion is greater than a width of the groove. Yu expressly teaches the claimed general bonding arrangement. In particular, Yu teaches pole 3 positioned in a through-hole of shell wall 2 and fixed by insulating material 4 (Detailed Description, shell wall 2, pole 3, insulating material 4). Yu further teaches that insulating material 4 may be an adhesive-type material and specifically teaches methods for combining pole 3 with shell wall 2 including glue bonding, heat curing, ultraviolet curing, injection molding, hot pressing, and ultrasonic welding (Disclosure of Invention; Detailed Description, insulating material 4). The adhesive insulating material 4 therefore corresponds to the claimed bonding layer.
Guen, Yu, and Hermann do not expressly disclose the particular claimed radial relationship in which the distance between the bonding layer and the outer peripheral surface of the body portion is greater than the groove width. However, Hermann teaches a scored region whose purpose is to rupture and open during an over-pressure event, while Yu teaches adhesive/insulating material fixing and sealing the electrode post to the shell wall.
Guen, Yu, and Hermann are considered analogous in the art of battery safety. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to position Yu's bonding material sufficiently radially outward from Hermann's terminal scoring so that the bonding material does not occupy, fill, bridge, or mechanically reinforce the scored pressure-relief region. Such separation would permit the bonding material to perform its known retaining, sealing, and insulating functions while permitting the scored groove to perform its known rupture function. The relative spacing between two adjacent structures performing these known functions is a design parameter that would have been routinely optimized according to groove width, bonding-area requirements, seal integrity, and desired rupture behavior. Selecting the distance to be greater than the groove width would predictably provide physical separation between the bonding region and the pressure-relief groove.
Regarding claim 22, Guen, Yu, and Hermann teach all the limitations of claim 15, as stated above. Claim 22 recites the same bonding-layer limitation as claim 21 in the electrical-device context. Yu expressly teaches both (1) pole 3 fixed to shell wall 2 by insulating material 4, including adhesive/glue bonding, and (2) an electric device comprising the disclosed battery.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guen in view of Yu, and in further view of Hermann, and in further view of Chen, Xin-Xiang et al. (CN 215989098), hereinafter Chen.
Regarding claim 14, Guen, Yu, and Hermann teach all the limitations of claim 1, as stated above. Chen teaches that along an axial direction of the body portion, a cross-sectional shape of the groove is at least one: trapezoid, triangle, quadrangle, semi-ellipse ([0125], Fig. 10, 11, groove 83c, weak portion 83). Yu expressly teaches forming its explosion-proof notch by laser etching a semicircle on the pole. Hermann teaches forming its terminal scoring by laser scribing, mechanical scribing, or stamping. Guen, Yu, Hermann, and Chen are considered analogous in the art of battery safety. The cross-sectional geometry of a scored or etched groove is determined by the selected manufacturing process and tool/beam configuration. Selection among conventional groove profiles would have been an obvious matter of fabrication choice where each performs the same known function of locally reducing material thickness and concentrating stress to provide predictable rupture.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 Tamara Orduna whose telephone number is (571)431-1457. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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 Dieterle can be reached at (571) 270-7872. 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.
/TAMARA ORDUNA/Examiner, Art Unit 1776 /Jennifer Dieterle/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1776
Prosecution Insights