DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to the amendment filed 12/3/2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Border et al. (US20170115486) in view of Osterhout (US20160109713).
Regarding claim 1, Border teaches an optical system (Border, figs.1-6, abstract, optical assemblies for the display of an image in a head worn display), comprising: an image projection assembly (Border , fig,5, image source 110+120+115+117+127) configured to emit image light (Border, fig.5, paragraph [0017], The image light 162 passes from the image source 110); a first optical assembly (Border, fig.5, beam splitter 140) configured to reflect and transmit (as is commonly known, a beam splitter functions to both reflect and transmit light) the image light emitted (Border, fig.5, the 162) by the image projection assembly (Border, fig.5, described above); a second optical assembly (Border, fig.5, paragraph [0017], the curved partial mirror 132) configured to reflect the image light (Border, fig.5, the light 162) reflected from the first optical assembly (Border, fig.5, the 140) and transmit light from a real scene (Border fig.5, paragraph [0017], the scene light 166); and a stray light suppression member (see annotated image, Border, fig.5, stray light suppression member; paragraph [0027], blocking strips 526, all of elements of fig.6) disposed between the image projection assembly (Border fig.5, described above) and the first optical assembly (Border, fig.5, the 140) and adjacent to a position (Border, paragraph [0028], FIG. 6 shows a frame 638 that can be used to position the thin blocking strips 536) above an effective reflection surface (see annotated image, Border, fig.5, the effective reflection surface) of the second optical assembly (Border, fig.5, the 132), the stray light suppression member (Border, described above) being configured to block light reflected from the first optical assembly to a central region (see annotated image, Border, fig.5, central region) above the effective reflection surface of the second optical assembly, and/or to block light directly transmitted from the image projection assembly to two side regions above the effective reflection surface of the second optical assembly, to reduce stray light outside a field of view (see Border, figs.5-6, paragraph [0028], FIG. 6 shows a frame 638 that can be used to position the thin blocking strips 536. Two thin blocking strips 536 are shown in the frame 635, but more are possible. The frame 638 can be made with slots for the thin blocking strips 536 to be positioned in and thereby improve the accuracy of the positioning, where the thin blocking strips 536 are preferably held such that the wide dimension is parallel to the rays of image light 162 so that the blocking of the image light is reduced. The thin blocking strips 536 may be adhesively bonded into the frame 638. In this way, the frame 638 with thin blocking strips 536 may be assembled and then positioned into the optics assembly as shown in FIG. 5 to block stray light 160 or positioned below the lens 220 to block stray light 260.-----this portion is of function claim. In product and apparatus claims –when the structure and composition recited in the reference is substantially identical to that of the claims, claimed properties or functions are presumed to be inherent, see MPEP § 2112.01. As the structure and materials provided by Border is same to that recited in the claims, then it is expect the stray light suppression member (Border, described above) being configured to block light reflected from the first optical assembly to a central region above the effective reflection surface of the second optical assembly, and/or to block light directly transmitted from the image projection assembly to two side regions above the effective reflection surface of the second optical assembly, to reduce stray light outside a field of view” function provided by Border has same results as claimed. Since where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977))).
PNG
media_image1.png
728
1262
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
652
1260
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Border does not explicitly teaches wherein the stray light suppression member is disposed directly on an upper end surface of the second optical assembly.
However, Osterhout teaches the analogous optical system with stray light suppression (Osterhout, paragraph [0063], FIG. 25 illustrates a stray light suppression; paragraph [0332], FIG. 25 illustrates an optical system for a HWC that includes an outer absorptive polarizer 2520 to block the faceglow light…), and further teaches wherein the stray light suppression member (fig.25, paragraph [0332], absorptive polarizer 2520) is disposed directly on an upper end surface of the second optical assembly (see annotated image, Osterhout, fig.25, the stray light suppression member is disposed directly on an upper end surface of the second optical assembly).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Border to arrange the light suppression member which is disposed directly on an upper end surface of the second optical assembly as taught by Osterhout for the purpose to block the faceglow light (Osterhout, paragraph [0332]).
PNG
media_image3.png
664
986
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, combination Border-Osterhout discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Border further teaches wherein the stray light suppression member (described in claim 1) comprises a fixation portion (see annotated image, Border, fig.6, fixation portion), a first light-blocking portion (see annotated image, Border, fig.6, first light-blocking portion), and a second light-blocking portion (see annotated image, Border, fig.6, second light-blocking portion), wherein: an end of the first light-blocking portion (see annotated image, Border, fig.6, end of the first light-blocking portion) is connected to an end of the fixation portion (see annotated image, Border, fig.6, end of the fixation portion), an end of the second light-blocking portion (see annotated image, Border, fig.6, an end of the second light-blocking portion) is connected to an intersection(see annotated image, Border, fig.6, an intersection) between the fixation portion (see annotated image, Border, fig.6, fixation portion) and the first light-blocking portion (see annotated image, Border, fig.6, first light-blocking portion), the first light-blocking portion (see annotated image, Border, fig.6, first light-blocking portion) is formed by extending in a direction facing away from the image projection assembly (Border, fig.5, described in claim 1), the second light-blocking portion (see annotated image, Border, fig.6, second light-blocking portion) is formed by extending in a direction facing away from the second optical assembly (Border, fig.5, the 132), and the fixation portion is disposed on an upper end surface of the second optical assembly (see annotated image, Border, figs.5-6, the fixation portion is disposed on an upper end surface of the second optical assembly 132); the first light-blocking portion (see annotated image, Border, figs.5-6, first light-blocking portion) is configured to block the light reflected from the first optical assembly to the central region above the effective reflection surface of the second optical assembly, to reduce stray light in a first region outside the field of view (Border, since the first light-blocking portion is capable of to block the light means have a first region to reduce stray light in a first region outside the field of view); and the second light-blocking portion (described claim 1) is configured to block the light directly transmitted from the image projection assembly (Border, fig.5, described in claim 1) to the two side regions above the effective reflection surface of the second optical assembly, to reduce stray light in a second region outside the field of view (Border, since the second light-blocking portion is capable of to block the light means have a second region to reduce stray light in a second region outside the field of view).
Regarding claim 3, Combination Border-Osterhout discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Border further teaches wherein the stray light suppression member comprises a fixation portion, a first light-blocking portion, and a second light-blocking portion (see Border, this claim recites similar limitations as those in corresponding dependent claim 2 and is rejected based on the same teachings and rationale), wherein: an end of the second light-blocking portion (see annotated image, Border, fig.6, an end of the second light-blocking portion) is connected to an end of the fixation portion (see annotated image, Border, fig.6, an end of the fixation portion), the second light-blocking portion is formed by extending in a direction facing away from the second optical assembly (see Border, this claim recites similar limitations as those in corresponding dependent claim 2 and is rejected based on the same teachings and rationale), an end of the first light-blocking portion (see annotated image, Border, figs.5-6, an end of the first light-blocking portion) is connected to another end of the second light-blocking portion (see annotated image, Border, fig.6, another end of the second light-blocking portion), the first light-blocking portion is formed by extending in a direction facing away from the image projection assembly, and the fixation portion is disposed on an upper end surface of the second optical assembly (see Border, this claim recites similar limitations as those in corresponding dependent claim 2 and is rejected based on the same teachings and rationale); the first light-blocking portion is configured to block the light reflected from the first optical assembly to the central region above the effective reflection surface of the second optical assembly, to reduce stray light in a first region outside the field of view (see Border, this claim recites similar limitations as those in corresponding dependent claim 2 and is rejected based on the same teachings and rationale); and the second light-blocking portion is configured to block the light directly transmitted from the image projection assembly to the two side regions above the effective reflection surface of the second optical assembly, to reduce stray light in a second region outside the field of view (see Border, this claim recites similar limitations as those in corresponding dependent claim 2 and is rejected based on the same teachings and rationale).
Regarding claim 4, Combination Border-Osterhout discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Border further teaches wherein the stray light suppression member comprises a fixation portion and a first light-blocking portion, an end of the first light-blocking portion is connected to an end of the fixation portion (see Border, this claim recites similar limitations as those in corresponding dependent claim 2 and is rejected based on the same teachings and rationale), the first light-blocking portion is formed by extending in a direction facing away from the image projection assembly (see Border, this claim recites similar limitations as those in corresponding dependent claim 2 and is rejected based on the same teachings and rationale), the fixation portion is disposed on an upper end surface of the second optical assembly (see Border, this claim recites similar limitations as those in corresponding dependent claim 2 and is rejected based on the same teachings and rationale), and the first light-blocking portion is configured to block the light reflected from the first optical assembly to the central region above the effective reflection surface of the second optical assembly, to reduce stray light in a first region outside the field of view (see Border, this claim recites similar limitations as those in corresponding dependent claim 2 and is rejected based on the same teachings and rationale).
Regarding claim 5, Combination Border-Osterhout discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Border further teaches wherein the stray light suppression member (Border, described above in claim 3) comprises a fixation portion and a second light-blocking portion, an end of the second light-blocking portion is connected to an end of the fixation portion (see Border, this claim recites similar limitations as those in corresponding dependent claim 3 and is rejected based on the same teachings and rationale), the second light-blocking portion is formed by extending in a direction facing away from the second optical assembly (see Border, this claim recites similar limitations as those in corresponding dependent claim 3 and is rejected based on the same teachings and rationale), the fixation portion is disposed on an upper end surface of the second optical assembly, and the second light-blocking portion is configured to block the light directly transmitted from the image projection assembly to the two side regions above the effective reflection surface of the second optical assembly, to reduce stray light in a second region outside the field of view (see Border, this claim recites similar limitations as those in corresponding dependent claim 2 and is rejected based on the same teachings and rationale).
Regarding claim 7, Combination Border-Osterhout discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Border further teaches wherein the image projection assembly (Border, fig.5, described in claim 1) comprises an image source (Border fig.5, the 110) and a lens (Border, fig.5, lens 120), the image source (Border, fig.5, the 110) is disposed at a side facing away from the first optical assembly (see Border fig.5, having a side facing away from the first optical assembly the 140), the lens (Border, fig.5, lens 120) is disposed between the image source (Border, fig.5, the 110) and the first optical assembly (Border, fig.5, the 140), and light emitted from the image source passes through the lens and then enters the first optical assembly and/or the second optical assembly (see Border, fig.5, having light emitted from the image source 110 passes through the lens 120 and then enters the first optical assembly 140 and/or the second optical assembly 132).
Regarding claim 8, Combination Border-Osterhout discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Border further teaches wherein the first optical assembly (Border, figs.1-6, beam splitter 140) comprises a polarizing beam-splitting film, a polarizer, and a substrate (Border, paragraph [0019] beam splitter 140 .. that have reflection and transmission properties that are sensitive to polarization state include: wire grid polarizers, multilayer film polarizers and MacNeil polarizing beam splitters. Polarized lower optics may provide improved efficiency in delivering image light 162 to the eyebox 150; paragraph [0020] For the case where the lower optics are non-polarized, the angled beam splitter 140 …reflect both polarization states of the image light 162 and the scene light 166 substantially equally. Examples of surfaces that can be used on the angled beam splitter 140 and the curved partial mirror 132 that are substantially insensitive to polarization state include: a partial mirror coating that reflects a % of incident light over an entire wavelength band--- It is well known that a beam-splitter polarizer requires a polarizing film with a substrate).
Border does not explicitly teaches wherein the substrate being located adjacent to a human eye, the polarizer being attached to an end of the substrate facing away from the human eye, and the polarizing beam-splitting film being attached to an end of the polarizer facing away from the human eye.
However, Border teaches in paragraph [0019], beam splitter 140 .. that have reflection and transmission properties that are sensitive to polarization state include: wire grid polarizers, multilayer film polarizers and MacNeil polarizing beam splitters. Polarized lower optics may provide improved efficiency in delivering image light 162 to the eyebox 150. Thus, It has been held that shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device. Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). However, Language in an apparatus or product claim directed to the rearrangement of parts, it has been held that a mere rearrangement of element without modification of the operation of the device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). In addition, In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice). However, "the mere fact that a worker in the art could rearrange the parts of the reference device to meet the terms of the claims on appeal is not by itself sufficient to support a finding of obviousness. The prior art must provide a motivation or reason for the worker in the art, without the benefit of appellant’s specification, to make the necessary changes in the reference device." Ex parte Chicago Rawhide Mfg. Co., 223 USPQ 351, 353 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1984)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange the parts of the apparatus of Border to have the substrate being located adjacent to a human eye, the polarizer being attached to an end of the substrate facing away from the human eye, and the polarizing beam-splitting film being attached to an end of the polarizer facing away from the human eye for the purpose of controlling stray light associated with grazing angle reflections in the optical systems of a compact head mounted display (Border, paragraph [0002]).
Claims 9-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Border et al. (US20170115486) in view of Osterhout (US20160109713), and further in view of Jung et al. (US20220252886).
Regarding claim 9, Combination Border-Osterhout discloses the invention as described in Claim 8 and Border does not explicitly teaches wherein further comprising a quarter-wave plate.
However, Jung teaches the optical system (Jung, figs.1-39, abstract, An optical apparatus includes a lens including a first surface and a plurality of side surfaces, a display device disposed on a first side surface among the plurality of side surfaces of the lens and providing light to the first side surface of the lens, an optical path control device disposed between the first side surface of the lens and the display device and selectively changing an optical path of a virtual image of the display device, and a plurality of reflecting members disposed in the lens and reflecting light of the display device to the first surface.), and further teaches wherein further comprising a quarter-wave plate (Jung, figs.8-9, paragraph [0144] the polarizing film 516 may be disposed on the second substrate 512. The polarizing film 516 may include a phase retardation film such as a linear polarizer plate and a quarter-wave (λ/4) plate).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Border to have the quarter-wave plate as taught by Jung for the purpose to provide an optical apparatus capable of widening a field of view of a virtual image viewed by a user by augmented reality without increasing the size of the optical apparatus and also provide an optical apparatus capable of adjusting the depth of a virtual image viewed by a user's one eye by augmented reality (Jung, paragraphs [0005-6]).
Regarding claim 10, Combination Border-Osterhout-Jung discloses the invention as described in Claim 9 and Jung further teaches wherein the quarter-wave plate is attached to an end of the polarizing beam-splitting film (Jung, figs.3, 8, the polarizing beam-splitting film has been referred as the polarizing film 516, paragraph [0144], the polarizing film 516 may include a phase retardation film such as a linear polarizer plate and a quarter-wave (λ/4) plate) facing away from the human eye (Jung, fig.3, eye RE).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Border to have the quarter-wave plate is attached to an end of the polarizing beam-splitting film as taught by Jung for the purpose to provide an optical apparatus capable of widening a field of view of a virtual image viewed by a user by augmented reality without increasing the size of the optical apparatus and also provide an optical apparatus capable of adjusting the depth of a virtual image viewed by a user's one eye by augmented reality (Jung, paragraphs [0005-6]).
Regarding claim 11, Combination Border-Osterhout-Jung discloses the invention as described in Claim 9 and Jung further teaches wherein the quarter-wave plate (described in claim 9) is disposed between the first optical assembly (Jung, figs.3 and 8, the first optical assembly has been referred as lens 310) and the second optical assembly (Jung, fig.8, the second optical assembly has been referred as layer 512-511).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Border with the specific position as taught by Jung for the purpose of/to provide an optical apparatus capable of widening a field of view of a virtual image viewed by a user by augmented reality without increasing the size of the optical apparatus and also provide an optical apparatus capable of adjusting the depth of a virtual image viewed by a user's one eye by augmented reality (Jung, paragraphs [0005-6]).
Regarding claim 12, Combination Border-Osterhout-Jung discloses the invention as described in Claim 9 and Jung further teaches wherein the quarter-wave plate (described in claim 9) is affixed to the second optical assembly (Jung, fig.8, (Jung, fig.8, the second optical assembly has been referred as layer 512-511) and adjacent to a surface of the first optical assembly (Jung, figs.3 and 8, the first optical assembly has been referred as lens 310) .
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Border with the specific position as taught by Jung for the purpose of/to provide an optical apparatus capable of widening a field of view of a virtual image viewed by a user by augmented reality without increasing the size of the optical apparatus and also provide an optical apparatus capable of adjusting the depth of a virtual image viewed by a user's one eye by augmented reality (Jung, paragraphs [0005-6]).
Regarding claim 13, Combination Border-Osterhout discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Border does not explicitly teaches wherein a wearable augmented reality display device, comprising the optical system according to claim 1 and a clamp member connected to the optical system.
However, Jung teaches the optical system (Jung, figs.1-39, abstract, An optical apparatus includes a lens including a first surface and a plurality of side surfaces, a display device disposed on a first side surface among the plurality of side surfaces of the lens and providing light to the first side surface of the lens, an optical path control device disposed between the first side surface of the lens and the display device and selectively changing an optical path of a virtual image of the display device, and a plurality of reflecting members disposed in the lens and reflecting light of the display device to the first surface.), and further teaches wherein a wearable augmented reality display device (Jung, figs.1-2, the wearable augmented reality display device), comprising the optical system according (Border, figs.1-2, paragraph [0063-64], FIG. 1 is a schematic perspective view illustrating an optical apparatus according to an embodiment. FIG. 2 is a schematic exploded perspective view illustrating an optical apparatus according to an embodiment. [0064] Referring to FIGS. 1 and 2, an augmented reality providing apparatus 1 according to an embodiment includes a support frame 20, a right eye lens frame 21, a left eye lens frame 22, a first temple 31, a second temple 32, a right eye lens 110, a left eye lens 120, a first display device 210, a second display device 220, a first convex lens 310, a second convex lens 360, a first optical path control device 510, a second optical path control device 520, and reflecting members 411, 412, 421, and 422. ) and a clamp member (Jung fig.1, the 31, 32; paragraph [0070], Each of the first temple 31 and the second temple 32 may be fixed to the support frame 20 by a fixing member such as a screw) connected to the optical system (Jung fig.1, the optical system).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Border with the specific clamp member as taught by Jung for the purpose to the support frame of the optical system (Jung, paragraph [0070]) and also compact optical assemblies for the display of an image in a head worn display with improved contrast include an image source that provides image light, a folded optic, wherein the image light passes adjacent to an optical surface of the folded optic so that stray light associated with the image light is incident onto the optical surface at a grazing angle, and a structure associated with the optical surface that prevents the stray light from reflecting off of the optical surface (Border, abstract).
Regarding claim 14, Combination Border-Osterhout-Jung discloses the invention as described in Claim 13 and this claim recites similar limitations as those in corresponding dependent claim 2 and is rejected based on the same teachings and rationale.
Regarding claim 15, Combination Border-Osterhout-Jung discloses the invention as described in Claim 13 and this claim recites similar limitations as those in corresponding dependent claim 3 and is rejected based on the same teachings and rationale.
Regarding claim 16, Combination Border-Osterhout-Jung discloses the invention as described in Claim 13 and this claim recites similar limitations as those in corresponding dependent claim 4 and is rejected based on the same teachings and rationale.
Regarding claim 17, Combination Border-Osterhout-Jung discloses the invention as described in Claim 13 and this claim recites similar limitations as those in corresponding dependent claim 5 and is rejected based on the same teachings and rationale.
Regarding claim 19, Combination Border-Osterhout-Jung discloses the invention as described in Claim 13 and this claim recites similar limitations as those in corresponding dependent claim 7 and is rejected based on the same teachings and rationale.
Regarding claim 20, Combination Border-Osterhout-Jung discloses the invention as described in Claim 13 and this claim recites similar limitations as those in corresponding dependent claim 8 and is rejected based on the same teachings and rationale.
Response to argument
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references or portions of the reference being used in the current rejections.
Examiner's Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 KUEI-JEN LEE EDENFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-3005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. -Thurs 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on 571-272-3689. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273- 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/KUEI-JEN L EDENFIELD/
Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/THOMAS K PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights