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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1, lines 5-6 recite “at least one lens or a reflective structure disposed between the light-emitting diode and the scattering pattern in a vertical direction”. To be between in a vertical direction means a vertical line can be drawn the LED and the scattering pattern that passes through the lens or reflective structure. None of the applicant’s embodiments disclose a device where the lens 250 or reflector 700 are located on the same vertical line as the scattering pattern 280, therefore there are no embodiments that have the lens or reflective structure be between the scattering pattern 280 and the LED 20 in the vertical direction (see applicant’s figures 4A, 6B, 9A, 9B, 10A and 10B). This means the limitation is new matter.
Claim 21, line 10-11 recite “the lens or the reflective structure is disposed between the first and second light-emitting diode and the scattering pattern in a vertical direction”. To be between in a vertical direction means a vertical line can be drawn the LED and the scattering pattern that passes through the lens or reflective structure. None of the applicant’s embodiments disclose a device where the lens 250 or reflector 700 are located on the same vertical line as the scattering pattern 280, therefore there are no embodiments that have the lens or reflective structure be between the scattering pattern 280 and the LED 20 in the vertical direction (see applicant’s figures 4A, 6B, 9A, 9B, 10A and 10B). This means the limitation is new matter.
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 2, 4-5, 7, 11-12, 14-15 and 18-19 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 2, line 9 recites “the scattering pattern does not overlap the at least one lens”. Claim 1, from which this claim depends, recites in lines 5-6 “at least one lens or a reflective structure disposed between the light-emitting diode and the scattering pattern in a vertical direction”. To be between in a vertical direction means a vertical line can be drawn the LED and the scattering pattern that passes through the lens or reflective structure. This means that the scattering pattern would have to overlap with the lens in at least the vertical direction. This issue renders the claim indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the examiner will interpret the limitation as “the scattering pattern does not overlap the at least one lens along a horizontal direction”.
Note that dependent claims necessarily inherit any indefiniteness from the claims on which they depend.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 7, 10-11, 15-16, 18-19 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by LIU (US 20240188367).
Regarding claim 1, LIU discloses a light-emitting diode display apparatus, comprising:
a substrate (substrate layers including base substrate 11 and 20, see fig 3, para 72) ;
a light-emitting diode (the LED 23b in the left group 23a in fig 3, see fig 3, para 76) provided on the substrate;
a scattering pattern (the left light exiting group 70 including the part 71b which comprise scattering particles and is disposed at least indirectly on 23b, see fig 3, para 72) provided on the light-emitting diode, and
at least one lens (the lens 60 which overlaps 23b in fig 3 in a vertical direction, see fig 3, para 78) or a reflective structure disposed between the light-emitting diode and the scattering pattern in a vertical direction (a vertical line can be drawn from 23b to 70 that passes through 60, see fig 3),
wherein the scattering pattern is disposed such that a part of light generated from the light-emitting diode, which is not emitted toward a front surface of the light-emitting diode display apparatus, passes through the scattering pattern and does not overlap the light-emitting diode (there is light emitted from 23b in a non-vertical direction in figs 3 and 8, so not directly towards a front surface, which passes through 71b, and 71b does not overlap 23b along the vertical direction, see fig 3 and 8, para 131);.
Regarding claim 2, as best as the examiner is able to ascertain the claimed invention, LIU discloses the light-emitting diode display apparatus of claim 1, further comprising:
a planarization layer (fig 3, 42, para 148) disposed on the at least one lens (42 is on a bottom surface of 60, see fig 3),
wherein the at least one lens has a first refractive index (the lens 60 can have a refractive index of 1.52, see para 148 and table 1),
wherein the planarization layer has a second refractive index smaller than the first refractive index (42 can have a refractive index of 1.52, see para 148 and table 1), and
wherein the scattering pattern does not overlap the at least one lens (60 and 71b do not overlap along a horizontal direction, and portions of 60 do not overlap with 71 along the vertical direction, see fig 3).
Regarding claim 4, as best as the examiner is able to ascertain the claimed invention, LIU discloses the light-emitting diode display apparatus of claim 2, further comprising an organic layer disposed on the light-emitting diode (41 can be an organic layer and is disposed on 60, see fig 3),
wherein the scattering pattern is provided in a partial area of the organic layer that does not overlap the light-emitting diode (there is an area of 41 that does not overlap 23b in a vertical direction, and 71b is disposed to overlap vertically with that area, see fig 3).
Regarding claim 5, as best as the examiner is able to ascertain the claimed invention, LIU discloses the light-emitting diode display apparatus of claim 2, wherein the at least one lens is disposed to overlap the light-emitting diode (the lens 60 overlaps with 23b along a vertical direction, see fig 3).
Regarding claim 7, as best as the examiner is able to ascertain the claimed invention, LIU discloses the light-emitting diode display apparatus of claim 2, further comprising a bank formed on the substrate (PDL forms a bank on 20, see fig 3, para 72), having an opening area (PDL has openings in which 23 are disposed, see fig 3),
wherein light generated from the light-emitting diode is emitted through the opening area (23b is in PDL and so light emitted by 23b will go through the openings in PDL), and
wherein the at least one lens is disposed in the opening area (the lens 60 overlaps the opening in PDL, see fig 3).
Regarding claim 10, LIU discloses the light-emitting diode display apparatus of claim 1, wherein the light-emitting diode includes:
a first semiconductor layer (fig 5-6, 236, para 99);
an active layer disposed on the first semiconductor layer (fig 5-6, 233, para 99);
a second semiconductor layer disposed on the active layer (fig 5-6, 235, para 99);
a first electrode disposed on the second semiconductor layer (fig 5-6, 231, para 96); and
a second electrode disposed on the first semiconductor layer (fig 5-6, 237, para 99).
Regarding claim 11, as best as the examiner is able to ascertain the claimed invention, LIU discloses the light-emitting diode display apparatus of claim 2, wherein the at least one lens includes a plurality of lenses (there are a plurality of lenses 60, see fig 3).
Regarding claim 15, as best as the examiner is able to ascertain the claimed invention, LIU discloses the light-emitting diode display apparatus of claim 7, wherein a partial area of the scattering pattern overlaps the bank (at least part of 70 overlaps PDL, see fig 3).
Regarding claim 16, LIU discloses the light-emitting diode display apparatus of claim 10, further comprising:
a driving transistor disposed between the substrate and the light-emitting diode (transistor 21 is between 23 and substrate 11, see fig 5);
a first connection electrode disposed on the light-emitting diode, electrically connecting the driving transistor with the first electrode (214 is between 21 and 231, see fig 5, para 87); and
a second connection electrode disposed on the light-emitting diode and electrically connected to the second electrode (232 is on 237, see fig 5-6, 232, para 99).
Regarding claim 18, as best as the examiner is able to ascertain the claimed invention, LIU discloses the light-emitting diode display apparatus of claim 2, wherein a further planarization layer is disposed between the at least one lens and the light-emitting diode so as to provide a distance between the at least one lens and the light-emitting diode (31 is between 23b and 60, and spaces those layers apart, see fig 3, para 101).
Regarding claim 19, as best as the examiner is able to ascertain the claimed invention, LIU discloses the light-emitting diode display apparatus of claim 2, wherein the at least one lens has a convex shape to condense light generated from the light-emitting diode (60 has a convex-upwards shape, see fig 3).
Regarding claim 21, LIU discloses a light-emitting diode display apparatus, comprising:
a substrate (substrate layers including base substrate 11, 20, PDL and 23, see fig 3, para 72) in which a plurality of pixels (each light emitting device group 23a, see fig 2-3, para 76) are disposed;
first (the LED 23b in the left group 23a in fig 3, see fig 3, para 76) and second (the LED 23b in the right group 23a in fig 3, see fig 3, para 76) light-emitting diodes respectively disposed in two of the plurality of pixels on the substrate;
a bank disposed in an area, which does not overlap the first and second light-emitting diodes, on the substrate (the bank layer PDL which does not overlap with either 23b along a vertical direction, see fig 3);
a lens or a reflective structure (the lens structure 60 comprising lenses with overlap both groups 23a in fig 3) disposed to overlap each of the first and second light- emitting diodes; and
a scattering pattern disposed on the lens or the reflective structure (the light exiting groups 70 including the parts 71b which comprise scattering particles and are disposed at least indirectly on 60, see fig 3, para 72),
wherein the lens or the reflective structure is disposed between the first and second light- emitting diodes and the scattering pattern in a vertical direction (a vertical line can be drawn from 23B to 70 that passes through 60, see fig 3), and
wherein a partial area of the scattering pattern overlaps the bank (part of 70 overlaps PDL along a vertical direction, see fig 3).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 6, 8, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU (US 20240188367) in view of KWON (US 20180062674).
Regarding claim 3, LIU discloses the light-emitting diode display apparatus of claim 1.
LIU fails to explicitly disclose a device, further comprising:
a planarization layer disposed on the reflective structure,
wherein the reflective structure has a third refractive index,
wherein the planarization layer has a fourth refractive index equal to or greater than the third refractive index, and
wherein the scattering pattern does not overlap the reflective structure.
KWON teaches a device, further comprising:
a planarization layer (fig 7, 520, para 69) disposed on the reflective structure (reflector 510, see fig 7, para 68),
wherein the reflective structure has a third refractive index (510 can be Al, which can have a refractive index of 1.37, see fig 7, para 68),
wherein the planarization layer has a fourth refractive index equal to or greater than the third refractive index (520 can be PMMA which has a refractive index of 1.51, see para 69), and
wherein the scattering pattern does not overlap the reflective structure (510 and scattering layer 420 do not overlap along a vertical direction, see fig 7, para 65).
LIU and KWON are analogous art because they both are directed towards display devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the device of LIU with the reflective structure of KWON because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of LIU with the reflective structure of KWON in order to increase emission area (see KWON para 114).
Regarding claim 6, LIU discloses the light-emitting diode display apparatus of claim 1.
LIU fails to explicitly disclose a device, wherein the scattering pattern has one of a circular ring shape, an oval ring shape, and a rectangular ring shape.
KWON teaches a device, wherein the scattering pattern has one of a circular ring shape, an oval ring shape, and a rectangular ring shape (the concavity 430 and thus the scattering layer that rings it can be square, see fig 2A, para 61).
LIU and KWON are analogous art because they both are directed towards display devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the device of LIU with the reflective structure of KWON because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of LIU with the reflective structure of KWON in order to increase emission area (see KWON para 114).
Regarding claim 8, LIU discloses the light-emitting diode display apparatus of claim 3.
LIU fails to explicitly disclose a device, further comprising a bank formed on the substrate, having an opening area,
wherein light generated from the light-emitting diode is emitted through the opening area, and
wherein the reflective structure is disposed in the opening area.
KWON teaches a device, further comprising a bank (fig 7, 400, para 61) formed on the substrate, having an opening area (the openings in 400 which contain 380, see fig 7, para 61),
wherein light generated from the light-emitting diode is emitted through the opening area (light emitted by 380 is capable of travelling through the opening in 400, see fig 7), and
wherein the reflective structure is disposed in the opening area (510 is in the openings in 400, see fig 7).
LIU and KWON are analogous art because they both are directed towards display devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the device of LIU with the reflective structure of KWON because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of LIU with the reflective structure of KWON in order to increase emission area (see KWON para 114).
Regarding claim 12, as best as the examiner is able to ascertain the claimed invention, LIU discloses the light-emitting diode display apparatus of claim 2.
LIU fails to explicitly disclose a device, wherein:
the light-emitting diode includes an n-type semiconductor layer, an active layer and
a p- type semiconductor layer, and the at least one lens overlaps the light-emitting layer.
KWON teaches a device, wherein:
the light-emitting diode includes an n-type semiconductor layer (fig 7, 370, para 67), an active layer (fig 7, 350, para 67) and
a p- type semiconductor layer (fig 7, 330, para 67), and the at least one lens overlaps the light-emitting layer (800 overlaps 350, see fig 67).
LIU and KWON are analogous art because they both are directed towards display devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the device of LIU with the reflective structure of KWON because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of LIU with the reflective structure of KWON in order to increase emission area (see KWON para 114).
Regarding claim 13, LIU discloses the light-emitting diode display apparatus of claim 3.
LIU fails to explicitly disclose a device, wherein:
the light-emitting diode includes an n-type semiconductor layer, an active layer and a p- type semiconductor layer, and
the reflective structure overlaps the light-emitting diode.
KWON teaches a device, wherein:
the light-emitting diode includes an n-type semiconductor layer (fig 7, 370, para 67), an active layer (fig 7, 350, para 67) and a p- type semiconductor layer (fig 7, 330, para 67), and
the reflective structure overlaps the light-emitting diode (510 overlaps 350, see fig 7).
LIU and KWON are analogous art because they both are directed towards display devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the device of LIU with the reflective structure of KWON because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of LIU with the reflective structure of KWON in order to increase emission area (see KWON para 114).
Regarding claim 14, as best as the examiner is able to ascertain the claimed invention, LIU discloses the light-emitting diode display apparatus of claim 7.
LIU fails to explicitly disclose a device, wherein the bank includes a light absorbing material.
KWON teaches a device, wherein the bank includes a light absorbing material (410 can include a black matrix layer, which would absorb light, see fig 7, para 65).
LIU and KWON are analogous art because they both are directed towards display devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the device of LIU with the light absorbing material of KWON because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of LIU with the light absorbing material of KWON in order to increase emission area (see KWON para 114).
Claim(s) 9 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU (US 20240188367) in view of YOON (US 20220199957).
Regarding claim 9, LIU discloses the light-emitting diode display apparatus of claim 1, wherein:
the substrate further includes a plurality of pixel areas (there are a plurality of pixels with LED groups 23a, see fig 2-3, para 74),
the light-emitting diode includes at least one light-emitting diode disposed in the plurality of pixel areas (the LED 23b is disposed in a pixel area 23a, see fig 2-3).
LIU fails to explicitly disclose a device wherein each of the plurality of pixel areas includes a gate line and a data line.
YOON teaches a device wherein each of the plurality of pixel areas includes a gate line and a data line (each pixel P includes a gate line GL and a data line DL, see fig 3, para 118).
LIU and YOON are analogous art because they both are directed towards display devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the device of LIU with the conductive lines of YOON because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of LIU with the conductive lines of YOON in order to transmit the data (see YOON para 152).
Regarding claim 17, LIU discloses the light-emitting diode display apparatus of claim 10.
LIU fails to explicitly disclose a device, wherein:
the second electrode includes a first area and a second area spaced apart from each other in one direction,
the first electrode is disposed at the center of the light-emitting diode, and
the first electrode is disposed between the first area and the second area of the second electrode.
YOON teaches a device, wherein:
the second electrode (the bottom electrode 111 of the LED E, see fig 1, para 53) includes a first area (the left side of 111 on the sidewall of the bank 116, see fig 1, para 55) and a second area (the right side of 111 on the sidewall of the bank 116, see fig 1, para 55) spaced apart from each other in one direction (the left and right side of 111 are spaced apart in the horizontal direction, see fig 1),
the first electrode (the upper electrode 115, see fig 1, para 57) is disposed at the center of the light-emitting diode (115 overlaps with the center of 113 in E, see fig 1, para 57), and
the first electrode is disposed between the first area and the second area of the second electrode (a horizontal line can be drawn from the left part of 11 to the right part of 111 that passes through 115 in E, see fig 1).
LIU and YOON are analogous art because they both are directed towards display devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the device of LIU with the layer geometry of YOON because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of LIU with the layer geometry of YOON in order to transmit the data (see YOON para 152).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU (US 20240188367) in view of KWON (US 20170062674) and further in view of YUE (US 20220302229).
Regarding claim 20, LIU and KWON disclose the light-emitting diode display apparatus of claim 3.
LIU and KWON fail to explicitly disclose a device, wherein the reflective structure is a cylinder in which an area of a lower surface is larger than an area of an upper surface of the cylinder.
YUE teaches a device, wherein the reflective structure is a cylinder in which an area of a lower surface is larger than an area of an upper surface of the cylinder (the reflective portion RP can have a cylinder shape, and a bottom surface of RP is the outer surface of RP which will thus have a larger area than the inner surface of RP, see fig 8, para 90-91).
LIU, KWON and YUE are analogous art because they both are directed towards display devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the device of LIU and KWON with the reflector shape of YUE because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of LIU and KWON with the reflector shape of YUE in order to enhance the energy utilization of the display panel (see YUE para 85).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU (US 20240188367) in view of LEE (US 20200119113).
Regarding claim 22, LIU discloses the light-emitting diode display apparatus of claim 21.
LIU fails to explicitly disclose a device, wherein the first and second light-emitting diodes have their respective shapes different from each other.
LEE teaches a device, wherein the first and second light-emitting diodes have their respective shapes different from each other (the different LEDs are located in different holes in PDL which are differently sized, see fig 5, para 104).
LIU and LEE are analogous art because they both are directed towards display devices and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success to modify the device of LIU with the LED shapes of LEE because they are from the same field of endeavor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of LIU with the LED shapes of LEE in order to increase light amount (see LEE para 127).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONAS TYLER BEARDSLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3227. The examiner can normally be reached 930-600 M-F.
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, Lynne Gurley can be reached at 571-272-1670. 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.
/JONAS T BEARDSLEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2811
/SAMUEL A GEBREMARIAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2811
Prosecution Insights