DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 17/963,654, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
The prior application does not provide for a multi-motor propulsion engine for an aircraft, comprising: an enclosure having a longitudinal axis oriented in a direction of travel of the aircraft, the enclosure including a front nose section having an aerodynamic nose, a rear duct section having a reduced rear body duct section, a left side wall, and a right side wall; a plurality of ducts arranged along the longitudinal axis of the enclosure, wherein each of the ducts is aligned in the enclosure with a central axis at a forward angle relative to the longitudinal axis; a plurality of fans with each fan fixed in one of the plurality of ducts, wherein each fan is fixed in each duct at an angle in a range of 20o-70o from the longitudinal axis of the enclosure; and wherein each fan of the plurality of fans are configured to generate airflow along the respective central axis of each duct from a top intake of each duct to a bottom exhaust of each duct to provide lift and thrust to the aircraft.
Accordingly, the claim is not afforded the earlier effective filling date. The effective filling date of pending claim 1 is 01/26/2024.
This application makes reference to or appears to claim subject matter disclosed in Application No. 17/963,954, filed on 10/11/2022. If applicant desires to claim the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c) or 386(c), the instant application must contain, or be amended to contain, a specific reference to the prior-filed application in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78. If the application was filed before September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in the first sentence(s) of the specification following the title or in an application data sheet (ADS) in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76; if the application was filed on or after September 16, 2012, the specific reference must be included in an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76. For benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c), the reference must include the relationship (i.e., continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part) of the applications.
If the instant application is a utility or plant application filed under 35 U.S.C. 111(a), the specific reference must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the actual filing date of the application or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. If the application is a national stage application under 35 U.S.C. 371, the specific reference must be submitted during the pendency of the application and within the later of four months from the date on which the national stage commenced under 35 U.S.C. 371(b) or (f), four months from the date of the initial submission under 35 U.S.C. 371 to enter the national stage, or sixteen months from the filing date of the prior application. See 37 CFR 1.78(a)(4) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and 37 CFR 1.78(d)(3) for benefit claims under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c). This time period is not extendable and a failure to submit the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 119(e) and/or 120, where applicable, within this time period is considered a waiver of any benefit of such prior application(s) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 120, 121, 365(c), and 386(c). A benefit claim filed after the required time period may be accepted if it is accompanied by a grantable petition to accept an unintentionally delayed benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) (see 37 CFR 1.78(c)) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) (see 37 CFR 1.78(e)). The petition must be accompanied by (1) the reference required by 35 U.S.C. 120 or 119(e) and by 37 CFR 1.78 to the prior application (unless previously submitted), (2) the applicable petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) or (2), and (3) a statement that the entire delay between the date the benefit claim was due under 37 CFR 1.78 and the date the claim was filed was unintentional. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application. The Director may require additional information where there is a question whether the delay was unintentional. The petition should be addressed to: Mail Stop Petition, Commissioner for Patents, P.O. Box 1450, Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450.
If the reference to the prior application was previously submitted within the time period set forth in 37 CFR 1.78 but was not included in the location in the application required by the rule (e.g., if the reference was submitted in an oath or declaration or the application transmittal letter), and the information concerning the benefit claim was recognized by the Office as shown by its inclusion on the first filing receipt, the petition under 37 CFR 1.78 and the petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(m)(1) or (2) are not required. Applicant is still required to submit the reference in compliance with 37 CFR 1.78 by filing an ADS in compliance with 37 CFR 1.76 with the reference (or, if the application was filed before September 16, 2012, by filing either an amendment to the first sentence(s) of the specification or an ADS in compliance with pre-AIA 37 CFR 1.76). See MPEP § 211.02.
As a note, the ADS filed on 01/26/2024 references application 17/963,654 which is drawn to a display apparatus and control method thereof. The examiner suggests following the guidance set forth in MPEP 211.02(a)(III) for correcting or adding a benefit claim after filing.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “longitudinal axis”, the “left side wall, and a right side wall” as well as the “central axis” in claim 1 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
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.
5. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Johnson (US 10513333 B2).
6. Regarding Claim 1, Johnson discloses a multi-motor propulsion engine for an aircraft (Johnson Abstract, col. 4, ll. 21-34, 43-49; a multi-motor propulsion engine 2 comprising of fans 34 within respective ducts 22 within an enclosure 4, and each fan 24 having a respective electric motor as seen FIGS. 1-7), comprising:
a. an enclosure having a longitudinal axis oriented in a direction of travel of the aircraft (col. 4, ll. 23-24; enclosure 4 having a longitudinal axis 6 oriented in a direction of travel 8 of aircraft 50 as seen in FIGS. 1-2 and 7-8), the enclosure including a front nose section having an aerodynamic nose (col. 5, ll. 18-26; enclosure 4 being defined has being curved as well as straight which by definition allows for the enclosure including a lead portion of the enclosure to be aerodynamic as well as possessing a coefficient of drag, furthermore all segments of a flying body (i.e. aircraft, airplane and etc.) are by definition aerodynamic, see annotated FIGS. 1 and 5 below), a rear duct section having a reduced rear body duct section (a rear duct section such a rear 22 of enclosure 4 hang a tapered (i.e. reduced) rear body section as seen in annotated FIGS. 1 and 5 below), a left side wall, and a right side wall (col. 4, ll. 26-28; a left side wall 14 and a rear side wall 16 as seen in FIG. 2);
b. a plurality of ducts arranged along the longitudinal axis of the enclosure, wherein each of the ducts is aligned in the enclosure with a central axis at a forward angle relative to the longitudinal axis (col. 4, ll. 36-43; a plurality of ducts 22 arranged along the longitudinal axis 6 of enclosure 4, each duct 22 having a respective central axis 28 that is angled at an angle 30 relative to central axis 28 which is a forward angle relative to the longitudinal axis 6 as seen in FIGS, see col. 5, ll. 32-49 for a range of angles for angle 30);
c. a plurality of fans with each fan fixed in one of the plurality of ducts (col. 4, ll. 44-47; fans 34 fixed within respective ducts 22 of enclosure 4 as seen in FIGS. 2-5 and 7), wherein each fan is fixed in each duct at an angle in a range of 20O-70O from the longitudinal axis of the enclosure (col. 5, ll. 32-49; each fan 34 which is aligned with duct 22 central axis 28 having an angle 30 in a range of 0-90 degrees, a preferred range between 30-75 degrees and an optimum range of 30-45 degrees relative to the longitudinal axis 6 of enclosure 4 as seen in FIG. 2, as such each fan 34 is fixed in each duct 22 at angle 30, where angle 30 can be angle within an optimum range of 30-45 degrees which falls inside the range of 20-70 degrees, from the longitudinal axis 6 of enclosure 4 ); and
d. wherein each fan of the plurality of fans are configured to generate airflow along the respective central axis of each duct from a top intake of each duct to a bottom exhaust of each duct to provide lift and thrust to the aircraft (col. 4, ll. 44-47, 51-54, 59 - col. 4, ln. 3; enclosure 4 comprising of an intake such inlets 36 having a shape which induces greater inflow into the duct, and a bottom exhaust such as a outlets 38 which allows thrusted air to exist from within each duct 22, furthermore each fan 24 configured to generate airflow along respective central axis 28 for each 22 from a top inlet 36 on a top wall 10 of enclosure 4 to a bottom outlet 38 on a bottom wall 12 of enclosure 4 of each duct 22 in order to provide lift and thrust to aircraft 50 as seen in FIGS. 1-4 and 7-8).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
[AltContent: textbox (Reduced Rear Body Duct Section)][AltContent: textbox (Aerodynamic Nose)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image1.png
229
454
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG. 1
[AltContent: textbox (Reduced Rear Body Duct Section)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Aerodynamic Nose)]
PNG
media_image2.png
237
560
media_image2.png
Greyscale
FIG. 5
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
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.
8. Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Colville (US 3330502 A).
9. Regarding Claim 1, Colville discloses a multi-motor propulsion engine for an aircraft (Colville Abstract and col. 1, ll. 26-31, 66-70; a multi-motor propulsion engine such a pod 12 of aircraft 10 comprising of a plurality of turbo-fans engines 15 as seen in FIGS. 1 and 5-6), comprising:
a. an enclosure having a longitudinal axis oriented in a direction of travel of the aircraft (col. 1, ll. 69-70; an enclosure such as pod 12 having a longitudinal axis that is parallel to a longitudinal axis of aircraft 10, as such the longitudinal axis of pod 12 is in the same direction as a direction of travel of aircraft 50 (i.e. forward/horizontal flight) as seen in FIG. 1), the enclosure including a front nose section having an aerodynamic nose (a front nose section having an aerodynamic as seen in annotated FIG. 1 below, furthermore aircraft components disposed on the exterior of the aircraft, specifically on a leading portions of aircrafts are by definition aerodynamic), a rear duct section having a reduced rear body duct section (a rear duct section having a reduced rear body duct section as seen in annotated FIG. 1 below) a left side wall, and a right side wall (left and right side walls as seen in annotated FIG. 2 below);
b. a plurality of ducts arranged along the longitudinal axis of the enclosure (col 1, ll. 67-70 and col. 2, ll. 35-40 and col. 3, ll. 26-28; engines 15 disposed longitudinally within pod 12 such that each engine 15 is contained within a cylindrical portion of the pod 12 which extends between upper and lower surfaces of pod 12, each of such cylindrical sections which contains an engine 15 having a turbo-fan is by definition a duct as seen in FIGS. 5-6, see annotated FIG. 5-6 below for further clarity), wherein each of the ducts is aligned in the enclosure with a central axis at a forward angle relative to the longitudinal axis (col. 2, ll. 11-20; each engine 15 being disposed in each respective duct as seen in FIGS. 5-6, disclosed as having an angle of 15 degrees in a pitching plane (i.e. forward direction) relative to a yaw axis 16, the yaw axis being an indication of a yaw axis of aircraft 10 which is by definition perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of aircraft 10, as such with consideration of each duct of engine 15 comprising of the same angular arrangement as the engine 15 being contained within the duct, therefore each that is aligned in the pod 12 comprise of a central axis at a forward angle (i.e. longitudinal axis of engine 15 as seen in FIG. 3) relative to the longitudinal axis (i.e. pitching plane of aircraft 10));
c. a plurality of fans with each fan fixed in one of the plurality of ducts (col. 1, ll. 28-31; with consideration of each engine 15 incudes a turbo-fan that is adapted to product direct lift, each engine 15 includes a fan that is fixed in each of the ducts as seen in FIGS. 2 and 5-6), wherein each fan is fixed in each duct at an angle from the longitudinal axis of the enclosure (col. 2, ll. 11-20; each engine 15 that is disposed within a respective duct of pod 12 comprises of a respective fan that is angled 15 degrees in a pitching plane (i.e. longitudinal axis) relative to the yaw axis of aircraft 10, therefore each fan is angled at angle that is 75 degrees from the longitudinal axis of pod 12 considering the longitudinal arrangement of engines 15 within pod 12 and pod 12 which extends about the longitudinal axis of the aircraft 10 (i.e. traveling direction)); and
d. wherein each fan of the plurality of fans are configured to generate airflow along the respective central axis of each duct from a top intake of each duct to a bottom exhaust of each duct to provide lift and thrust to the aircraft (col. 1, ll. 28-31, col. 2, ll. 40-45 and col. 3, ll. 29-38; with consideration of each engine being a lift engine and including a turbo-fan which by definition provide thrust (i.e. generating airflow) as well as deflector 18 which serve to deflect air into the intakes of engines 15 when the aircraft is moving forward such that doors 13 open, each is configurated to generate airflow along the respective central axis of each duct from a top intake of each duct to a bottom exhaust which is facilitated by doors 14 on a bottom portion of pod 12 such that the exhaust gases exit from duct to provide lift and thrust to aircraft 50 as seen in FIGS. 1-2 and 5-6, see FIG. 4 for a direction of the thrust generated by each engine 15).
Colville is silent regarding wherein each fan is fixed in each at angle in a range of specifically 20o-70o from the longitudinal axis of the enclosure, however, Colville discloses the general conditions for choosing a fan angle with respect to the longitudinal axis of the enclosure as well as the aircraft (col. 1, ll. 42-49). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the claimed invention was filed to have the fan fixed at angle in a range of 20-70 degrees, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. In doing so, the propulsion engine is capable of providing a resultant horizontal thrust component to the aircraft that is conducive to performing forward flight in an efficient and optimal manner.
[AltContent: textbox (Aerodynamic Nose)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Reduced Rear Body Duct Section)]
PNG
media_image3.png
250
568
media_image3.png
Greyscale
FIG. 1
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Left Side Wall)][AltContent: textbox (Right Side Wall)][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image4.png
528
569
media_image4.png
Greyscale
FIG. 2
[AltContent: textbox (Duct)][AltContent: textbox (Duct)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image5.png
451
430
media_image5.png
Greyscale
/02
FIG. 5
[AltContent: textbox (Duct)]
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
PNG
media_image6.png
376
449
media_image6.png
Greyscale
FIG. 6
Double Patenting
10. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
11. Claim 1 of the pending application are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,866,164 as well as claims 1-2 and 5-7 of U.S. patent No. 11,932,385. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the pending application is encompassed by patented claims 1 and 4-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,866,164 as well as claims 1-2 and 5-7 of U.S. patent No. 11,932,385. While the limitations of the above-mentioned claims of the pending application are worded differently, the limitations of the above-mentioned patented claims anticipate the limitations of the pending claims.
.
Prior Art
The prior art made of record not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Morgan (US 2004/0245374 A1) discloses a multi-motor propulsion engine for an aircraft comprising a plurality of ducts, a plurality of ducts and wherein the fans are angled in a range of 5-15 degrees from the longitudinal axis of the enclosure.
Manns (US 3220669 A) and Colville et al. (US 3373566 A) each discloses a multi-motor engine propulsion engine for an aircraft comprising of a plurality of ducted engines arranged longitudinally inside an enclosure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this or any earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Arfan Sinaki, whose telephone number is 571-272-7185. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 10:00 am to 6:00 pm 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, Joshua J. Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. The fax number for the organization to which 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.
/ARFAN Y. SINAKI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3642
Prosecution Insights