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 .
Response to Amendments
As to Claims 1-20, Applicants’ amendment of independent Claims 1, 10 and 19 and dependent claim 6 with newly added feature “ in response to identifying the 2FA readiness status of the receiving device as not ready, display an alert on the display of the electronic device, the alert identifying the receiving device and indicating that the receiving device is not ready to receive 2FA information.“ [Claims 1-20] has necessitated a new ground(s) of rejection in this Office action. Therefore, Applicants’ arguments filed on 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection because the arguments do not apply to any of the updated reference(s) being used in the current rejection.
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 1-2, 10, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Manivannan, US 20250097225 A1 in view of Weiner, US 9781105 B2.
1. Manivannan discloses an electronic device (See Manivannan, abstract; a technique for multi-factor authenticating a user on a first device, the user having an associated second device configured with an authenticator application, and wherein the authenticator application is offline.) comprising: a display; (See Manivannan, [0027] End User Device (EUD), EUD 103 can display, or otherwise present, the recommendation to an end user.) a memory having stored thereon program instructions for a two-factor authentication readiness (2FAR) control module; (See Manivannan, [0005], [0020]; Typically, the multi-factor authentication involves a first authentication that occurs by the user entering login information (e.g., username and password) on a secure login page provided to the user in a browser (or the like) at the first device. A second factor of the multi-factor authentication is one that would normally be enabled using a push notification scheme on the second device, which is typically the user's mobile device, such as a smart phone or tablet. These computer readable program instructions are stored in various types of computer readable storage media, such as cache 121 and the other storage media discussed below. The program instructions, and associated data, are accessed by processor set 110 to control and direct performance of the inventive methods. In computing environment 100, at least some of the instructions for performing the inventive methods may be stored in block 200 in persistent storage 113.)
a network interface which enables the electronic device to connect to, and exchange data with, at least one second electronic device; (See Manivannan; [0045] With the above as background, the techniques of this disclosure are now described. FIG. 4 depicts a representative operating scenario, which involves authenticating a user 400 on a first device 402, the user 400 having an associated second device 404 configured with an authenticator application 406, and wherein network access to the authenticator application cannot be assured (e.g., because of a non-existent or poor Internet connection 408, because the authenticator application is not active for some reason, or the like). For convenience, this operating scenario is sometimes referred to herein as an “offline” mode. A representative first device 402 is a network-accessible computing system that provides the user access to a protected resource upon the user's successful authentication, e.g., via a multi-factor authentication (MFA) scheme 410. A computing system of this type is depicted in FIG. 1. Typically, the multi-factor authentication 410 involves a first authentication that occurs by the user entering login information (e.g., username and password) on a secure login page provided to the user in a browser (or the like) at the first device. A second factor of the multi-factor authentication is one that would normally be enabled using a push notification protocol on the second device 404, which is typically the user's mobile device, such as a smart phone or tablet. Representative push notification protocols include, without limitation, Apple® Push Notification Service (APNs), Google® Cloud Messaging (GCM), and many others, and these protocols may be implemented as the push notification service depicted in FIGS. 2 and 3, and as described in the associated text.)
and a processor communicatively coupled to the display, the memory, and the network interface, (See Manivannan; [0027]; computer 101 is designed to provide a recommendation to an end user, this recommendation would typically be communicated from network module 115 of computer 101 through WAN 102 to EUD 103. In this way, EUD 103 can display, or otherwise present, the recommendation to an end user. Computer 101 has a processor connected to a memory) and which is configured to cause the electronic device to: detect a potential two-factor authentication (2FA) condition; (See Manivannan; [0006]; In particular, and responsive to receipt of a request to access a protected resource, a push notification is sent or caused to be sent to the authenticator application of the second device. While the push notification remains pending (i.e., presumably sent but as yet un-acknowledged), a delivery status of the push notification is requested.) detect a 2FA readiness status of a receiving device to receive 2FA information; (See Manivannan; [0006] In particular, and responsive to receipt of a request to access a protected resource, a push notification is sent or caused to be sent to the authenticator application of the second device. While the push notification remains pending (i.e., presumably sent but as yet un-acknowledged), a delivery status of the push notification is requested. Upon determining based on the delivery status that the push notification has been successfully delivered to the authenticator application (i.e., that the authenticator application is not offline), the method continues by initiating a timeout from a timer. The timeout represents a time period during which the push notification must be acknowledged to enable the user to be authenticated. If before the timeout expires the system thereafter receives an indication that the push notification has been successfully acknowledged, the authentication completes and the user is permitted access to the protected resource. If, however, upon determining based on the delivery status that the push notification has not been successfully delivered to the authenticator application (i.e., the authenticator application is offline), an alert is provided to the user. Preferably, this alert is provided in a user interface of the first device and indicates the delivery status of the push notification (i.e., that the push notification delivery has not succeeded).) and in response to identifying the 2FA readiness status of the receiving device as not ready, display an alert on the display of the electronic device, (See Manivannan; [0006]; upon determining based on the delivery status that the push notification has not been successfully delivered to the authenticator application (i.e., the authenticator application is offline), an alert is provided to the user. Preferably, this alert is provided in a user interface of the first device and indicates the delivery status of the push notification (i.e., that the push notification delivery has not succeeded). The alert also includes or has associated therewith an instruction to the user to attempt an authentication through an alternative communication channel. In the latter case (when the push notification channel has failed), the user is permitted to access the protected resource only upon completing the authentication through the alternative communication channel.) [[the alert identifying the receiving device]] and indicating that the receiving device is not ready to receive 2FA information. (See Manivannan; [0006]; upon determining based on the delivery status that the push notification has not been successfully delivered to the authenticator application (i.e., the authenticator application is offline), an alert is provided to the user. Preferably, this alert is provided in a user interface of the first device and indicates the delivery status of the push notification (i.e., that the push notification delivery has not succeeded).)
Manivannan does not appear to explicitly disclose the alert identifying the receiving device;
However, Weiner discloses the alert identifying the receiving device; (See Weiner, col 11, lines 50 col 12, lines 65; a fallback process can be executed by AS 105 directed for investigating the reasons for failing to receive a response from mobile device 107 and determining an appropriate course of action according to the result of the investigation. At this point it is desired to determine whether the user is capable of rectifying any existing problem and making the mobile device available for responding to the notification as well as the challenge.
(51) Examples of reasons for failing to receive a response to the notification from the client include: the mobile device is at the user's disposal but it is turned off or is currently on flight mode blocking all types of communication; although user mobile device 107 is operating properly, it failed to receive the message sent by AS 105 or AS 105 failed to receive the response sent by mobile device 107 (e.g. due to some communication failure between user mobile device 107 and AS server 105, or to some operational failure of the authentication application installed on the user mobile device). In some cases, the user can fix these problems and make the mobile device available for participating in the authentication process. AS 105 can be configured to identify that the authentication application is not installed on the mobile device or to identify operational failure of the authentication application installed on mobile device 107. In such cases AS 105 can be configured to send to device 101 information describing the estimated problem and possible solutions for the problem.)
Manivannan and Weiner are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor which is Multi Factor Authentication. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Manivannan with the teaching of Weiner to include the alert because it would have allowed the user to know the reason authentication cannot be completed.
2. The combination of Manivannan and Weiner discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein to detect the 2FA readiness status, the processor is configured the electronic device to:
identify, as the receiving device, a second electronic device that is an authenticator device for the potential 2FA condition; (See Manivannan; [0006])
connect to the second electronic device via a local network; (See Manivannan; [0045])
and query the second electronic device to determine a status of a communication channel associated with the potential 2FA condition. (See Manivannan; [0006]))
Manivannan and Weiner are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor which is Multi Factor Authentication. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Manivannan with the teaching of Weiner to include the alert because it would have allowed the user to know the reason authentication cannot be completed.
10. As to claim 10, the claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1. See the rejection of claim 1 above.
11. As to claim 11, the claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 2. See the rejection of claim 2 above.
19. As to claim 19, the claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 1. See the rejection of claim 1 above.
Claims 3-5, 7, 12, 13-14 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Manivannan, US 20250097225 A1 in view of Weiner, US 9781105 B2 in further view of Slade, US pat. No 20150120572.
3. The combination of Manivannan and Weiner does not appear to explicitly disclose the electronic device of claim 2, wherein further, the processor is configured to cause the electronic device to: in response to determining that a network interface required for receiving the 2FA information is not enabled, enable the network interface on the second electronic device to allow receipt of the 2FA information.
However, Slade discloses in response to determining that a network interface required for receiving the 2FA information is not enabled, enable the network interface on the second electronic device to allow receipt of the 2FA information. (See Slade, [0019]; a software application enabled on non-transitory computer readable media to perform instructions on a computer (typically a web server portal networked to back-office support servers).) Manivannan, Weiner and Slade are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor which is Multi Factor Authentication. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Manivannan and WEINER with the teaching of Slade to include the alert because it would have allowed the user to know the reason authentication cannot be completed.
4. The combination of Manivannan, Weiner and Slade discloses the electronic device of claim 3, wherein to enable the network interface on the second electronic device, the processor is configured to cause the electronic device to: determine that the communication channel associated with the potential 2FA condition is a cellular network; (See Slade, [0044]) and send a command to the second electronic device to enable a cellular network interface on the second electronic device. (See Slade, [0054]) Manivannan, Weiner and Slade are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor which is Multi Factor Authentication. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Manivannan and WEINER with the teaching of Slade to include the alert because it would have allowed the user to know the reason authentication cannot be completed.
5. The combination of Manivannan, Weiner and Slade discloses the electronic device of claim 3, wherein further, the processor is configured to cause the electronic device to: monitor the second electronic device for receipt of a one-time passcode (OTP) on the second electronic device; (See Slade, [0047]; code received) retrieves the OTP from the second electronic device, the OTP being identified as the 2FA information received by the second electronic device to complete the 2FA condition; (See Slade, [0046-0047]; Transactions such as financial data, banking or mobile check deposits require a server component and in addition to the device determining if it's location is permitted or not, the server API also limits web API requests to the geographically derived IP address of the requesting device. To do this, the IP address of the device is received by the server and compared with a Geo-Location database to determine the general geographic area. A configurable wider radius is used on the server side as mobile devices move from tower to tower thereby causing their IP addresses to change. [0047] If it is determined that the IP address originated outside of the allowed geographic area then the device is not serviced with the correct API request, instead returning a code to the app which is recognized as instructing the app to display that the feature has been disabled for their protection) and displays the OTP on the display of the electronic device. (See Slade, [0046-0047]; Transactions such as financial data, banking or mobile check deposits require a server component and in addition to the device determining if it's location is permitted or not, the server API also limits web API requests to the geographically derived IP address of the requesting device. To do this, the IP address of the device is received by the server and compared with a Geo-Location database to determine the general geographic area. A configurable wider radius is used on the server side as mobile devices move from tower to tower thereby causing their IP addresses to change. [0047] If it is determined that the IP address originated outside of the allowed geographic area then the device is not serviced with the correct API request, instead returning a code to the app which is recognized as instructing the app to display that the feature has been disabled for their protection) Manivannan, Weiner and Slade are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor which is Multi Factor Authentication. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Manivannan and WEINER with the teaching of Slade to include the alert because it would have allowed the user to know the reason authentication cannot be completed.
7. The combination of Manivannan, Weiner and Slade discloses the electronic device of claim 6, wherein the user profile further comprises an identification of the receiving device, and the processor is configured to cause the electronic device to: identify a communication channel associated with the receiving device and a 2FA method; (See Slade, [0046-0047]) and include in the alert, a message to check the status of at least the identified communication channel. (See Slade, [0024]; a fraud alert module communicatively coupled to the rules server. Responsive to a geographically identified fraud attempt, a blocked geographic zone is automatically generated centered on the location of the fraud attempt. A predetermined wait constant is accessed by the fraud alert module wherein the blocked geographic zone is disabled after a duration of time defined by the wait constant has expired after the fraud attempt was first identified) Manivannan, Weiner and Slade are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor which is Multi Factor Authentication. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Manivannan and WEINER with the teaching of Slade to include the alert because it would have allowed the user to know the reason authentication cannot be completed.
12. As to claim 12, the claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 3. See the rejection of claim 3 above.
13. As to claim 13, the claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 4. See the rejection of claim 4 above.
14. As to claim 14, the claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 5. See the rejection of claim 5 above.
15. As to claim 15, the claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 6. See the rejection of claim 6 above.
16. The combination of Manivannan, Weiner and Slade discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising: obtaining an identification of the receiving device from the user profile; (See Slade, [0022]) identifying a communication channel associated with the receiving device and the 2FA method; (See Slade, [0046-0047]) and including in the alert, a message to check the status of at least the identified communication channel. (See Slade, [0024]; a fraud alert module communicatively coupled to the rules server. Responsive to a geographically identified fraud attempt, a blocked geographic zone is automatically generated centered on the location of the fraud attempt. A predetermined wait constant is accessed by the fraud alert module wherein the blocked geographic zone is disabled after a duration of time defined by the wait constant has expired after the fraud attempt was first identified) Manivannan, Weiner and Slade are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor which is Multi Factor Authentication. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Manivannan and WEINER with the teaching of Slade to include the alert because it would have allowed the user to know the reason authentication cannot be completed.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Manivannan, US 20250097225 A1 in view of Weiner, US 9781105 B2 in further view of Slade, US pat. No 20150120572 in further view of Buller, US pat. No 20240311452.
6. The combination of Manivannan, Weiner and Slade discloses the electronic device of claim 1, further comprising an artificial intelligence (AI) engine, and to detect a potential 2FA condition, the processor is configured to cause the electronic device to: identify, using the AI engine, a currently presented webpage on the display of the electronic device as potentially requiring 2FA, the AI engine being embedded in the processor of the electronic device; (See Slade, [0046]; Transactions such as financial data, banking or mobile check deposits require a server component and in addition to the device determining if it's location is permitted or not, the server API also limits web API requests to the geographically derived IP address of the requesting device. To do this, the IP address of the device is received by the server and compared with a Geo-Location database to determine the general geographic) and retrieve, from the database, a user profile corresponding to the currently presented webpage, wherein the user profile contains a 2FA configuration. (See Slade, [0019], through this portal, a banking representative configures a mobile device application having a mobile deposit function to electronically capture images of a paper check and submit them for electronic deposit to a bank account. The bank representative does not need to have programming experience to manage the configuration settings.)
The combination of Manivannan, Weiner and Slade does not appear to explicitly disclose the Artificial intelligence. However, Buller discloses the Artificial intelligence. (See Buller, [0028]. According to your specification, AI is embedded into a processor)
Manivannan, Weiner and Slade and Buller are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor which is access control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Manivannan, Weiner and Slade with the teaching of Buller to include the AI because it would have allowed faster processing of information.
Claims 8-9, 17-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Manivannan, US 20250097225 A1 in view of Weiner, US 9781105 B2 in further view of Slade, US pat. No 20150120572 A1 in further view of VALKAITIS, US pat. No 20230139110 in further view of Nielsen, US pat. No 6021435.
8. The combination of Manivannan, Weiner and Slade discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein to detect a potential 2FA condition, the processor is configured to cause the electronic device to: identify the receiving device associated with the at least one 2FA method; (See Slade, [0046-0047]; Transactions such as financial data, banking or mobile check deposits require a server component and in addition to the device determining if it's location is permitted or not, the server API also limits web API requests to the geographically derived IP address of the requesting device. To do this, the IP address of the device is received by the server and compared with a Geo-Location database to determine the general geographic area. A configurable wider radius is used on the server side as mobile devices move from tower to tower thereby causing their IP addresses to change. [0047] If it is determined that the IP address originated outside of the allowed geographic area then the device is not serviced with the correct API request, instead returning a code to the app which is recognized as instructing the app to display that the feature has been disabled for their protection) includes in the alert, a message to check the status of the identified receiving device and the identified VPN; (See Slade, [0046-0047] and [0050]; we can detect if the device has been jail-broken in the case of iOS or rooted in the case of Android. If this is detected then the application hides specific features, and notifies the user that the feature has been disabled for their protection. See also [0050])
The combination of Manivannan, Weiner and Slade does not appear to explicitly disclose identify one or more available virtual private network (VPN) applications on the electronic device; identify at least one 2FA method associated with establishing a VPN utilizing at least one of the one or more available VPN applications; and initiate an activation of the identified VPN.
However, VALKAITIS discloses identify one or more available virtual private network (VPN) applications on the electronic device; (See VALKAITIS, [0008] VPNs may employ user authentication, which may involve verification of credentials required to confirm authenticity/identity of the user. For instance, when a user launches the VPN application to request a VPN connection, the VPN service provider may authenticate the user device prior to providing the user device with access to VPN services.)
identify at least one 2FA method associated with establishing a VPN utilizing at least one of the one or more available VPN applications; (See VALKAITIS, [0008]; To provide improved security in the VPN, user authentication may include additional factors such as knowledge, possession, inheritance, or the like. Knowledge factors may include items (e.g., pin numbers) that an authentic user may be expected to know. Possession factors may include items (e.g., a token provider to provide one-time password (OTP) tokens) that an authentic user may be expected to possess at a time associated with the authentication. Inherent factors may include biometric items (e.g., fingerprint scans, retina scans, iris scans, or the like) that may be inherent traits of an authentic user.)
and initiate an activation of the identified VPN. (See VALKAITIS, [0008] VPNs may employ user authentication, which may involve verification of credentials required to confirm authenticity/identity of the user. For instance, when a user launches the VPN application to request a VPN connection, the VPN service provider may authenticate the user device prior to providing the user device with access to VPN services.)
Manivannan, Weiner and Slade and VALKAITIS are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor which is access control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Manivannan, Weiner and Slade with the teaching of VALKAITIS to include the VPN because it would have allowed to improve security.
The combination of Manivannan, Weiner and Slade and VALKAITIS does not appear to explicitly disclose determine that a secure URL is currently unreachable by the electronic device. However, Nielsen discloses determine that a secure URL is currently unreachable by the electronic device; (See Nielsen, fig 3; unreachable link)
Manivannan, Weiner, Slade and VALKAITIS and Nielsen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor which is access control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Manivannan, Weiner, Slade and VALKAITIS with the teaching of Nielsen to include the web address because it would have allowed to determine where resource are located.
9. The combination of Manivannan, Weiner, Slade, VALKAITIS and Nielsen discloses the electronic device of claim 1, wherein to display an alert on the display of the electronic device, the processor is configured to cause the electronic device to: determine that one or more of the receiving device and an application on the receiving device supporting the communication of the 2FA information is unavailable; (See Slade, [0046-0047] and [0050]); we can detect if the device has been jail-broken in the case of iOS or rooted in the case of Android. If this is detected then the application hides specific features, and notifies the user that the feature has been disabled for their protection) and indicate, within the alert that is displayed on the display, that a corresponding one or both of the second electronic device and the application is currently unavailable. (See Slade, [0046-0047]; Transactions such as financial data, banking or mobile check deposits require a server component and in addition to the device determining if it's location is permitted or not, the server API also limits web API requests to the geographically derived IP address of the requesting device. To do this, the IP address of the device is received by the server and compared with a Geo-Location database to determine the general geographic area. A configurable wider radius is used on the server side as mobile devices move from tower to tower thereby causing their IP addresses to change. [0047] If it is determined that the IP address originated outside of the allowed geographic area then the device is not serviced with the correct API request, instead returning a code to the app which is recognized as instructing the app to display that the feature has been disabled for their protection) Manivannan, Weiner, Slade and VALKAITIS and Nielsen are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor which is access control. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Manivannan, Weiner, Slade and VALKAITIS with the teaching of Nielsen to include the web address because it would have allowed to determine where resource are located.
17. As to claim 17, the claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8. See the rejection of claim 8 above.
18. As to claim 18, the claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 9. See the rejection of claim 9 above.
20. As to claim 20, the claim is rejected under the same rationale as claim 8. See the rejection of claim 8 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hanley, Michael, US9801066, title “ Method for automatic possession-factor authentication.”
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 JOSNEL JEUDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00-8:00.
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, Arani T Taghi can be reached on (571)272-3787. 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.
Date: 7/25/2026 /JOSNEL JEUDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights