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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 05/07/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendments
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, 11-15, and 17-20 are amended.
Claims 6 and 10 are cancelled.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, and 11-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 8 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 8, the phrase “generate a received radar data” should be “generate received radar data”
In Claim 8, the phrase “omitted in the selected received radar data” should be “omitted from the selected received radar data”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/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.
Regarding Claim 8, the claim recites a processing unit configured to “select received radar data or data derived from the received radar data” which results in “selected received radar data” or “selected data derived from the received radar data.” Then, the claim recites conveying the “selected received radar data” to a second radar unit, but does not recite conveying the “selected data derived from the received radar data” to the second radar unit. Similarly, the processing unit provides a selection code that specifies which received radar data or derived data has been omitted from the selected received data, but the claim does not recite any data being omitted from the derived data. Therefore, it is unclear if the “selected data derived from the received radar data” is conveyed or how it relates to the selection code.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roger (US 2019/0041494) in view of Jansen ‘941 (US 2020/0072941).
Regarding Claim 1, Roger teaches:
A first radar unit comprising:
a plurality of receiving antenna ports configured to receive radar signals via a plurality of receiving antennas, the received radar signals including a plurality of chirps ([0033]: “sequence of sixteen up-chirps”; [0041]: “one or more antennas (receive channels)”);
a plurality of mixers each having a receive input, a local oscillator input, and an output, wherein the receive inputs of the plurality of mixers are coupled to the plurality of receiving antenna ports, respectively, and the local oscillator inputs of the plurality of mixers are coupled to a local oscillator terminal ([0028]: “mixers for the down conversion of RF signals (e.g. the received signal yRF(t), see FIG. 1)”; local oscillator”; Fig. 4);
a plurality of amplifier and filter units each having an input and an output, the inputs of the plurality of amplifier and filter units coupled to the outputs of the plurality of mixers, respectively ([0028]: “amplifiers”; [0029]: “filtering and amplification”; [0031]: “one or more filters”; Fig. 4); and
a processor coupled to the plurality of amplifier and filter units ([0029]: “digital signal processor 40”; “system controller 50”) and configured to:
select received radar data for further processing ([0045]: “Once the FFT peaks are detected/selected in a radar sensor”; [0048]: “all values except the detected peaks and a specific number of neighboring values (frequency bins) are discarded”), and
convey data corresponding to the selected received radar data to a second radar unit, wherein the conveyed data omits data not selected by the processor ([0048]: “In order to achieve a reduction/compression of data, all values except the detected peaks and a specific number of neighboring values (frequency bins) are discarded for the purpose of data transmission to the central radar post processing unit 8”; [0050]: “the values between the detected main lobes of the peaks may implicitly be set to zero by simply not transmitting these values to the central radar post processing unit 8”).
Roger does not explicitly teach:
select chirps from the plurality of chirps for further processing; or
convey data corresponding to the selected chirps to a second radar unit, wherein the conveyed data omits data corresponding to chirps not selected by the processor.
However, Jansen ‘941 is in the field of FMCW radar (Jansen ‘941 [Abstract]) and teaches:
selecting chirps from the plurality of chirps for further processing (Jansen ‘941 [0076]: “indicates if the chirp has been identified as including interference, i.e. FLAG=1, or not, i.e. FLAG=0”; [0086]: “received chirps with severe interference may simply not be processed.”), wherein data corresponding to chirps not selected is omitted from further processing (Jansen ‘941 [0080]: “If the intensity value is severe then the data for the effected chirps may not be analyzed”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roger and use Jansen ‘941’s chirp interference detection to select which received chirps are further processed and conveyed to the second radar unit, such that data corresponding to interfered chirps is omitted from the conveyed data, with a reasonable expectation of success. Applying Jansen ‘941’s known chirp selection technique to Roger’s radar data compression system yields the predictable result of avoiding further processing of interfered chirps, thereby improving interference mitigation (Jansen ‘941 [0008]).
Regarding Claim 2, Roger teaches: wherein the first radar unit is a radar sensor electronic control unit ([0006]: “radar sensor”; [0041]: “radar ECU (electronic control unit)”; Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 3, Roger teaches: wherein the second radar unit is a central electronic control unit ([0006]: “central radar signal processing unit”; [0041]: “radar ECU (electronic control unit)”; Fig. 9).
Regarding Claim 4, Roger does not explicitly teach – but Jansen ‘941 teaches: wherein the chirps are selected based on at least one of the following: a random basis, a pseudo-random basis, a deterministic selection scheme (Jansen ‘941 [0075]: “the current chirp is compared with a threshold power value”).
Because the deterministic threshold is an element of Jansen ‘941’s chirp selection technique, the rationale to modify Roger with the teachings of Jansen ‘941 persists from Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 5, Roger does not explicitly teach – but Jansen ‘941 teaches: wherein information regarding the selected chirps is conveyed to the second radar unit (Jansen ‘941 [0045]: “The radar sensor module 106 is connected to other higher level parts 108 of the overall radar system 100”; [0086]: “This information is then passed to MCU at 336”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roger and convey information regarding the selected chirps to the second radar unit, as taught by Jansen ‘941, with a reasonable expectation of success. Conveying information regarding the selected chirps is beneficial for allowing the second radar unit to correctly identify selected or omitted chirps.
Regarding Claim 7, Roger does not explicitly teach – but Jansen ‘941 teaches: wherein the selected chirps comprise output data of an interference detection (Jansen ‘941 [0009]: “detecting interference”; [0075]: “interfered chirp”).
Because selecting chirps based on interference detection is an element of Jansen ‘941’s chirp selection technique, the rationale to modify Roger with the teachings of Jansen ‘941 persists from Claim 1.
Claim(s) 8-9, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roger in view of Roger (US 2019/0041494) in view of Jansen ‘297 (US 2018/0143297).
Regarding Claim 8, Roger teaches:
A device, comprising:
a plurality of receiving branches ([0041]: “one or more antennas (receive channels)”), each receiving branch comprising
a receiving antenna port configured to receive radar signals via a receiving antenna ([0041]: “one or more antennas (receive channels)”);
a mixer coupled to the receiving antenna port ([0031]: “The received signal yRF(t), which is provided by the RX antenna 6, is provided to a mixer 104.”);
an amplifier and filter unit coupled to the mixer ([0031]: “The base band signal yBB(t) is further processed by the analog base band signal processing chain 20 … which basically includes one or more filters … as well as one or more amplifiers such as amplifier 22.”); and
an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) coupled to the amplifier and filter unit configured to generate a received radar data based on a radar signal received through the antenna port of the receiving branch ([0031]: “The analog output signal, which may be supplied to an analog-to-digital converter (cf. FIG. 3) is denoted as y(t).”); and
a processing unit coupled to the plurality of receiving branches ([0029]: “digital signal processor 40”; “system controller 50”), the processing unit configured to:
select received radar data or data derived from the received radar data for further processing, wherein the selected received radar data or the selected data derived from the received radar data comprises a proper subset of the received radar data or the data derived from the received radar data processor ([0045]: “Once the FFT peaks are detected/selected in a radar sensor”; [0048]: “all values except the detected peaks and a specific number of neighboring values (frequency bins) are discarded”);
convey the selected received radar data to a second radar unit ([0048]: “In order to achieve a reduction/compression of data, all values except the detected peaks and a specific number of neighboring values (frequency bins) are discarded for the purpose of data transmission to the central radar post processing unit 8”; [0050]: “the values between the detected main lobes of the peaks may implicitly be set to zero by simply not transmitting these values to the central radar post processing unit 8”).
Roger does not explicitly teach:
provide a selection code to the second radar unit, the selection code specifying which received radar data or data derived from the received radar data have been omitted in the selected received radar data conveyed to the second radar unit.
However, Jansen ‘297 is in the field of radar (Jansen ‘297 [Abstract]) and teaches:
selecting a proper subset of data derived from received radar data (Jansen ‘297 [0025]: “A filter may then identify samples forming the measurement matrix having a signal to noise ratio higher than a threshold value.” [0026]: “select only samples which have a signal to noise ratio that is sufficiently high for reliable further processing”);
conveying the selected data to a processing unit (Jansen ‘297 [0025]: “The identified samples and their location in the measurement matrix may be provided to a host processor”; [0051]: “The interface 204 may be configured to transfer the samples at the identified indices in the measurement matrix to a host processor 102.”); and
providing a selection code to the processing unit, the selection code specifying which data have been omitted in the selected data conveyed to the processing unit (Jansen ‘297 [0025]: “The identified samples and their location in the measurement matrix may be provided to a host processor via an interface”; [0051]: “The information may further correspond to index information or information derived from the location of the sample within the measurement matrix”; Examiner note: because the dimensions of the matrix are known, specifying the indices of selected data also indicated which data are omitted.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roger and provide the radar processing unit with a selection code indicating which data is selected or omitted, as taught by Jansen ‘297, with a reasonable expectation of success. Applying Jansen ‘297’s known index/selection code technique to Roger’s FFT data yields the predictable result of enabling the radar processing unit to correctly identify which data is selected and which data is omitted.
Regarding Claim 9, Roger teaches: wherein said device is a first radar unit ([0006]: “radar sensor”).
Regarding Claim 18, Roger teaches: wherein the processing unit is configured to perform FFT processing on the received radar data ([0038]: “Fast Fourier Transform (FFT)”); and
select the selected received radar data from data resulting from the FFT processing ([0048]: “all values except the detected peaks and a specific number of neighboring values (frequency bins) are discarded”).
Regarding Claim 20, Roger teaches: wherein the selected received radar data or data derived from the received radar data is selected based on at least one of the following:
a random basis, a pseudo-random basis, a deterministic selection scheme ([0045]: “thresholding technique”; [0048]: “all values except the detected peaks and a specific number of neighboring values (frequency bins) are discarded”).
Claim(s) 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roger (US 2019/0041494) and Jansen ‘297 (US 2018/0143297), as applied to Claim 8 above, and further in view of Jansen ‘941 (US 2020/0072941).
Regarding Claim 17, Roger does not explicitly teach: wherein the processing unit is configured to select the received radar data corresponding to a selected subset of chirps in the received radar signals.
However, Jansen ‘941 is in the field of FMCW radar (Jansen ‘941 [Abstract]) and teaches: selecting received radar data corresponding to a selected subset of received chirps (Jansen ‘941 [0076]: “indicates if the chirp has been identified as including interference, i.e. FLAG=1, or not, i.e. FLAG=0”; [0086]: “received chirps with severe interference may simply not be processed.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roger and select a subset of received chirps, as taught by Jansen ‘941, with a reasonable expectation of success. Applying Jansen ‘941’s known chirp selection technique to Roger’s radar data compression system yields the predictable result of avoiding further processing of interfered chirps, thereby improving interference mitigation (Jansen ‘941 [0008]).
Regarding Claim 19, Roger teaches: providing data resulting from the FFT processing to the second radar unit ([0048]: “all values except the detected peaks and a specific number of neighboring values (frequency bins) are discarded for the purpose of data transmission to the central radar post processing unit 8”).
Roger does not explicitly teach: wherein the processing unit is configured to perform FFT processing on the selected received radar data (i.e., selecting data before FFT processing).
However, Jansen ‘941 teaches: selecting received radar chirps before performing FFT processing (Jansen ‘941 [0062]: “the interference detection technique is applied prior to the first Fourier Transform”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roger and select received radar chirps before performing FFT processing, as taught by Jansen ‘941, with a reasonable expectation of success. Selecting chirps before performing FFT processing is beneficial for of avoiding further processing of interfered chirps, thereby improving interference mitigation (Jansen ‘941 [0008]).
Claim(s) 11 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roger (US 2019/0041494) in view of Zivkovic (US 2017/0248686).
Regarding Claim 11, Roger teaches:
A device for processing radar signals, comprising:
a plurality of receiving branches ([0041]: “one or more antennas (receive channels)”), each receiving branch comprising:
a receiving antenna port ([0041]: “one or more antennas (receive channels)”),
a mixer coupled to the receiving antenna port ([0031]: “The received signal yRF(t), which is provided by the RX antenna 6, is provided to a mixer 104.”),
an amplifier and filter unit coupled to the mixer ([0031]: “The base band signal yBB(t) is further processed by the analog base band signal processing chain 20 … which basically includes one or more filters … as well as one or more amplifiers such as amplifier 22.”); and
…
provide … received radar signals … to a second radar unit for FFT processing on the selected received radar signals ([0058]: “the raw data provided by ADC 30, which may be included in the MMIC 100 used in the radar ECU 1, is transferred to the central radar processing unit 8 without further data compression, the data received by the central radar processing unit 8 may be processed directly by the CPU 72, wherein, in this case, the processing includes performing the computation of the radar data cubes (i.e. FFT computation for generating the Range-Doppler Maps)”).
Roger does not explicitly teach:
a selection block coupled to the plurality of receiving branches, the selection block configured to select one of the plurality of receiving branches; or
that the received radar signals provided to the second radar unit are selected received radar signals received by the selected receiving branch.
However, Zivkovic is in the field of radar (Zivkovic [Abstract]) and teaches:
a plurality of receiving branches (Zivkovic [0046]: “Receiver antennas 204 a to 204h may be connected to respective RF receiver chains 202 a to 202 h.”);
a selection block coupled to the plurality of receiving branches (Zivkovic [0046]: “The output of each receiver chain may be connected to a switch module 208.”);
the selection block configured to:
select one of the plurality of receiving branches and provide the signal from the selected receiving branch for further processing (Zivkovic [0047]: “the controller 208 may control the switch module 208 to connect one of the receivers 202 a-h to the analog-to-digital convertor 210”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roger and couple the receiving branches to a selection block, select one of the receiving branches, and provide the signal from the selected receiving branch for further processing, as taught by Zivkovic, with a reasonable expectation of success. Applying Zivkovic’s known receiving branch selection technique to Roger’s radar system yields the predictable result of allowing the plurality of receiving branches to share a single signal processing path, thereby reducing hardware and system size, while retaining Roger’s FFT processing.
Regarding Claim 13, Roger does not explicitly teach – but Zivkovic teaches: wherein the selection block is configured to select a receiving branch on a pseudo-random basis (Zivkovic [0047]: “the controller 208 may control the switch module 208 to connect one of the receivers 202 a-h to the analog-to-digital convertor 210 in a sample period T/N”; [0052]: “Some examples of appropriate sequence generators are so-called “Gold codes” or Pseudo noise generated using shift registers.”).
Because using a pseudo-random code to select a receiving branch is an element of Zivkovic’s receiving branch selection technique, the rationale to modify Roger with the teachings of Zivkovic persists from Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 14, Roger does not explicitly teach – but Zivkovic teaches: wherein the selection block is configured to select a receiving branch based on a deterministic selection scheme (Zivkovic [0030]: “The combinations of signals may be determined by an orthogonal code or other code which may be used in spread spectrum communications signalling [sic.].”; [0047]; [0052]: “In other examples other spread spectrum code sequences may be used.”).
Because using a deterministic selection code to select a receiving branch is an element of Zivkovic’s receiving branch selection technique, the rationale to modify Roger with the teachings of Zivkovic persists from Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15, Roger teaches:
an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) … ([0029]: “analog-to-digital converters); and
a fast-Fourier transform (FFT) unit having an input coupled to an output of the ADC ([0029]: “The base band signal is finally digitized using one or more analog-to-digital converters 30 and further processed in the digital domain”; [0038]: “Fast Fourier Transform (FFT)”).
Roger does not explicitly teach – but Zivkovic teaches: an analog-to-digital converter coupled to an output of the selection block (Zivkovic [0046]: “The output of the switch module 208 may be connected to an analog to digital converter 210.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roger and couple an analog-to-digital converter to an output of the selection block, as taught by Zivkovic, with a reasonable expectation of success, so that the selected signals could be further processed.
Regarding Claim 16, Roger does not explicitly teach – but Zivkovic teaches: wherein the selection block is a multiplexor having N inputs and a single output, wherein N is three or more (Zivkovic [0026]: “The signal compressor 112 has K outputs where K is less than the number of inputs M. The signal compressor 112 may have a single output i.e. K=1.”; [0046]: “Receiver antennas 204 a to 204h may be connected to respective RF receiver chains 202 a to 202 h. The output of each receiver chain may be connected to a switch module 208. The output of the switch module 208 may be connected to an analog to digital converter 210.”; Examiner note: Zivkovic’s switch module with eight inputs and a single output is a multiplexor.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roger and use a multiplexor having N inputs and a single output as the selection block, as taught by Zivkovic, with a reasonable expectation of success. Using a multiplexor would enable Zivkovic’s receiving branch selection technique to select a single receiving branch and provide the selected signals for further processing.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roger (US 2019/0041494) and Zivkovic (US 2017/0248686), as applied to Claim 11 above, and further in view of Mizutani (US 2012/0119940).
Regarding Claim 12, Neither Roger nor Zivkovic teaches: wherein the selection block is configured to select a receiving branch on a random basis.
However, Mizutani is in the field of FMCW radar (Mizutani [Abstract]) and teaches: a radar apparatus with a plurality of receiving channels and a receiving switch configured to select a receiving channel on a random basis (Mizutani [0035]: “plurality of the receiving channels”; “a switch configured to successively select the receiving signals from the plurality of receiving antennas to be supplied to the receiving unit”; [0149]: “the radar apparatus according to the third embodiment is configured to successively select the receiving channels ch1 to ch8 in random orders for respective sequences”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Roger as modified by Zivkovic and select a receiving branch on a random basis, as taught by Mizutani, with a reasonable expectation of success. Randomly selecting the receiving branches is beneficial for reducing errors in the measured azimuth of a target (Mizutani [0151]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/07/2026, regarding the nonstatutory double patenting rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous double patenting rejections have been overcome.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/07/2026, regarding the rejection of Claim 11 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered but are moot because they do not apply to the specific combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/07/2026, regarding the rejection of Claim 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant to argue that neither Roger nor Jansen ‘941 teaches or suggests every element of amended Claim 1. In response to Applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Roger is relied upon to teach conveying selected radar data to a processing unit while omitting data that is not selected ([0048-0050]). Jansen ‘941 is relied upon to teach selecting received chirps for further processing based on detected interference. Jansen ‘941 does not merely flag some chirps and process all chirps identically. Instead, Jansen ‘941 performs chirp interference detection prior to processing (Jansen ‘941 [0062-0063]), and the resulting flags determine which chirps are further processed (Jansen ‘941 [0086]). Chirps with no interference are processed as normal, while chirps with severe interference “may simply not be processed” (Jansen ‘941 [0086]). Therefore, Jansen ‘941 teaches selecting some chirps for further processing while omitting other chirps from further processing. As set forth in the prior art rejection above, it would have been obvious to use Jansen ‘941’s chirp interference detection to select radar data in Roger’s selective radar data transmission technique. In the resulting combination, data corresponding to selected chirps would be conveyed to the processing unit using Roger’s communication link, while data corresponding to interfered chirps would be omitted. This would avoid transmitting and processing chirp data with too much interference to analyze.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 05/07/2026, regarding the rejection of Claim 8 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but are moot because they do not apply to the specific combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH Y. ZHU whose telephone number is (571) 270-0170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8AM-4PM.
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).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached on (571) 270-5144. 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.
/NOAH YI MIN ZHU/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/BRADY W FRAZIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights