DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendments and Remarks received 07/17/2026 in which claims 2 and 3 are cancelled, claims 1, 4, 6, and 18–20 are amended, and claims 21 and 22 are added as new claims.
Response to Arguments
Examiner incorporates herein previous Responses to Arguments.
The double patenting rejection is amended to include a secondary reference (Bross). Remarks, 12.
The rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 is overcome in view of the amendment. Remarks, 12–13.
On page 16 of the Remarks, Applicant contends the prior art does not teach the claimed Clip3 operation for reference sample padding. As explained previously in this record, in this art, rounding, padding, and clipping are equivalents. Aono (US 2021/0136407 A1) (“padding…is achieved by clipping the reference positions…”). Xiu (US 2021/0185338 A1) teaches, in a description of DMVR, “rounding and/or clipping operations” performed on prediction signals (¶ 0124). Xiu also teaches clipping the position of a motion vector to a boundary of a constrained area using clipping (e.g. ¶ 0138). Therefore, rounding, clipping, and padding are equivalents or semantically obvious in view of one another in this art such that when Chen describes restricting DMVR to a bounded window, the prior art Clip3 operation taught in Bross is implicated. See cited references, including those found under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action. As the rejection, infra, explains, the prior art teaches rounding to an integer location when performing motion vector refinement. Such a teaching teaches or suggests to the skilled artisan linking motion vector refinement and integer sample location clipping. As explained in detail in this record, the combination of Chen and Xu teaches or suggests Applicant’s averred feature of linking DMVR to a constrained integer-pixel window and Bross explicitly teaches how the art utilizes, specifically, the Clip3 operation to perform such clipping.
On pages 17–18 of the Remarks, Applicant contends Bross is deficient for failing to link the disclosed clipping operations to DMVR. Such an argument treats the references individually rather than what their combination would teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. The clip3 operation has been in use in this art for quite a long time and its ubiquity is evidenced by the video compression standard (Bross) utilizing the operation. Combining the prior art method of clipping reference sample locations to integer positions to effectuate a boundary window, as taught by Bross, with Chen’s teaching that DMVR could benefit from a constrained search window, is nothing more than a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. Furthermore, while it is not viewed as necessary to sustain the rejection, Xiu (cited supra), fundamentally links the concepts of clipping and DMVR such that such additional evidence on this record demonstrates the obviousness of this combination. The principal teaching of Chen with respect to integer sample constraints for motion vector refinement by rounding to the nearest integer is interpreted by the skilled artisan to invoke clipping since “rounding up” can exceed a search window area. Thus, clipping is obviously preferred (as evidenced by Bross). For all the foregoing reasons, Examiner is unpersuaded of patentability.
The following rationale from a preceding Office Action is incorporated herein:
On pages 9–10 of the Remarks, Applicant contends the prior art fails to teach or suggest the features of independent claim 1 drawn to the claimed relationship between DMVR and determining whether to clip to integer sample locations within a bounding block for reference sample padding. Examiner disagrees. As explained for the rejection of claim 1, Chen’s paragraph [0067] teaches constraining refined motion vectors to integer sample locations by rounding any fractional part to the nearest integer. Such a teaching would teach or suggest to the skilled artisan Applicant’s claimed clipping of motion vectors to integer sample locations within a bounding region. In addition, Chen’s paragraph [0025] teaches, for DMVR, defining a search window using integer sample locations having dimensions of P pixel x Q pixel. Such a teaching in the prior art teaches or suggests to the skilled artisan that, by constraining the refinement search to a search window, the dimensions of the “bounding block” are “clipped” for reference sample padding. Furthermore, Chen’s paragraph [0066] teaches a constrained search window to reduce computational complexity, which would lead the skilled artisan to the obvious solution to clip the search range to integer positions rather than the more computationally expensive fractional pel search. Further still, the rejection explains that the relationship between DMVR and whether to define a constrained search window is taught by the combination of Xu’s ¶¶ 0104 and 0115, which teach motion vectors for subblocks in a latency region, said region being used for DMVR, and Chen’s ¶ 0046, which teaches motion vector refinement can be applied to sub-CUs (also known as subblocks). Such a combination of teachings, linked by the feature of applying DMVR to subblocks and subblocks having a bounding region associated therewith, would lead the skilled artisan to combine the teachings of Xu’s DMVR for subblocks with Chen’s integer sample constrained bounded and padded search window. Finally, with respect to the claimed bounding box and padding, Examiner found the original dependent claims instructive as to how one skilled in the art would interpret Applicant’s features in claim 1. Indeed, certain dependent claims further define the averred features of claim 1. As the rejection of claim 1 explains, the teachings of Chen and Bross explicitly teach Applicant’s claimed padding and clipping operations. Examiner finds the claim set, as a whole then, demonstrates the claimed features are taught by the cited prior art. Accordingly, the rejections are sustained.
Examiner notes that, in this art, padding is equivalent to clipping. Aono (US 2021/0136407 A1) (“padding…is achieved by clipping the reference positions…”). Rounding, clipping, and padding are equivalents or semantically obvious in view of one another in this art. See cited references, including those found under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action.
Other claims are not argued separately. Remarks, 19–20.
Double Patenting
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.
Claims 1–9 and 16–20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1–16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,800,090 in view of the teachings of Bross et al., “Versatile Video Coding (Draft 6),” JVET-O2001, July, 2019 (herein “Bross”). Bross teaches the features regarding boundary constraints, the Clip3 operation, and the explicit lower bounds xSbIntL – 3 and ySbIntL – 3 for integer sample locations for DMVR such that, when combined with the reference patent, would have rendered obvious the claimed subject matter. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they recite substantially overlapping subject matter regarding decoder-side motion vector refinement and clipping with respect to reference picture wrapping.
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 of this title, 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, 3–6 and 16–22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu (2020/0045325 A1), Chen (US 2021/0120262 A1), and Bross et al., “Versatile Video Coding (Draft 6),” JVET-O2001, July, 2019.
Regarding claim 1, the combination of Xu, Chen, and Bross teaches or suggests a method of video processing, comprising: making a first determination about whether a decoder-side motion vector refinement tool is enabled for a conversion between a first block of a current picture of a video and a bitstream of the video (Xu, ¶ 0114: teaches enabling DMVR); making a second determination, based on the first determination, about whether to clip samples at integer sample locations according to a bounding block for reference sample padding in a reference picture used for determining a prediction block for the first block (Chen, ¶ 0067: teaches refined motion vectors can be constrained to integer locations; Chen, ¶ 0025: teaches for DMVR defining a search window using integer sample locations having dimensions of P pixel x Q pixel; By constraining the refinement search to a search window, as described in the prior art, the dimensions of the “bounding block” are “clipped”; see also Chen, ¶ 0067: teaching integer-pixel based template; Chen, ¶ 0066: teaches a constrained search window to reduce computational complexity; Xu, ¶¶ 0104 and 0115: teaches motion vectors for subblocks in a latency region, said region being used for DMVR; Chen, ¶ 0046: teaches motion vector refinement can be applied to sub-CUs (also known as subblocks); see also explanation, infra, regarding the teachings of Bross’s JVET-O2001 as applied to claims 3, 4, 21, and 22; Bross, Section 8.5.6.3.2 (page 258), where the equations are found, is titled, “Luma sample interpolation filtering process”), wherein the samples at the integer sample locations are in the reference picture and are acquired according to a first motion vector of the first block (Chen, Abstract: explains the search window for MV refinement is based on the original (initial) MV); and performing the conversion based on the second determination (Original claims 16 and 17 explain the conversion is encoding or decoding; Chen, ¶ 0061: teaches MV refinement techniques match between encoder and decoder), wherein the second determination is used for a clipping operation of the samples at the integer sample locations, wherein the clipping operation is performed when the decoder-side motion vector refinement tool is enabled for the first block (Chen, ¶ 0025: teaches for DMVR defining a search window using integer sample locations having dimensions of P pixel x Q pixel; By constraining the refinement search to a search window, as described in the prior art, the dimensions of the “bounding block” are “clipped”; see also Chen, ¶ 0067: teaching integer-pixel based template; Chen, ¶ 0066: teaches a constrained search window to reduce computational complexity; Chen’s paragraph [0067] teaches constraining refined motion vectors to integer sample locations by rounding any fractional part to the nearest integer; Such a teaching would teach or suggest to the skilled artisan Applicant’s clipping of motion vectors to integer sample locations within a bounding region; Chen’s paragraph [0025] teaches, for DMVR, defining a search window using integer sample locations having dimensions of P pixel x Q pixel; Such a teaching in the prior art teaches or suggests to the skilled artisan that, by constraining the refinement search to a search window, the dimensions of the “bounding block” are “clipped” for reference sample padding; Chen’s paragraph [0066] teaches a constrained search window to reduce computational complexity, which would lead the skilled artisan to the obvious solution to clip the search range to integer positions rather than the more computationally expensive (complex) fractional pel search; The relationship between DMVR and whether to define a constrained search window is taught by the combination of Xu’s ¶¶ 0104 and 0115, which teach motion vectors for subblocks in a latency region, said region being used for DMVR, and Chen’s ¶ 0046, which teaches motion vector refinement can be applied to sub-CUs (also known as subblocks); Such a combination of teachings, linked by the feature of applying DMVR to subblocks and subblocks having a bounding region associated therewith, would lead the skilled artisan to combine the teachings of Xu’s DMVR for subblocks with Chen’s integer sample constrained bounded and padded search window; Examiner notes that, in this art, padding is equivalent to clipping. Aono (US 2021/0136407 A1) (“padding…is achieved by clipping the reference positions…”). Rounding, clipping, and padding are equivalents or semantically obvious in view of one another in this art. See cited references, including those found under the Conclusion Section of this Office Action; see also the teachings of Bross regarding the clipping expressions (8-775) and (8-776) on page 259 of Bross), and the clipping operation is not performed when the decoder-side motion vector refinement tool is not enabled for the first block (Chen, ¶ 0066 et seq.: teaches the constraints, including clipping at integer sample locations, are for simplifying computational overhead of motion vector refinement; Without the constraints that are tied to DMVR, fractional MV searching is the default as described in Bross’s Section 8.5.6.3), wherein when the decoder-side motion vector refinement tool is enabled for the first block, integer luma sample locations, denoted as (xInti, yInti) are clipped by a Clip3 operation with respective lower bounds for an x coordinate and a y coordinate, and wherein a lower bound for the x coordinate is xSbIntL – 3 and a lower bound for the y coordinate is ySbIntL – 3, and wherein (xSbIntL, ySbIntL) specifies a top-left sample position of the bounding block relative to a top-left luma sample of the reference picture (Examiner notes these recited features limit the integer pixels of the motion refinement to be inside the bounding box (search window); Chen, ¶ 0066: teaches a constrained search window to reduce computational complexity; Examiner further notes the claimed mathematical descriptions appear to find support in Applicant’s Specification on page 16, denoted as equations (8-775), (8-776), (8-789), and (8-790) for luma (x,y) coordinates and chroma (x,y) coordinates respectively; Examiner further notes Applicant’s mathematical representations appear to be copied from the reference supplied on the IDS dated 03/24/2022 attributed to Bross et al. JVET-O2001; Bross’s pages 259 and 261 list the same equations; Therefore, this feature appears to be Applicant admitted prior art (copy-paste out of prior art publication)).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Xu, with those of Chen, because both references are drawn to the same field of endeavor (DMVR) and because combining syntax elements to enable coding tools such as DMVR, with simplification of DMVR by restricting to padded or clipped integer samples represents a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield a predictable result. This rationale applies to all combinations of Xu and Chen used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Xu and Chen, with those of Bross, because all three references are drawn to the same field of endeavor and because Bross explains the equations are a well-known approach to clipping luma and chroma sample locations in the state-of-the-art video coding techniques, such that such a combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield the predictable result of locating sample locations for luma and chroma components. This rationale applies to all combinations of Xu, Chen, and Bross used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Xu, Chen, and Bross teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein when the decoder-side motion vector refinement tool is enabled for the first block, integer chroma sample locations, denoted as (xInti, yInti) are clipped by a Clip3 operation with respective lower bounds for an x coordinate and a y coordinate, wherein the lower bound for x coordinate is xSbIntC – 1 and the lower bound for the y coordinate is ySbIntC – 1, and wherein (xSbIntC, ySbIntC) specifies a top-left sample position of the bounding block relative to a top-left chroma sample of the reference picture (Examiner notes these recited features limit the integer pixels of the motion refinement to be inside the bounding box (search window); Chen, ¶ 0066: teaches a constrained search window to reduce computational complexity; Examiner finds it would be obvious to have a smaller search window, designated by the claimed coordinates, for the chroma component(s) due to the popularity of chroma sub-sampling, e.g. using the 4:2:0 color format (i.e. sampling ratio); Examiner further notes the claimed mathematical descriptions appear to find support in Applicant’s Specification on page 16, denoted as equations (8-775), (8-776), (8-789), and (8-790) for luma (x,y) coordinates and chroma (x,y) coordinates respectively; Examiner further notes Applicant’s mathematical representations appear to be copied from the reference supplied on the IDS dated 03/24/2022 attributed to Bross et al. JVET-O2001; Bross’s pages 259 and 261 list the same equations; Therefore, this feature appears to be Applicant admitted prior art (copy-paste out of prior art publication)).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Xu, Chen, and Bross teaches or suggests the method of claim 2, wherein the first motion vector is refined by the decoder-side motion vector refinement tool (Chen, ¶ 0028: teaches at least one of the two motion vectors for bi-prediction can be refined using DMVR).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Xu, Chen, and Bross teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein (xSbIntL, ySbIntL) is determined based on a second motion vector which is not refined by the decoder-side motion vector refinement tool (Chen, ¶ 0028: teaches only one of the two motion vectors for bi-prediction need be refined such that the second motion vector is not refined; Chen, Abstract: explains the search window for MV refinement is based on the original (initial) MV).
Regarding claim 16, the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion comprises encoding the first block into the bitstream (Chen, ¶ 0061: teaches MV refinement techniques match between encoder and decoder).
Regarding claim 17, the method of claim 1, wherein the conversion comprises decoding the first block from the bitstream (Chen, ¶ 0061: teaches MV refinement techniques match between encoder and decoder).
Claim 18 lists the same elements as claim 1, but is drawn to an apparatus rather than a method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 19 lists the same elements as claim 1, but is drawn to a CRM rather than a method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 20 lists the same elements as claim 1, but is drawn to a CRM rather than a method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 1 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 21 lists the same elements as claim 4, but is drawn to an apparatus rather than a method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 4 applies to the instant claim.
Claim 22 lists the same elements as claim 5, but is drawn to an apparatus rather than a method. Therefore, the rationale for the rejection of claim 5 applies to the instant claim.
Claims 7–9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu, Chen, Bross, and Heng et al., “AHG16/AHG8: Proposed Cleanup for Reference Wraparound,” JVET-N0070, March 19–27, 2019.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Xu, Chen, Bross, and Heng teaches or suggests the method of claim 1, wherein the method further comprises: making a third determination about whether reference picture wrapping is enabled for the conversion; and performing the conversion based on the third determination, wherein how to clip the samples at the integer sample locations is based on whether the reference picture wrapping is enabled for the conversion (Heng, Section 3: teaches an sps_ref_wraparound_enabled_flag to turn on and off the reference wrap around feature; Examiner finds it obvious to combine reference wrap around with MV refinement techniques because MV refinement utilizes a bounded area within the reference picture for refinement such that the bounded area in a 3D context would be defined by the state-of-the-art reference picture wrapping process; Bross, seen as evidence of Applicant-admitted prior art (see infra), also teaches sps_ref_wraparound, e.g. page 261).
One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to combine the elements taught by Xu, Chen, and Bross, with those of Heng, because 3D content is subject to the state-of-the-art reference picture wrapping process (Heng), said content also requiring the tools of inter-prediction such as DMVR (Xu and Chen), such that such a combination is a mere combination of prior art elements, according to known methods, to yield the predictable result of using DMVR for coding 3D video. This rationale applies to all combinations of Xu, Chen, Bross, and Heng used in this Office Action unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Xu, Chen, Bross, and Heng teaches or suggests the method of claim 7, wherein a syntax element is included in the bitstream indicative of whether the reference picture wrapping is enabled (Heng, Section 3: teaches an sps_ref_wraparound_enabled_flag to turn on and off the reference wrap around feature).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Xu, Chen, Bross, and Heng teaches or suggests the method of claim 7, wherein the second determination is used for a first clip operation of the samples at integer sample locations, and wherein the third determination is used for a second clip operation of the samples at integer sample locations (Examiner interprets this as saying both DMVR integer clipping and the wrap around techniques are combinable to achieve a DMVR search window capable of wrapping around when wrap-around is enabled; Examiner finds this combination obvious in view of the cited references for the reasons explained, supra).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Esenlik (WO 2019/072368 A1) teaches a window of sample values for motion vector refinement is defined around the position pointed to by the initial motion vector (p. 9, ll. 11–15). Page 17, ll. 11 teaches clipping the search range and page 21, ll. 10–12 teaches the search boundary is restricted to integer samples (see also Fig. 10).
Bross et al. JVET-O2001. Examiner further notes the claimed mathematical descriptions appear to find support in Applicant’s Specification on page 16, denoted as equations (8-775), (8-776), (8-789), and (8-790) for luma (x,y) coordinates and chroma (x,y) coordinates respectively. Examiner further notes Applicant’s mathematical representations appear to be copied from the reference supplied on the IDS dated 03/24/2022 attributed to Bross et al. JVET-O2001. Bross’s pages 259 and 261 list the same equations. Therefore, this feature appears to be Applicant admitted prior art (copy-paste out of prior art). Bross also teaches reference wraparound.
Nakagami (US 2021/0297702 A1), explains, “Also, Clip3(coeffMin, coeffMax, X) means a value obtained by rounding a numerical value X to be equal to or greater than a coefficient minimum value coeffMin and to be equal to or less than a coefficient maximum value coeffMax.” (emphasis added).
Lim (US 2021/0274217 A1) teaches clipping so that motion vectors lie within a predetermined range (¶ 0360).
Aono (US 2021/0136407 A1) (“padding…is achieved by clipping the reference positions…”).
Xiu (US 2021/0185338 A1) teaches, in a description of DMVR, “rounding and/or clipping operations” performed on prediction signals (¶ 0124). The publication further explains that the way to maintain a motion vector within a constrained area is to clip the position towards the closest boundary of the constrained area (¶ 0138).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael J Hess whose telephone number is (571)270-7933. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00am-5:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, William Vaughn can be reached on (571)272-3922. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8933.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL J HESS/Examiner, Art Unit 2481
Prosecution Insights