Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 10 each recite the phrase “wherein lengths of the first edge and the third edge are greater than or smaller than lengths of the second edge and the fourth edge,” which is not supported by the present specification. The present specification also does not mention use of a rectangular display (i.e., a display which has two parallel edges which, depending on orientation, are longer or shorter than two perpendicular edges). The scope of the claim also includes any display panel (including those with more than four edges), for which support for the claimed invention is clearly not present, and further, the specification and drawings do not discuss edge lengths at all.
Claims 2-9 are rejected due to dependence on unsupported claim 1.
Claims 11-18 are rejected due to dependence on unsupported claim 10.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 6-9, 13, and 15-18 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.
Claims 4 and 6 recite the phrase “curvature radii points,” but there is no antecedent basis for this limitation in either claim. Present claim 3, however, recites the presence of curvature radii points. It is possible that present claim 4 should depend from present claim 3, and present claim 5 (from which claim 6 depends) should also depend from present claim 3. In the interest of compact prosecution, claims 4 and 6 will be interpreted as reciting “a curvature radii of points”.
Claims 7-9 are rejected as indefinite due to dependence on indefinite claim 6.
Claims 13 and 15 recite the phrase “curvature radii points,” but there is no antecedent basis for this limitation in either claim. Present claim 12, however, recites the presence of curvature radii points. It is possible that present claim 13 should depend from present claim 12, and present claim 14 (from which claim 15 depends) should also depend from present claim 12. In the interest of compact prosecution, claims 13 and 15 will be interpreted as reciting “a curvature radii of points”.
Claims 17-18 are rejected as indefinite due to dependence on indefinite claim 15
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al (US 2022/0043489 A1).
With regards to claim 1, Yao discloses a two-dimensional curved display screen (i.e., curved display panel) depicted as having first side surface and a second side surface opposite the first side surface, the first side surface being depicted as a display surface (Yao: abstract; para. [0023]; Fig. 1). The first side surface is considered a “smooth display surface” since it has a radius of curvature (i.e., as best understood from para. [0025] of Applicant’s specification per its PGPub, smooth surfaces are those which are curved). The display screen of Yao is further depicted as having a first edge, a second edge, a third edge, and a fourth edge sequentially connected end to end, the first edge being opposite to the third edge and the second edge being opposite to the fourth edge, such that the first edge and the second edge intersect at a first corner point, the second edge and the third edge intersect at a second corner point, the third edge and the fourth edge intersect at a third corner point, and the fourth edge then the first edge intersect at a corner point (Yao: Fig. 4). Since the display screen of Yao is in the shape of a square having edges with the same radius of curvature, it follows that a first circle center point of a curvature circle corresponding to the first corner point, a second circle center point of a curvature circle corresponding to the second corner point, a third circle center point of a curvature corresponding to the third corner point, and a fourth circle center point of a curvature circle corresponding to the fourth corner point, are all located at a same point (Yao: Fig. 4). Note that all of the aforementioned limitations necessarily hold for any square display panel having an identical length and width, such that the length and width define edges of identical curvature (i.e., as the circle center point locations are functions solely of radius of curvature and edge length or width, and a four-way symmetric structure as disclosed by Yao is four-way symmetrical with respect to center point location) (Yao: Fig. 4). In addition, Yao depicts the first and third edges are oppositely bent toward the first side surface, and the second and fourth edges are oppositely bent toward the first side surface (Yao: Fig. 5). Although this particular embodiment of Yao does not appear to depict lengths of the first edge and third edge as greater than or smaller than lengths of the second edge and fourth edge, Yao further acknowledges that the desired field of view depends on the size of the display screen, the distance between the user and the display screen, and the radius of curvature (i.e., these three variables are each dependent one another) (Yao: para. [0033]). At the outset and from these teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized, designed, or otherwise adjusted the lengths of the first, second, third, and fourth edges for purpose of creating a desired field of view given a required size and user/display distance.
With regards to claim 2, Figure 4 of Yao depicts a first virtual line connecting a midpoint of the second edge and a midpoint of the fourth edge, and a second virtual line connecting a midpoint of the first edge and a midpoint of the third edge, wherein the first and second virtual lines are disposed on the first side surface (i.e., the display surface), and an intersection of the first and second virtual lines is a center point of the first side surface, the curved display symmetrically designed with respect to each of the first and second virtual lines (Yao: Fig. 4). It is noted that the present claim language essentially describes a display which is square in shape (i.e., all of the properties of the claim hold for a square-shaped display – a square is can even be thought of as four-way symmetrical, and therefore, the display panel is clearly symmetrically designed with respect to the claimed first and second virtual lines).
With regards to claim 3, it is noted that, per Figure 4 of Yao, it is possible to draw a straight line starting at a center point and ending at a point on one of the first, second, third, or fourth edges (Yao: Fig. 4). Although Yao does not appear to explicitly depict a gradual increase in radii curvature, Yao teaches that the y-axis may have a radius of curvature that varies along the x-axis or y-axis (i.e., the radius of curvature may vary across the line as claimed) (Yao: para. [0030]). Yao further acknowledges that the desired field of view depends on the size of the display screen, the distance between the user and the display screen, and the radius of curvature (i.e., these three variables are each dependent one another) (Yao: para. [0033]). At the outset and from these teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized, designed, or otherwise adjusted the varying radius in curvature along the claimed direction for the purpose of creating a desired field of view given a required size and user/display distance. However, a person of ordinary skill would have also found it obvious to have selected an increasing radius of curvature, in order to create a display which accommodates a view distance (i.e., a display which grows larger in a given dimension will require an increasing curvature radius in order to enable a viewer to see the entire screen at a given central point) (Yao: para. [0032]-[0033]).
With regards to claim 4, it is noted that, per Figure 4 of Yao, the display of Yao includes first, second, third, or fourth edges (Yao: Fig. 4). Although Yao does not appear to explicitly depict a gradual increase in radii curvature from a midpoint of one edge to another, Yao teaches that the y-axis may have a radius of curvature that varies along the x-axis or y-axis (i.e., the radius of curvature may vary across the line as claimed) (Yao: para. [0030]). Yao further acknowledges that the desired field of view depends on the size of the display screen, the distance between the user and the display screen, and the radius of curvature (i.e., these three variables are each dependent one another) (Yao: para. [0033]). At the outset and from these teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized, designed, or otherwise adjusted the varying radius in curvature along the claimed direction for the purpose of creating a desired field of view given a required size and user/display distance. However, a person of ordinary skill would have also found it obvious to have selected an increasing radius of curvature, in order to create a display which accommodates a view distance (i.e., a display which grows larger in a given dimension will require an increasing curvature radius in order to enable a viewer to see the entire screen at a given central point) (Yao: para. [0032]-[0033]).
With regards to claim 5, Yao depicts the first and second virtual lines as straight lines in Figure 4, but curved lines in Figure 5 (Yao: Figs. 4 and 5). The virtual lines are made with respect to a two-dimensional cross-section of the three-dimensional curved screen of Yao, and therefore, the lines are “straight” with respect to the cross-section of Figure 4 and “curved” with respect to the cross-section of Figure 5.
With regards to claim 6, Yao discloses a display screen according to claim 5 above (see above discussion). It is noted that, per Figure 4 of Yao, the display of Yao includes first and second virtual lines (Yao: Fig. 4). Although Yao does not appear to explicitly depict a gradual increase in radii curvature toward a center point, Yao teaches that the y-axis may have a radius of curvature that varies along the x-axis or y-axis (i.e., the radius of curvature may vary across the line as claimed) (Yao: para. [0030]). Yao further acknowledges that the desired field of view depends on the size of the display screen, the distance between the user and the display screen, and the radius of curvature (i.e., these three variables are each dependent one another) (Yao: para. [0033]). At the outset and from these teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized, designed, or otherwise adjusted the varying radius in curvature along the claimed direction for the purpose of creating a desired field of view given a required size and user/display distance. However, a person of ordinary skill would have also found it obvious to have selected an increasing radius of curvature, in order to create a display which accommodates a view distance (i.e., a display which grows larger in a given dimension will require an increasing curvature radius in order to enable a viewer to see the entire screen at a given central point) (Yao: para. [0032]-[0033]).
With regards to claim 7, a connecting line of any one of the first, second, third, or fourth circle center points and the center point is perpendicular to the first virtual line (i.e., as best understood, due to the symmetric nature of the display screen of Yao) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 8, the display screen of Yao may be defined as having the coordinate system as claimed (i.e., Yao depicts the center point as claimed, and ordinates of points of the second edge may be taken as the same and ordinates of points on the second virtual line may be taken as the same, at least since each extends along a same axis designated as an ordinate according to the first virtual line) (Yao: Fig. 4). Although Yao does not appear to explicitly teach the curvature radius relationships and display screen dimensions (i.e., L being an edge length) Yao teaches that its radii of curvature may be varied (Yao: para. [0030]). Yao further acknowledges that the desired field of view depends on the size of the display screen, the distance between the user and the display screen, and the radius of curvature (i.e., these three variables are each dependent one another) (Yao: para. [0033]). At the outset and from these teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized, designed, or otherwise adjusted the varying radius in curvature along the claimed direction for the purpose of creating a desired field of view given a required size and user/display distance (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 9, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized, designed, or otherwise adjusted the varying radius in curvature along the claimed direction (i.e., or further, to have optimized length with respect to a given curvature) for the purpose of creating a desired field of view given a required size and user/display distance (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 10, Yao discloses a two-dimensional curved display device (i.e., curved display device) depicted as having first side surface and a second side surface opposite the first side surface, the first side surface being depicted as a display surface (Yao: abstract; para. [0023]; Fig. 1). The display screen, specifically, has a display screen layer 102 and a housing 104 (i.e., a curved display panel and a supporting member disposed on a second side surface thereof, respectively, providing support (Yao: para. [0035]-[0036]; Fig. 3). The first side surface is considered a “smooth display surface” since it has a radius of curvature (i.e., as best understood from para. [0025] of Applicant’s specification per its PGPub, smooth surfaces are those which are curved). The display screen of Yao is further depicted as having a first edge, a second edge, a third edge, and a fourth edge sequentially connected end to end, the first edge being opposite to the third edge and the second edge being opposite to the fourth edge, such that the first edge and the second edge intersect at a first corner point, the second edge and the third edge intersect at a second corner point, the third edge and the fourth edge intersect at a third corner point, and the fourth edge then the first edge intersect at a corner point (Yao: Fig. 4). Since the display screen of Yao is in the shape of a square having edges with the same radius of curvature, it follows that a first circle center point of a curvature circle corresponding to the first corner point, a second circle center point of a curvature circle corresponding to the second corner point, a third circle center point of a curvature corresponding to the third corner point, and a fourth circle center point of a curvature circle corresponding to the fourth corner point, are all located at a same point (Yao: Fig. 4). Note that all of the aforementioned limitations necessarily hold for any square display panel having an identical length and width, such that the length and width define edges of identical curvature (i.e., as the circle center point locations are functions solely of radius of curvature and edge length or width, and a four-way symmetric structure as disclosed by Yao is four-way symmetrical with respect to center point location) (Yao: Fig. 4). In addition, Yao depicts the first and third edges are oppositely bent toward the first side surface, and the second and fourth edges are oppositely bent toward the first side surface (Yao: Fig. 5). Although this particular embodiment of Yao does not appear to depict lengths of the first edge and third edge as greater than or smaller than lengths of the second edge and fourth edge, Yao further acknowledges that the desired field of view depends on the size of the display screen, the distance between the user and the display screen, and the radius of curvature (i.e., these three variables are each dependent one another) (Yao: para. [0033]). At the outset and from these teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized, designed, or otherwise adjusted the lengths of the first, second, third, and fourth edges for purpose of creating a desired field of view given a required size and user/display distance.
With regards to claim 11, Figure 4 of Yao depicts a first virtual line connecting a midpoint of the second edge and a midpoint of the fourth edge, and a second virtual line connecting a midpoint of the first edge and a midpoint of the third edge, wherein the first and second virtual lines are disposed on the first side surface (i.e., the display surface), and an intersection of the first and second virtual lines is a center point of the first side surface, the curved display symmetrically designed with respect to each of the first and second virtual lines (Yao: Fig. 4). It is noted that the present claim language essentially describes a display which is square in shape (i.e., all of the properties of the claim hold for a square-shaped display – a square is can even be thought of as four-way symmetrical, and therefore, the display panel is clearly symmetrically designed with respect to the claimed first and second virtual lines).
With regards to claim 12, Yao discloses a display panel as applied to claim 11 above (see above discussion). It is noted that, per Figure 4 of Yao, it is possible to draw a straight line starting at a center point and ending at a point on one of the first, second, third, or fourth edges (Yao: Fig. 4). Although Yao does not appear to explicitly depict a gradual increase in radii curvature, Yao teaches that the y-axis may have a radius of curvature that varies along the x-axis or y-axis (i.e., the radius of curvature may vary across the line as claimed) (Yao: para. [0030]). Yao further acknowledges that the desired field of view depends on the size of the display screen, the distance between the user and the display screen, and the radius of curvature (i.e., these three variables are each dependent one another) (Yao: para. [0033]). At the outset and from these teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized, designed, or otherwise adjusted the varying radius in curvature along the claimed direction for the purpose of creating a desired field of view given a required size and user/display distance. However, a person of ordinary skill would have also found it obvious to have selected an increasing radius of curvature, in order to create a display which accommodates a view distance (i.e., a display which grows larger in a given dimension will require an increasing curvature radius in order to enable a viewer to see the entire screen at a given central point) (Yao: para. [0032]-[0033]).
With regards to claim 13, it is noted that, per Figure 4 of Yao, the display of Yao includes first, second, third, or fourth edges (Yao: Fig. 4). Although Yao does not appear to explicitly depict a gradual increase in radii curvature from a midpoint of one edge to another, Yao teaches that the y-axis may have a radius of curvature that varies along the x-axis or y-axis (i.e., the radius of curvature may vary across the line as claimed) (Yao: para. [0030]). Yao further acknowledges that the desired field of view depends on the size of the display screen, the distance between the user and the display screen, and the radius of curvature (i.e., these three variables are each dependent one another) (Yao: para. [0033]). At the outset and from these teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized, designed, or otherwise adjusted the varying radius in curvature along the claimed direction for the purpose of creating a desired field of view given a required size and user/display distance. However, a person of ordinary skill would have also found it obvious to have selected an increasing radius of curvature, in order to create a display which accommodates a view distance (i.e., a display which grows larger in a given dimension will require an increasing curvature radius in order to enable a viewer to see the entire screen at a given central point) (Yao: para. [0032]-[0033]).
With regards to claim 14, Yao depicts the first and second virtual lines as straight lines in Figure 4, but curved lines in Figure 5 (Yao: Figs. 4 and 5). The virtual lines are made with respect to a two-dimensional cross-section of the three-dimensional curved screen of Yao, and therefore, the lines are “straight” with respect to the cross-section of Figure 4 and “curved” with respect to the cross-section of Figure 5.
With regards to claim 15, Yao discloses a display screen according to claim 14 above (see above discussion). It is noted that, per Figure 4 of Yao, the display of Yao includes first and second virtual lines (Yao: Fig. 4). Although Yao does not appear to explicitly depict a gradual increase in radii curvature toward a center point, Yao teaches that the y-axis may have a radius of curvature that varies along the x-axis or y-axis (i.e., the radius of curvature may vary across the line as claimed) (Yao: para. [0030]). Yao further acknowledges that the desired field of view depends on the size of the display screen, the distance between the user and the display screen, and the radius of curvature (i.e., these three variables are each dependent one another) (Yao: para. [0033]). At the outset and from these teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized, designed, or otherwise adjusted the varying radius in curvature along the claimed direction for the purpose of creating a desired field of view given a required size and user/display distance. However, a person of ordinary skill would have also found it obvious to have selected an increasing radius of curvature, in order to create a display which accommodates a view distance (i.e., a display which grows larger in a given dimension will require an increasing curvature radius in order to enable a viewer to see the entire screen at a given central point) (Yao: para. [0032]-[0033]).
With regards to claim 16, a connecting line of any one of the first, second, third, or fourth circle center points and the center point is perpendicular to the first virtual line (i.e., as best understood, due to the symmetric nature of the display screen of Yao) (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 17, the display screen of Yao may be defined as having the coordinate system as claimed (i.e., Yao depicts the center point as claimed, and ordinates of points of the second edge may be taken as the same and ordinates of points on the second virtual line may be taken as the same, at least since each extends along a same axis designated as an ordinate according to the first virtual line) (Yao: Fig. 4). Although Yao does not appear to explicitly teach the curvature radius relationships and display screen dimensions (i.e., L being an edge length) Yao teaches that its radii of curvature may be varied (Yao: para. [0030]). Yao further acknowledges that the desired field of view depends on the size of the display screen, the distance between the user and the display screen, and the radius of curvature (i.e., these three variables are each dependent one another) (Yao: para. [0033]). At the outset and from these teachings, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized, designed, or otherwise adjusted the varying radius in curvature along the claimed direction for the purpose of creating a desired field of view given a required size and user/display distance (see above discussion).
With regards to claim 18, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have optimized, designed, or otherwise adjusted the varying radius in curvature along the claimed direction (i.e., or further, to have optimized length with respect to a given curvature) for the purpose of creating a desired field of view given a required size and user/display distance (see above discussion).
Response to Arguments
No arguments/amendments addressing the grounds of rejection made under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), and therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been maintained.
Several of Applicant’s arguments/amendments with respect to the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and they are found persuasive. Yao is not considered to anticipate the claim limitation “wherein lengths of the first edge and the third edge are greater than or smaller than lengths of the second edge and the fourth edge.” Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection are made under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Yao.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments which remain pertinent to the new/current grounds of rejection have been fully considered but they are not found persuasive.
On claims 8-11, Applicant summarizes the claimed subject matter and aspects of the previous rejection. Applicant concludes that Yao does not teach a display screen with different lengths and widths which still achieves a common center for the curvature circles at its four corner points. Applicant argues that Yao’s acknowledgement that the length of the display screen may be different from a width “merely constitutes a general description,” and instead, Yao’s technical solution focuses on maximizing information density at the user’s field of view. Applicant argues that Yao does not define specific constraints for the display screen’s curvature. At the outset, Applicant’s arguments are not fund persuasive as they are contradictory. Applicant argues that Yao does not teach a common center for the curvature circles at four points, but Applicant acknowledges that Yao’s technical solution focuses on a high information density at the user’s field of view (i.e., implying a maximized information density at the location of the user, or, at a point). As best understood, Yao already acknowledges that its display length may be different from a display width (i.e., meeting the argued limitation). A person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to have adjusted the lengths, widths, and curvatures of the screen of Yao to achieve a common center, specifically at the origination of a user’s field of view, in order to maximize information density. As best understood, the teachings identified by Applicant support the notion that the claimed invention is obvious. It is unclear from Applicant’s arguments how a person of ordinary skill would have adjusted the structure of Yao in avoidance of meeting the presently claimed structure.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETHAN WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1907. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:00.
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, Maria V. Ewald can be reached at (571) 272-8519. 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.
/E.W./
Examiner, Art Unit 1783
/MARIA V EWALD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1783
Prosecution Insights