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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
The “control unit” of claims 1 with means “to determine whether to perform planarization processing by projecting the pressing member with the planarization member not in contact with the composition.” Applicant defines the “control unit” as “The control unit 200 includes a processing unit and a storage unit, such as a memory, and controls the entire planarization apparatus 100. For example, the control unit 200 is constituted by a field programmable gate array (FPGA) or other programmable logic device (PLD), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a general-purpose or dedicated computer with a built-in program, or a combination of all or some of these. The control unit 200 functions as a processing unit that controls the components of the planarization apparatus 100 in a comprehensive manner and performs planarization processing.” [Application Publication; paragraph 0040]. The examiner will consider the control unit as such, with equivalents thereof.
The “contact detection unit” of claim 3 with means “to detect contact between the pressing member and an object.” Applicant defines the “contact detection unit” as “in the present exemplary embodiment, the positions of the substrate 1 and the planarization member 11 are described to be checked by using sensors, such as the push pin contact detection unit 43 and the encoder for detecting the position of the push pin 41 in the Z direction. Alternatively, the force for driving the push pin 41 may be detected from the current value of the motor driving the push pin 41, and the state of contact of the push pin 41 may be detected from the driving force and the amount of change in the position of the push pin 41.” [Application Publication; paragraph 0079]. The examiner will consider the contact detection unit as a sensor, or plurality of sensors, for detecting the position of the push pin in the Z-direction.”
The “control unit” of claim 10 with means “to project the pressing member with the planarization member not in contact with the composition, and control at least one of the pressing member, the substrate holding unit, and the member holding unit based on a result of detection made by the contact detection unit.” Applicant defines the “control unit” as “The control unit 200 includes a processing unit and a storage unit, such as a memory, and controls the entire planarization apparatus 100. For example, the control unit 200 is constituted by a field programmable gate array (FPGA) or other programmable logic device (PLD), an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a general-purpose or dedicated computer with a built-in program, or a combination of all or some of these. The control unit 200 functions as a processing unit that controls the components of the planarization apparatus 100 in a comprehensive manner and performs planarization processing.” [Application Publication; paragraph 0040]. The examiner will consider the control unit as such, with equivalents thereof.
The “contact detection unit” of claim 10 with means “to detect contact between the pressing member and an object.” Applicant defines the “contact detection unit” as “in the present exemplary embodiment, the positions of the substrate 1 and the planarization member 11 are described to be checked by using sensors, such as the push pin contact detection unit 43 and the encoder for detecting the position of the push pin 41 in the Z direction. Alternatively, the force for driving the push pin 41 may be detected from the current value of the motor driving the push pin 41, and the state of contact of the push pin 41 may be detected from the driving force and the amount of change in the position of the push pin 41.” [Application Publication; paragraph 0079]. The examiner will consider the contact detection unit as a sensor, or plurality of sensors, for detecting the position of the push pin in the Z-direction.”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1, 2, 3, 5, and 13, and those claims depending therefrom including claims 4 and 6-9, 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 1, the claimed “a control unit configured to determine whether to perform planarization processing by projecting the pressing member with the planarization member not in contact with the composition” is indefinite.
The claim, as best understood, is attempting to claim how the control unit “determine[s] whether to perform planarization processing” and seemingly identifies that as “by projecting the pressing member with the planarization member not in contact with the composition.” It’s not understood how “projecting the pressing member” determines whether or not to perform planarization processing, particularly since “projecting” is not a measuring/sensing of conditions to determine whether or not certain conditions are met.
Additionally, it is unclear from the phrasing even what those conditions would be as “by projecting the pressing member with the planarization member not in contact with the composition” is confusing. For example, this could mean “by projecting the pressing member[,] with the planarization member [is] not in contact with the composition,” “by projecting the pressing member [along] with the planarization member not in contact with the composition,” “by projecting the pressing member [along] with the planarization member[, the planarization member] not in contact with the composition,” “by projecting the pressing member [along] with the planarization member[, both the pressing member and the planarization member] not in contact with the composition,” etc. In short, it is awkwardly phrased, particularly as it seems to try and address multiple items simultaneously, those items being: “a control unit configured to determine,” what that determination is, how it determines (“by…”), projecting the pressing member, “with the planarization member not in contact with the composition,” etc.
Additionally, the specification does not describe the “control unit” as solely determining whether or not the planarization member is in contact with the composition. Rather, that is performed, at least in part, by sensors (“a push pin contact detection unit 43 that detects the state of contact of the push pin 41 with an object such as the substrate 1 and the planarization member 11.”) [Present Application; paragraph 0037] (“Specifically, the contact with the substrate 1 can be detected by the push pin contact detection unit 43.”) [Present Application; paragraph 0068] (“For example, in the present exemplary embodiment, the positions of the substrate 1 and the planarization member 11 are described to be checked by using sensors, such as the push pin contact detection unit 43 and the encoder for detecting the position of the push pin 41 in the Z direction.”) [Present Application; paragraph 0079]. Rather, the “control unit” appears to communicate with these sensors “to determine whether to perform planarization processing” based on the measurements of the sensors/detectors (“In step S202, the control unit 200 determines whether the end of the [push] pin 41 contacts the bottom of the substrate 1 before the push pin 41 reaches the target position. Specifically, the control unit 200 projects the push pin 41 with the planarization member 11 not in contact with the curable composition IM on the substrate 1, and checks whether the end of the push pin 41 contacts the bottom of the substrate 1.” [Present Application; paragraph 0068]. “If the end of the push pin 41 is determined to contact the bottom of the substrate 1, the control unit 200 immediately stops lifting up the push pin 41 since the substrate 1 can be misaligned as illustrated in Fig. 7A. Specifically, the contact with the substrate 1 can be detected by the push pin contact detection unit 43.” [Application Publication; paragraph 0068].
For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be “to determine whether to perform planarization processing by projecting the pressing member[,]
Regarding claims 2, 3, 5, and 13, the claimed “with the planarization member not in contact with the composition” is indefinite for the reasons stated above. These are proceeded by the action of projecting the pressing member and, therefore, the phrase makes unclear if the pressing member is pressed “with the planarization member” or not. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will consider this to be wherein the planarization member not in contact with the composition when the pressing member is projected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 8, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipate by Morita (US-2022/0184876).
Regarding claim 1, Morita (US-2022/0184876) discloses a planarization apparatus for planarizing a composition on a substrate using a planarization member (super straight template 11 with flat surface 11a) (“In this case, the curable composition is cured in a state where the flat surface 11a is in contact with the curable composition. Such a planarization apparatus forms a planarized film on a plurality of shot regions that are formed on the substrate by an imprinting apparatus, in a single planarization process.”) [Morita; paragraph 0024], the planarization apparatus comprising:
a substrate holding unit (substrate holding unit 2) configured to hold the substrate (substrate 1);
a member holding unit (template holding unit 12) configured to hold the planarization member (template 11);
a pressing member (push pin pressing member 14) (Figs. 5A to 5C) configured to be projected in a direction from the substrate (substrate 1) to the planarization member (super straight template 11 with flat surface 11a) (“In this case, the curable composition is cured in a state where the flat surface 11a is in contact with the curable composition. Such a planarization apparatus forms a planarized film on a plurality of shot regions that are formed on the substrate by an imprinting apparatus, in a single planarization process.”) [Morita; paragraph 0024]; and
a control unit configured to determine whether to perform planarization processing by projecting the pressing member (push pin pressing member 14) with the planarization member (template 11) not in contact with the composition (determines the position of the push pin pressing member 14 before proceeding with the next step in planarization processing, thereby determining whether to perform planarization processing) (“The detection unit 300 can also be used as a unit for detecting the position of the push pin 14 on the substrate stage 4. The alignment to be described below can be performed by using the position information about the push pin 14 and the notch portion of the substrate 1 obtained by the detection unit 300.”) [Morita; paragraph 0038] (“In step S608, the substrate stage 4 is moved to the detection position of the detection unit 300, the detection unit 300 measures the position of the push pin 14, and then the substrate stage 4 is moved to the position facing the template holding unit 12.”) [Morita; paragraph 0064], the planarization processing including bringing the substrate and the planarization member into contact via the composition (“The first processing unit 101 performs an application step of applying a curable composition onto the substrate 1. The second processing unit 102 performs a contact step of bringing the curable composition on the substrate 1 and a template 11 into contact with each other, a curing step of curing the curable composition in a state of being in contact with the template 11, and a release step of separating the curable composition from the template 11 after the curing. In a planarized-layer forming process, the above-described steps are sequentially performed.”) [Morita; paragraph 0020] (“Next, as illustrated in FIG. 2B, the distance between the substrate 1 and the template 11 is adjusted by the head drive unit 10 so that the curable composition IM on the substrate 1 and the template 11 (the flat surface 11 a thereof) come in contact with each other (the contact step). FIG. 2B illustrates a state where the template 11 is released from the template holding unit 12, the flat surface 11a of the template 11 is completely in contact with the curable composition IM on the substrate 1, and the flat surface 11a of the template 11 follows the surface shape of the substrate 1.”) [Morita; paragraph 0046].
Regarding claim 2, Morita discloses the planarization apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the control unit is configured to make a determination as to whether a holding position of the substrate held by the substrate holding unit is correct by projecting the pressing member with the planarization member not in contact with the composition, and determine whether to perform the planarization processing based on the determination (“In step S609, based on the position information about the notch portion of the substrate 1 and the position information about the push pin 14 obtained by the detection unit 300, the control unit 200 drives the substrate stage 4 so that the position of the notch portion and the position of the push pin 14 match each other.”) [Morita; paragraph 0065].
Regarding claim 4, Morita discloses the planarization apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the control unit is configured to, in a case where the holding position of the substrate is determined to be incorrect (i.e. not in a desired holding position), control adjustment of the holding position of the substrate held by the substrate holding unit (substrate holding unit 2) (“the substrate stage 3 and the substrate stage 4 are each driven in the X-axis direction and the Y-axis direction to position the substrate 1 held by the substrate holding unit 2 at a predetermined position.”) [Morita; paragraph 0031].
Regarding claim 5, Morita discloses the planarization apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the control unit is configured to, in a case where the holding position of the substrate is determined to be correct, determine whether a position of the planarization member held by the member holding unit is correct by projecting the pressing member with the planarization member not in contact with the composition (“it is necessary to position the push pin 14 at a predetermined position for enabling the push pin 14 to push up the template 11 without touching the substrate 1, when the template 11 is raised from the substrate 1 side. Nevertheless, there is a possibility that the push pin 14 cannot be held at such a desirable position because of misalignment, and in such a state, the push pin 14 cannot assist the release.”) [Morita; paragraph 0056] (“To solve the issue, as will be described in detail in the following exemplary embodiment, the position of the push pin 14 is adjusted, so that the template 11 can be stably released from the curable composition on the substrate, using the push pin 14.”) [Morita; paragraph 0057].
Regarding claim 8, Morita discloses the planarization apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the pressing member (push pin 14) is used to assist separation of the substrate and the planarization member contacting via the composition (“The push pin 14 of the substrate stage 4 has a role as an assisting function in releasing the template 11 from the curable composition on the substrate 1”) [Morita; paragraph 0036].
Regarding claim 16, Morita discloses a product manufacturing method, comprising:
planarizing a composition on a substrate using the planarization apparatus according to claim 1 (see Figure 1 above) (“a planarization apparatus that planarizes a composition on a substrate using a mold”) [Morita; paragraph 0005];
processing the substrate having the planarized composition (“With a growing demand for the miniaturization of semiconductor devices, attention has been drawn to, in addition to conventional photolithography techniques, a microfabrication technique of molding an uncured composition on a substrate using a mold and curing the molded composition, thereby forming a pattern of the composition on the substrate.”) [Morita; paragraph 0002]; and
manufacturing a product from the processed substrate (“a description will be given of a method of manufacturing an article (e.g., a semiconductor integrated circuit (IC) element, a liquid crystal display element, a color filter, or a Micro-Electro Mechanical System (MEMS)) using the above-described planarization apparatus or planarization method. This manufacturing method includes steps of planarizing a composition placed on a substrate (such as a wafer or a glass substrate) in a state where the composition is in contact with a mold and separating the composition from the mold, using the above-described planarization apparatus. By further performing a step of processing the substrate having the planarized composition to form a pattern thereon using a lithography apparatus, and a step of performing other known processes on the processed substrate, an article is manufactured. The other processes include etching, resist removing, dicing, bonding, and packaging. According to the present manufacturing method, high-quality articles can be manufactured compared to those manufactured by the conventional methods.”) [Morita; paragraph 0100].
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morita (US-2022/0184876) in view of Choo (US-2004/0078108).
Regarding claim 9, Morita discloses the planarization apparatus according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the control unit is configured to notify at least one of a display unit and an external device connected to the planarization apparatus of a determination as to whether to perform the planarization processing.
However, Choo (US-2004/0078108) teaches providing a display unit 654 to receive operating parameters and conditions (“A display 654 is also included and is operatively coupled to the control system 620 for displaying, for example, a representation (e.g., graphical and/or textual) of one or more measured conditions, such as dimensions of structures forming on the wafer as well as operating parameters of one or more fabrication components acting on the wafer.”) [Choo; paragraph 0065]. Since Morita teaches a determination as to whether to perform the planarization process (i.e. when to proceed to the next step, the step being planarization) (“In step S609, based on the position information about the notch portion of the substrate 1 and the position information about the push pin 14 obtained by the detection unit 300, the control unit 200 drives the substrate stage 4 so that the position of the notch portion and the position of the push pin 14 match each other.”) [Morita; paragraph 0065], then it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide a display unit, as taught by Choo, in the device of Morita in order to display operating parameters and conditions, such as and including whether the apparatus is or is not proceeding to the planarization processing (“A display 654 is also included and is operatively coupled to the control system 620 for displaying, for example, a representation (e.g., graphical and/or textual) of one or more measured conditions, such as dimensions of structures forming on the wafer as well as operating parameters of one or more fabrication components acting on the wafer.”) [Choo; paragraph 0065].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious, in combination with all other claim limitations, “a contact detection unit configured to detect contact between the pressing member and an object.”
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious, in combination with all other claim limitations, “a force sensor configured to acquire a separation force in separating the planarization member from the substrate in the planarization processing, wherein the control unit is configured to, in a case where the separation force acquired by the force sensor in immediately previous planarization processing is greater than a predetermined value, control determination as to whether the position of the planarization member held by the member holding unit is correct.”
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 7, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious, in combination with all other claim limitations, “a contact detection unit configured to detect contact between the pressing member and an object.”
Claim 10 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 10, the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious, in combination with all other claim limitations, “a contact detection unit configured to detect contact between the pressing member and an object.”
Claim 11, and those claims depending therefrom including claims 12 and 14-15 (claim 13 depends therefrom, but is rejected under 35 USC 112(b) above), are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious, in combination with all other claim limitations, “detecting whether the pressing member projected through the first projection contacts the substrate” as claimed.
The prior art detects the position of the pressing member (lift pin) (determines the position of the push pin pressing member 14 before proceeding with the next step in planarization processing, thereby determining whether to perform planarization processing) (“The detection unit 300 can also be used as a unit for detecting the position of the push pin 14 on the substrate stage 4. The alignment to be described below can be performed by using the position information about the push pin 14 and the notch portion of the substrate 1 obtained by the detection unit 300.”) [Morita; paragraph 0038] (“In step S608, the substrate stage 4 is moved to the detection position of the detection unit 300, the detection unit 300 measures the position of the push pin 14, and then the substrate stage 4 is moved to the position facing the template holding unit 12.”) [Morita; paragraph 0064] but does not detect whether the “pressing member” “contacts the substrate” as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US-2006/0035464 is pertinent to claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL DILLON CRANDALL whose telephone number is (571)270-5947. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30 - 5:30.
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, Monica Carter can be reached at 571-270-5947. 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.
/JOEL D CRANDALL/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights