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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 3-4 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 Claims 3 and 4, both direct claims to “the optical system” and so have issues of antecedent basis. This makes the scope unclear since claims 3 and 4 depend from claims 1 and 2, which describe first, second and third optical systems but make no reference to “an optical system”. Examiner suggests referring to one or more of the first, the second or the third optical systems. Appropriate correction is required.
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, they are rejected for depending from rejected claims 3 or 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 10, 14-15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PG BUB 20230100657 (hereinafter Li).
Regarding Claim 1, Li discloses a light emitting device comprising:
a light emitting element array (FIG. 3 shows two separate light emission sensors 112) in which a plurality of light emitting elements ([0054] describes how each of laser emission sensors 112 include a plurality of light sources having dimensions of R*T and P*Q) are arranged such that a length in one direction is w ([0054] describes widths R and P of the laser emission sensors 112), the light emitting element array being a first light emitting element array and a second light emitting element array that are parallel to each other in the one direction (FIG. 3 shows a first light emission sensor 112 on the left and a second light emission sensor 112 on the right that are depicted in a parallel configuration);
a first optical system (laser emission lens 111 arranged on the left side of FIG. 3) that refracts light emitted from the first light emitting element array; and
a second optical system (laser emission lens 111 arranged on the right side of FIG. 3) that refracts light emitted from the second light emitting element array such that an irradiation region of the second light emitting element array is parallel to an irradiation region of the first light emitting element array in the one direction ([0044] specifically describes the optical axes shown in FIG. 3 as being parallel, which would result in the emitted irradiation regions also being parallel),
wherein a distance between an optical axis of the first optical system and a center of the first light emitting element array and a distance between an optical axis of the second optical system and a center of the second light emitting element array in the one direction are w/4 or more and w/2 or less (FIG. 3 shows a center of laser emission sensors 112 being offset from optical axes m & n by approximately w/2).
Regarding Claim 5, Li discloses the light emitting device according to claim 1,
wherein the first light emitting element array (112-1, see annotated version of FIG. 8 below) and the first optical system are fixed on a first sub-mount substrate (sub-bracket 140-1, FIG. 8 shows an exploded view of LIDAR 100 that includes bracket 140, [0061] describes bracket 140 as optionally taking the form of three separate sub-brackets),
PNG
media_image1.png
491
613
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the second light emitting element array (112-2) and the second optical system are fixed on a second sub-mount substrate (sub-bracket 140-2), and the first sub-mount substrate and the second sub-mount substrate are disposed such that the first light emitting element array and the second light emitting element array are parallel to each other in the one direction (FIG. 8 shows 112-1 and 112-2 arranged parallel to one another).
Regarding Claim 6, Li discloses the light emitting device according to claim 5,
wherein the first light emitting element array (112-1) and the second light emitting element array (112-2) are configured by a common light emitting element array (FIG. 8 shows light emitting arrays of similar size and position. The claim term “common” is being interpreted to mean similar in light of the context of the specification. See [0130] of the instant application as published, which describes light sources 40A and 40D having common positional relationships between light emitting element array and lenses even though the light emitting element arrays 41 are in different positions as shown in FIG. 4 of the instant application)
the first optical system and the second optical system are configured by a common optical system (FIG. 3 shows laser emission lenses 111 associated with light emitting arrays 112 depicted with very similar if not identical configurations), and
the light emitting element array and the optical system are fixed to the sub-mount substrate such that a distance between the first light emitting element array and the first optical system and a distance between the second light emitting element array and the second optical system are equal (FIGS. 3 and 8 both show the same distance between each of arrays 112 and their respective laser emission lens 111).
Regarding Claim 10, Li teaches Hoshino teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1,
wherein the light emitting element array has a rectangular shape in which a length of a side in the one direction is w and a length of a side in another direction intersecting the one direction is h (the light emission sensors 112-1 and 112-2 both have rectangular shapes as shown in FIG. 8),
n (n is a natural number of 1 or more) light emitting element arrays (112-1 and 112-2) including the first light emitting element array are parallel to each other in the other direction (Annotated FIG. 8 of Li shows laser emission sensors 112-1 and 112-2 parallel to each other in both the X direction and the Y direction), and
an effective diameter R of the optical system is set to satisfy Equation (1) - R >= 2 x SQRT(W^2 + (nh/2)^2) (effective diameter of the optical system is being interpreted as the diameter of the lens letting light into emission lens 111 with respect to primary reference Li. In the event the sensor is a 1x1 square as it appears to be in FIG. 8 of Li the Radius would have to have a diameter of 2.36 and a radius of 1.18. FIG. 3 shows the lens letting light in to be have a radius of about 1.5 and a diameter of 3, thereby satisfying Equation (1)).
Regarding Claim 14, Li teaches the light emitting device according to claim 5,
wherein the light emitting element array has a rectangular shape in which a length of a side in the one direction is w and a length of a side in another direction intersecting the one direction is h(the light emission sensors 112-1 and 112-2 both have rectangular shapes as shown in FIG. 8),
n (n is a natural number of 1 or more) light emitting element arrays including the first light emitting element array are parallel to each other in the other direction, and
an effective diameter R of the optical system is set to satisfy Equation (1) - R >= 2 x SQRT(W^2 + (nh/2)^2) (effective diameter of the optical system is being interpreted as the diameter of the lens letting light into emission lens 111 with respect to primary reference Li. In the event the sensor is a 1x1 square as it appears to be in FIG. 8 of Li the Radius would have to have a diameter of 2.36 and a radius of 1.18. FIG. 3 shows the lens letting light in to be have a radius of about 1.5 and a diameter of 3, thereby satisfying Equation (1)).
Regarding Claim 15, Li teaches the light emitting device according to claim 6,
wherein the light emitting element array has a rectangular shape in which a length of a side in the one direction is w and a length of a side in another direction intersecting the one direction is h (the light emission sensors 112-1 and 112-2 both have rectangular shapes as shown in FIG. 8),
n (n is a natural number of 1 or more) light emitting element arrays including the first light emitting element array are parallel to each other in the other direction, and
an effective diameter R of the optical system is set to satisfy Equation (1) - R >= 2 x SQRT(W^2 + (nh/2)^2) (effective diameter of the optical system is being interpreted as the diameter of the lens letting light into emission lens 111 with respect to primary reference Li. In the event the sensor is a 1x1 square as it appears to be in FIG. 8 of Li the Radius would have to have a diameter of 2.36 and a radius of 1.18. FIG. 3 shows the lens letting light in to be have a radius of about 1.5 and a diameter of 3, thereby satisfying Equation (1)).
Regarding Claim 19, Li discloses a distance measurement apparatus comprising:
the light emitting device according to claim 1 (Li discloses the limitations of claim 1 as articulated above);
a light receiving unit (120, see FIG. 3) that receives light emitted from the light emitting device and reflected by a target object ([0037] describes laser receiving module 120 being configured to receive light emitted by the adjacent laser emission modules 110); and
a calculation unit that calculates a distance to the target object based on a result of the light reception in the light receiving unit ([0003] describes how LIDARs would include a calculation unit for determining distance to a target from a received signal).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2-4, 7-8, 11-13 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of US PG PUB 20190293765 (hereinafter Jeong) and further in view of EP 3741616 (hereinafter Hoshino).
Regarding Claim 2, Li teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, but does not teach the incorporation of three or more light emitting element arrays.
However, Jeong teaches three or more light emitting units as shown by the squares illustrated in FIG. 10. [0110] of Jeong describes how the light emitting units can take the form of line beams that would be formed by an array of lasers. In particular, when the upper left and upper right light emitting units correspond to the first and second light emitting element arrays, the lower left light emitting array shown in FIG. 10 would teach a third light emitting element array that is parallel to the first light emitting element array in another direction intersecting the one direction; and
While FIG. 10 does not depict the details of each light emitting unit, FIG. 3 of Jeong does show how light emitting units each include a collimating lens. Consequently, Jeong also teaches a third optical system that refracts light emitted from the third light emitting element array such that an irradiation region of the third light emitting element array is parallel to the irradiation region of the first light emitting element array in the other direction (FIG. 3 of Jeong also shows how the irradiation regions of the emitted light are also parallel),
Jeong and Li both describe LIDAR systems that include multiple emitting arrays. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to add additional emitters to the two emitter configuration taught by Li with the eight emitter system depicted in FIG. 10 of Jeong as it would allow for tracking a larger number of objects because having too few emitters can limit the number of targets that can be tracked as pointed out in [0009] of Jeong.
The combination of Jeong and Li only describes a system in which the laser emission sensors are offset from the optical axis along one direction and not in two. This appears to be because Li only teaches a two emitter array system and Li is silent as to any offset between the lasers and the optics.
However, Hoshino teaches that a location of the emitting array can be offset in two directions as shown in FIG. 4 in which LS2 and LS3 (LS2 and LS3 are emitter arrays) are shifted both horizontally and vertically with respect to an optical axis of respective lenses OP2 and OP3. Consequently, Hoshino teaches wherein, in the first light emitting element array and the third light emitting element array, the plurality of light emitting elements are arranged such that a length in the other direction is h, and a distance between the optical axis of the first optical system and the center of the first light emitting element array and a distance between an optical axis of the third optical system and a center of the third light emitting element array in the other direction are h/4 or more and h/2 or less (a vertical offset between the optical axis and the emitting array appears to be a little greater than a fourth of the height of LS2 and LS3 and a horizontal offset between the optical axis and the emitting array appears to be a half of the width of LS2 and LS3)
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Li, Jeong and Hishono teaches the light emitting device according to claim 2,
wherein the light emitting element array has a rectangular shape (Li and Hishono both teach the use of rectangular emission arrays, see 112-1 in annotated FIG. 8 of Li and LS1-4 in FIG. 4 of Hishono) in which a length of a side in the one direction is w and a length of a side in the other direction is h, and
the optical axis of the optical system is located on any one diagonal line of the rectangular shape ([0050] of Hishono describes how placement of the emitter arrays relative to the optical axis is based on a relative position of the various emitter arrays and optics necessary to achieve alignment of the emitted beams. Consequently, the depicted locations of the emitter arrays relative to the optical axis are exemplary only and would change based on a position of the emitters as shown in many of the other figures throughout the specification. Placement of the emitter array in a location that would correspond to one of the rectangular emitter array’s diagonal vertices intersecting the optical axis amounts merely to a rearrangement of parts since according to [0050] this slight variation in position would yield only predictable results).
Regarding Claim 4, it is rejected for the same reasons as Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 7, Li teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1. The combination of Li, Jeong and Hishono as applied to claim 3 teaches:
a fourth light emitting element array that is parallel to the first light emitting element array in the one direction and another direction intersecting the one direction (the combination of Li, Jeong and Hishono teaches a configuration in which at least four emitters are arranged in a square arrangement making each light emitting element array parallel to a first light emitting array in one direction and a second light emitting array in another direction orthogonal to the first direction); and
a fourth optical system that refracts light emitted from the fourth light emitting element array such that an irradiation region of the fourth light emitting element array is parallel to the irradiation region of the first light emitting element array (emission of the light emitting arrays would generate parallel irradiation regions),
wherein the first light emitting element array and the fourth light emitting element array have a two-fold symmetric or four-fold symmetric shape (the square geometry arrangement of the upper left, upper right, lower left and lower right emitting arrays would result in it having both two-fold and four-fold symmetry), and
a combination of the fourth light emitting element array and the fourth optical system has a configuration in which a combination of the first light emitting element array and the first optical system is rotated by 180 degrees around the optical axis of the first optical system (the combination of Li, Jeong and Hishono is rotatable by 180 degrees and would still include a configuration with the first and fourth light emitting element array with their respective optical systems).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Li, Jeong and Hishono teaches the light emitting device according to claim 7,
wherein the first light emitting element array, the second light emitting element array, and the fourth light emitting element array have a four-fold symmetric shape (FIG. 10 of Jeong shows the light emitters being in a square configuration , and
a combination of the second light emitting element array and the second optical system has a configuration in which the combination of the first light emitting element array and the first optical system is rotated by 90 degrees around the optical axis of the first optical system (the combination of Li, Jeong and Hishono is rotatable by 90 degrees and would still include a configuration with the first light emitting element array with its respective optical systems).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Li, Jeong and Hishono teaches the light emitting device according to claim 2,
wherein the light emitting element array has a rectangular shape in which a length of a side in the one direction is w and a length of a side in the other direction intersecting the one direction is h (the light emission sensors 112-1 and 112-2 both have rectangular shapes as shown in FIG. 8),
n (n is a natural number of 1 or more) light emitting element arrays (112-1 and 112-2 of Li) including the first light emitting element array are parallel to each other in the other direction (Annotated FIG. 8 of Li shows laser emission sensors 112-1 and 112-2 parallel to each other in both the X direction and the Y direction), and
an effective diameter R of the optical system is set to satisfy Equation (1) - R >= 2 x SQRT(W^2 + (nh/2)^2) (effective diameter of the optical system is being interpreted as the diameter of the lens letting light into emission lens 111 with respect to primary reference Li. In the event the sensor is a 1x1 square as it appears to be in FIG. 8 of Li the Radius would have to have a diameter of 2.36 and a radius of 1.18. FIG. 3 shows the lens letting light in to be have a radius of about 1.5 and a diameter of 3, thereby satisfying Equation (1)).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Li, Jeong and Hishono teaches the light emitting device according to claim 3,
wherein the light emitting element array has a rectangular shape in which a length of a side in the one direction is w and a length of a side in the other direction intersecting the one direction is h (the light emission sensors 112-1 and 112-2 both have rectangular shapes as shown in FIG. 8),
n (n is a natural number of 1 or more) light emitting element arrays including the first light emitting element array are parallel to each other in the other direction (Annotated FIG. 8 of Li shows laser emission sensors 112-1 and 112-2 parallel to each other in both the X direction and the Y direction), and
an effective diameter R of the optical system is set to satisfy Equation (1) - R >= 2 x SQRT(W^2 + (nh/2)^2) (effective diameter of the optical system is being interpreted as the diameter of the lens letting light into emission lens 111 with respect to primary reference Li. In the event the sensor is a 1x1 square as it appears to be in FIG. 8 of Li the Radius would have to have a diameter of 2.36 and a radius of 1.18. FIG. 3 shows the lens letting light in to be have a radius of about 1.5 and a diameter of 3, thereby satisfying Equation (1)).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Li, Jeong and Hishono teaches the light emitting device according to claim 4,
wherein the light emitting element array has a rectangular shape in which a length of a side in the one direction is w and a length of a side in the other direction intersecting the one direction is h (the light emission sensors 112-1 and 112-2 both have rectangular shapes as shown in FIG. 8),
n (n is a natural number of 1 or more) light emitting element arrays including the first light emitting element array are parallel to each other in the other direction (Annotated FIG. 8 of Li shows laser emission sensors 112-1 and 112-2 parallel to each other in both the X direction and the Y direction), and
an effective diameter R of the optical system is set to satisfy Equation (1) - R >= 2 x SQRT(W^2 + (nh/2)^2) (effective diameter of the optical system is being interpreted as the diameter of the lens letting light into emission lens 111 with respect to primary reference Li. In the event the sensor is a 1x1 square as it appears to be in FIG. 8 of Li the Radius would have to have a diameter of 2.36 and a radius of 1.18. FIG. 3 shows the lens letting light in to be have a radius of about 1.5 and a diameter of 3, thereby satisfying Equation (1)).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Li, Jeong and Hishono teaches the light emitting device according to claim 7,
wherein the light emitting element array has a rectangular shape in which a length of a side in the one direction is w and a length of a side in another direction intersecting the one direction is h (the light emission sensors 112-1 and 112-2 both have rectangular shapes as shown in FIG. 8),
n (n is a natural number of 1 or more) light emitting element arrays including the first light emitting element array are parallel to each other in the other direction, and
an effective diameter R of the optical system is set to satisfy Equation (1) - R >= 2 x SQRT(W^2 + (nh/2)^2) (effective diameter of the optical system is being interpreted as the diameter of the lens letting light into emission lens 111 with respect to primary reference Li. In the event the sensor is a 1x1 square as it appears to be in FIG. 8 of Li the Radius would have to have a diameter of 2.36 and a radius of 1.18. FIG. 3 shows the lens letting light in to be have a radius of about 1.5 and a diameter of 3, thereby satisfying Equation (1)).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Li, Jeong and Hishono teaches the light emitting device according to claim 8,
wherein the light emitting element array has a rectangular shape in which a length of a side in the one direction is w and a length of a side in another direction intersecting the one direction is h (the light emission sensors 112-1 and 112-2 both have rectangular shapes as shown in FIG. 8),
n (n is a natural number of 1 or more) light emitting element arrays including the first light emitting element array are parallel to each other in the other direction, and
an effective diameter R of the optical system is set to satisfy Equation (1) - R >= 2 x SQRT(W^2 + (nh/2)^2) (effective diameter of the optical system is being interpreted as the diameter of the lens letting light into emission lens 111 with respect to primary reference Li. In the event the sensor is a 1x1 square as it appears to be in FIG. 8 of Li the Radius would have to have a diameter of 2.36 and a radius of 1.18. FIG. 3 shows the lens letting light in to be have a radius of about 1.5 and a diameter of 3, thereby satisfying Equation (1)).
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG PUB 20230100657 (hereinafter Li) in view of US PG PUB 20210320479 (hereinafter Kondo).
Regarding Claim 9, Li teaches the light emitting device according to claim 1, further comprising:
a first driver ([0072] describes how emission board 113 in addition to supporting laser emission sensor 112 also provides a power supply signal and a control signal to the laser emission sensor 112) that drives the first light emitting element array (112-1); and
a second driver ([0072]) that drives the second light emitting element array (112-2), but fails to specifically teach the remainder of the claim.
However, Kondo teaches wherein the first driver and the second driver are disposed at positions other than a region between the first light emitting element array and the second light emitting element array (50A and 50B shown in FIG. 3A/3B of Kondo teaches the use of discrete drivers for each emitter array 10A/10B that are positioned on a common circuit board with their respective emitter array and not placed between the emission arrays but to either side of the emitter arrays).
Kondo and Li both describe light emitter configurations that include multiple emitter arrays. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have found it obvious to modify the teachings of Li to include drivers on circuit boards 113 as taught by Kondo to support each of the laser emissions sensors 112-1 and 112-2. Doing so would be obvious since as shown in FIG. 8 of Li, there is no room for a driver mounted to one of circuit boards 113 to be placed between laser emission sensors 112-1 and 112-2. This combination would also be obvious since [0072] of Li also requires that the laser emission sensors 112 be supplied power and control signals by emission board 113.
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Li and Kondo teaches the light emitting device according to claim 9,
wherein the light emitting element array has a rectangular shape in which a length of a side in the one direction is w and a length of a side in another direction intersecting the one direction is h (the light emission sensors 112-1 and 112-2 both have rectangular shapes as shown in FIG. 8),
n (n is a natural number of 1 or more) light emitting element arrays including the first light emitting element array are parallel to each other in the other direction, and
an effective diameter R of the optical system is set to satisfy Equation (1) - R >= 2 x SQRT(W^2 + (nh/2)^2) (effective diameter of the optical system is being interpreted as the diameter of the lens letting light into emission lens 111 with respect to primary reference Li. In the event the sensor is a 1x1 square as it appears to be in FIG. 8 of Li the Radius would have to have a diameter of 2.36 and a radius of 1.18. FIG. 3 shows the lens letting light in to be have a radius of about 1.5 and a diameter of 3, thereby satisfying Equation (1)).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li in view of US PG PUB 20190293765 (hereinafter Jeong).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Li and Jeong teaches a distance measurement apparatus comprising:
the light emitting device according to claim 2 (the combination of Li and Jeong teaches the limitations of claim 2 as articulated above);
a light receiving unit (120, see FIG. 3 of Li) that receives light emitted from the light emitting device and reflected by a target object; and
a calculation unit that calculates a distance to the target object based on a result of the light reception in the light receiving unit ([0003] of Li describes how LIDARs would include a calculation unit for determining distance to a target from a received signal).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN WIGGER whose telephone number is (571)272-4208. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30am to 7:00pm.
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, Helal Algahaim can be reached at (571)270-5227. 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.
/BENJAMIN DAVID WIGGER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645
/HELAL A ALGAHAIM/SPE , Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights