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 .
Summary
The Applicant’s arguments and claim amendments received on March 2, 2026 are entered into the file. Currently, claims 3, 5, 6, and 12-14 are amended; claims 15-20 are withdrawn; resulting in claims 1-14 pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4 and 12 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 4, the limitation reciting “wherein the at least one decorative top layer forms integral part of the at least one core layer” is indefinite in light of the limitation of claim 1 reciting “at least one decorative top layer located on a top surface of the at least one core layer” because it is not clear exactly what structure is required by the claim.
The common definition of the term “integral” means that something is constituent or formed as a unit with another part (see https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ integral). It is not clear, however, how the decorative top layer can be considered a constituent part of the core layer if it is said to be located on a top surface thereof. The limitation in claim 1 requiring that the at least one decorative top layer is located on a top surface of the at least one core layer appears to imply that the decorative top layer and core layer are distinct (i.e., not integral) parts.
In looking to the as-filed specification, paragraph [0040] discloses that the decorative top layer may comprise at least one décor layer which may be attached to the core layer, or that the décor layer or the decorative layer itself is a print layer, in particular a digital print layer. Paragraph [0046] further discloses that the decorative layer, décor layer, or decorative print may form integral part of the core layer. For example, at least part of the upper surface of the core layer is provided with at least one pattern or decorative image, in particular via digital and/or inkjet printing [0046].
Based on the above disclosure, the aforementioned limitation of claim 4 appears to intend to require that the at least one decorative top layer is located directly on the top surface of the at least one core layer. In each of the embodiments, however, it appears as if the printed layer in particular is the part in direct contact with the top surface of the core layer. Absent further clarification from the Applicant, for the purpose of applying prior art, the claim will be interpreted as requiring that the at least one decorative top layer is located directly on the top surface of the at least one core layer.
Further regarding claim 12, the limitation reciting “wherein the at least one plasticizer is selected from…ELOV, ELOVAT, DOSA…” is indefinite because it is not understood what materials are encompassed by the following terms: ELOV, ELOVAT, and DOSA. It is not clear whether these capitalized terms refer to commercial (e.g., trademarked) product names, or if they are acronyms for generic chemical compounds. In the case that these terms are abbreviations of chemical compound names, it is suggested to amend the claims to include the full names of the materials in order to improve the clarity of the claim.
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 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 1-7 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Essche et al. (US 2022/0389722, previously cited) in view of Bossuyt et al. (US 2024/0328172, previously cited) and Li (US 2025/0145842, previously cited).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Van Essche et al. teaches a floor panel comprising a substrate (1; core layer) and a multi-layered top layer (2; decorative top layer) located on the top surface of the substrate and comprising a décor layer (3), a print pattern (4), a wear-resistant layer (5; wear layer), and a lacquer layer (6; top coating layer) formed on top of the wear-resistant layer ([0001], [0016], Fig. 1).
The substrate comprises a synthetic material (polymeric binder) such as polyvinyl chloride and further includes a mineral filler and a plasticizer ([0057]-[0060], [0063]). The print pattern formed on top of the décor layer is applied as a digitally printed material ([0092]), such that the print pattern or the décor layer, either alone or in combination, can be taken to correspond to the claimed printed layer which is at least partially digitally printed. The wear-resistant layer is translucent or transparent and comprises polyvinyl chloride (thermoplastic resin) and has a thickness of about 0.10 mm to about 1.00 mm, preferably from 0.20 to 0.70 mm ([0094]-[0095]), which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
The lacquer is provided directly on the top surface of the wear-resistant layer and can be formed of a thermoset layer or thermoplastic layer, for example, comprising acrylics, acrylates, etc. [0099]. The lacquer layer is applied as a conformal coating that conforms to the mechanically and/or chemically embossed relief patterns to which it is applied, such that the relief pattern (tactile texture) in the wear-resistant layer is telegraphed through to the lacquer layer ([0014], [0100]).
Although Van Essche et al. teaches that the floor panel may have a backing layer provided adjacent and adhered to the lower surface of the substrate, and that plasticizer migration from a plasticized polyvinyl chloride layer into an adjacent adhesive layer can cause a loss of adhesive strength ([0004], [0146]), the reference does not expressly teach that the floor panel comprises a bottom coating layer located on the bottom surface of the core layer as claimed.
However, in the analogous art of floor panels, Bossuyt et al. teaches a floor covering (1) comprising an underlayment (2) and a floor element (3) which is fixed to the underlayment through an adhesive layer (4) ([0102], Figs. 1-7). Similar to Van Essche et al., Bossuyt et al. teaches that the floor element (3; floor panel) comprises a lacquer layer (20), a wear layer (11), a decorative layer (12), and a core (13) which is formed of PVC and plasticizers [0105]. Bossuyt et al. teaches that a barrier layer (16) may be formed on the lower side of the core layer to create a barrier to reduce plasticizer migration from the floor element towards the adhesive layer [0111]. Bossuyt et al. teaches that plasticizer migration towards the adhesive layer causes the adhesive properties of the adhesive layer to decrease [0009].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the floor panel of Van Essche et al. by forming a barrier layer as a bottom coating layer on the bottom surface of the substrate, as taught by Bossuyt et al., in order to enable the bottom surface of the floor panel to be adhered to a backing layer and/or to a flooring underlayment without risk of adhesive failure due to plasticizer migration.
Although Van Essche et al. in view of Bossuyt et al. teaches a floor panel having the claimed configuration in which a bottom coating layer is located on a bottom surface of the core layer, the combination of references does not expressly teach that the bottom coating layer comprises an at least partly crosslinked polymer impermeable to the plasticizer in the core layer.
However, in the analogous art of floor panels, Li teaches a decorative panel (330) comprising a core (300), a decorative print layer (301) affixed to the upper side of the core, and a transparent or translucent multi-layered covering structure (305) positioned over the print layer ([0091], Fig. 3). The covering structure comprises at least one wear layer (306A, 306B) and at least one top coating (309), in particular an electron beam cured top coating [0091]. Li teaches that the EB cured top coating is essentially impermeable for substances, such as an odorous and/or plasticizing substance [0022]. In particular, Li teaches that the high cross-link density in the EB coating creates a relatively dense network of polymeric chains that inhibits molecules, such as odors or plasticizers, from migrating through the coating network ([0016], [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the floor panel of Van Essche et al. in view of Bossuyt et al. by forming the bottom coating layer of an at least partially crosslinked polymer which is impermeable to plasticizer, as taught by Li, in order to effectively prevent the migration of plasticizer molecules through the coating layer.
Regarding claim 2, Van Essche et al. in view of Bossuyt et al. and Li teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Van Essche et al. in view of Bossuyt et al. and Li differs from the claimed invention in that the combination of references does not expressly teach a relative shrinking rate between the bottom coating layer and the top coating layer and/or decorative top layer.
Van Essche et al. does, however, further teach that multi-layered floor panels consisting of multilayer layers of different composition have a tendency to curl, as temperature changes impart different degrees of shrinking and/or expansion of the separate layers [0007]. Due to this curling, installed floor panels tend to become non-flat and may decouple from each other [0007]. It would, therefore, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the floor panel of Van Essche et al. in view of Bossuyt et al. and Li by setting a relative shrinking rate between the bottom coating layer and the top coating layer and/or decorative top layer to about 1.1 to 1, as suggested by Van Essche et al., in order to prevent excessive curling that would cause the floor panel to become non-flat.
Regarding claim 3, Van Essche et al. in view of Bossuyt et al. and Li teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above. Van Essche et al. further teaches that the décor layer has a thickness of 0.10 to 0.70 mm ([0090]), which overlaps the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Regarding claim 4, Van Essche et al. in view of Bossuyt et al. and Li teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. As noted above, Van Essche et al. teaches that the multi-layered top layer (2; decorative top layer) is located directly on the top surface of the substrate (Figs. 1, 3).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Van Essche et al. in view of Bossuyt et al. and Li teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Although Van Essche et al. does not expressly teach that a primer or a coating layer is provided on the top surface of the substrate (1; core layer), Li further teaches that an upper surface of the core may be covered by at least one primer layer before attaching the decorative print layer to the core [0029]. The primer (302) is present between the core (300) and the decorative layer (301) in order to provide better adhesion of the decorative layer to the core, and the primer may be a UV-curable primer (coating layer) ([0091], Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the floor panel of Van Essche et al. in view of Bossuyt et al. and Li by applying a primer layer as a coating layer on the top surface of the core layer, as taught by Li, in order to improve the adhesion between the core layer and the decorative top layer.
Regarding claim 7, Van Essche et al. in view of Bossuyt et al. and Li teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. As noted above, Van Essche et al. does not expressly teach a bottom coating layer comprising an at least partly crosslinked polymer as claimed, and Li is relied upon to address this feature. Li differs from the claimed invention in that the reference does not teach a specific value for the crosslinking density of the at least partially crosslinked polymer.
Li does, however, teach that the EB cured coating has a relatively high cross-link density, such that volatile substances such as odorants, plasticizers, and/or toxic or non-toxic substances present within the panel can be preserved within the panel, as the EB cured layer is relatively impermeable to those substances ([0016], [0022]). It would, therefore, have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined the optimum value of a result-effective variable such as the crosslinking density of the crosslinked polymer through routine experimentation, especially given the teachings in Li regarding the desire to decrease the permeability of the coating layer to volatile substances by increasing the cross-link density. See MPEP 2144.05(II).
Regarding claim 11, Van Essche et al. in view of Bossuyt et al. and Li teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, and Van Essche et al. further teaches that the filler may be present in the substrate in an amount from 10 wt% to 85 wt%, preferably 30 wt% to 60 wt% [0062]. The substrate may comprise one or more plasticizers, which are present in an amount of less than 15 wt% [0063]. Van Essche et al. therefore teaches an amount of the filler and plasticizer which overlap the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Given that the substrate can contain only polymeric binder such as polyvinyl chloride along with 30-60 wt% mineral filler, less than 15 wt% plasticizer, and optional additives such as pigments, flame retardants, processing aids, and the like ([0058]-[0064]), the amount of polymeric binder would fall within the approximate range of 25 wt% to 55 wt% (i.e., 100% - (60 + 15)% to 100% - (30 + 15)%), which overlaps the broadly claimed range of 10-40 wt%.
Regarding claim 12, Van Essche et al. in view of Bossuyt et al. and Li teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, and Van Essche et al. further teaches that the plasticizer for polyvinyl chloride may be a phthalic diester, such as DINP, DOTP, diisodecyl phthalate, and the like ([0023], [0063]).
Regarding claim 14, Van Essche et al. in view of Bossuyt et al. and Li teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, and Van Essche et al. further teaches that the mineral filler comprises calcium carbonate, limestone, magnesium carbonate, chalk, clay, and/or talk ([0059]-[0060]).
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Essche et al. (US 2022/0389722, previously cited) in view of Bossuyt et al. (US 2024/0328172, previously cited) and Li (US 2025/0145842, previously cited) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gourdin et al. (US 2017/0174935, previously cited).
Regarding claims 8-10, Van Essche et al. in view of Bossuyt et al. and Li teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 above but does not expressly teach that the bottom coating layer comprises 30-50 wt% of an acrylate oligomer, 10-20 wt% of an acrylate monomer, and 1-5 wt% of a photoinitiator.
However, in the analogous art of flooring products, Gourdin et al. teaches a polyvinyl chloride based decorative floor and wall covering that is substantially free of plasticizer migration and exudation ([0018], [0022]). In particular, Gourdin et al. teaches that migration of plasticizers to the surface of the floor covering and the release of VOCs from the floor covering can be reduced by applying a radiation curable polyurethane coating on the PVC layer ([0020], [0054]). The radiation curable formulation is composed of a) 5-95 wt%, preferably 20-80 wt%, of at least one radiation-curable polyurethane; b) 1-8 wt% of at least one acidic adhesion promoter; c) 5-90 wt%, preferably 20-75 wt%, of at least one mono- and/or polyfunctional reactive diluent; 0-15 wt%, preferably 2-10 wt%, of at least one photoinitiator; and 0-35 wt%, preferably 5-30 wt%, of additional additives ([0087]-[0090], [0126]-[0132]).
Gourdin et al. teaches that the radiation curable polyurethane may be a polyurethane acrylate and has a molecular weight between 500 and 25000 g/mol ([0034], [0092], [0108]), thus corresponding to the claimed acrylate oligomer which is a urethane acrylate oligomer. Gourdin et al. teaches that the reactive diluent is an alcohol such as tetrahydrofurfuryl alcohol, pentaerythritol, bisphenol A, or trimethylolpropane, and the ethoxylated and/or propoxylated derivatives of these alcohols esterified with (meth)acrylic acid ([0119]-[0120], Table 2). Gourdin et al. further teaches that the reactive diluent comprises at least two ethylenically unsaturated groups, preferably at least two (meth)acrylate groups ([0036]), thus corresponding to the claimed acrylate monomer which is selected from pentaerythritol triacrylate, ethoxylated bisphenol A diacrylate, or trimethylolpropane triacrylate. Gourdin et al. teaches that the polyurethane layer can be cured by bombardment with electron beams (EB), but that EB curing is less attractive than UV curing using photoinitiators because the equipment is expensive [0152].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the floor panel of Van Essche et al. in view of Bossuyt et al. and Li by using a radiation curable coating composition comprising a urethane acrylate oligomer, an acrylate monomer, and a photoinitiator as claimed and in the claimed amounts as the barrier layer, as taught by Gourdin et al., given that such a coating composition is known to be suitable for preventing the release of VOCs and the migration and exudation of plasticizers from the surface of the floor panel. Furthermore, it is noted that Gourdin et al. teaches amounts of the acrylate oligomer, acrylate monomer, and photoinitiator which overlap the claimed ranges. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I).
Response to Arguments
Response-Drawings
The previous objections to the drawings are overcome by the replacement drawings replacing reference characters “1031”, “1033”, and “1034” with reference characters “1040”, “1041”, and “1042”, respectively, in Figs. 13-23 and by the corresponding amendments to paragraphs [0092]-[0102] of the specification.
Response-Claim Objections
The previous objections to claims 5, 6, and 12 are overcome by the Applicant’s amendments to the claims in the response filed March 2, 2026.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections of claims 3, 13, and 14 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 regards as the invention are overcome by the Applicant’s amendments to the claims in the response filed March 2, 2026.
The previous rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is maintained in the office action above because the rejection was not addressed by the Applicant either in the amendments or the remarks. The previous rejection of claim 12 is also maintained in part because although several of the listed acronyms were clarified by the Applicant’s amendments providing the full conventional names of most of the compounds, some of the capitalized terms (ELOV, ELOVAT, and DOSA) remain in their original form in the claim, and no additional clarification has been provided by the Applicant.
Response-Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant's arguments, see pages 16-21 of the remarks filed March 2, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant argues on pages 19-21 that Van Essche fails to disclose the limitation reciting “at least one top coating layer…comprises at least partially a tactile texture provided thereon by chemical or mechanical means”. In particular, the Applicant argues that because the wear layer has a relief pattern that is telegraphed through to the lacquer layer, the lacquer layer is not configured to have a relief pattern thereon and thus fails to meet the claimed limitation of a tactile texture being provided on the top coating layer. The Applicant further argues that even if the lacquer layer of Van Essche has a tactile texture, it is not formed “by chemical or mechanical means” because it is located “on” and applied on top of the wear resistant layer.
These arguments are not persuasive. As explained in the prior art rejections above, the lacquer layer taught by Van Essche which conforms to the embossed relief pattern in the wear-resistant layer such that the relief pattern is telegraphed through to the lacquer layer is considered to correspond to the claimed top coating layer which comprises a tactile texture provided thereon by chemical or mechanical means. The common definition of the term “texture” refers to the surface of a material, especially as perceived by the sense of touch; or, a rough or grainy surface quality (see https://www.thefreedictionary.com/texture). In the instant case, the top surface of the lacquer layer has a tactile texture (i.e., rough or grainy surface quality) provided thereon as a result of being formed over the textured surface of the wear-resistant layer. Given that the lacquer layer is said to be conformal, with the relief pattern of the wear-resistant layer being telegraphed therethrough, the application of the lacquer layer onto the wear-resistant layer results in a tactile texture being formed on the top surface of the lacquer layer (see, e.g., Fig. 3 and corresponding description in paragraph [0045] of Van Essche). In this way, the tactile texture is provided on the lacquer layer by mechanical means, wherein the wear-resistant layer having the relief pattern serves as a mold that imparts the tactile texture onto the lacquer layer.
It is further noted, however, that the claimed limitation reciting “by chemical or mechanical means” is a product-by-process limitation referring to the method of providing the tactile texture on the top coating layer and is not germane to the issue of patentability of the product itself unless the method imparts a distinctive structural characteristic to the product. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. See MPEP 2113(I). In the instant case, the recitation that the tactile texture is provided on the top coating layer by chemical or mechanical means does not impart any distinctive structural characteristics which would differentiate the product from one in which the tactile texture is provided on the top coating layer by any other means or process. For example, in the case of the lacquer layer formed over the wear-resistant layer having a relief pattern such that the relief pattern is telegraphed through the lacquer layer, it is noted that a substantially identical structure to the structure taught by Van Essche can be formed by an entirely different method, such as a method in which the lacquer layer is formed over a flat wear-resistant layer followed by a step of embossing to form the relief pattern on both the lacquer layer and the wear-resistant layer simultaneously. In either case, the lacquer layer can be said to have a tactile texture provided thereon by mechanical means, where the phrase “by mechanical means” does not impart any specific structural features that would limit the structure of the claimed product. Once a product appearing to be substantially identical is found and a prior art rejection is made, the burden shifts to the Applicant to show a nonobvious difference. See MPEP 2113(II).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Burns et al. (US 2018/0134016) teaches a composite floor covering comprising a decorative portion having a top layer comprising a wear layer and a scratch layer, wherein the top surface of the decorative portion is embossed to provide textures intended to imitate the appearance of wood grain or the like ([0008], [0114]-[0015]). In addition to embossing, Burns et al. teaches that the texture can be provided by laser etching, molding, or hot or cold stamping, or by applying a film with a texture to the viscous coating liquid to form a textured surface mirroring the texture present on the film ([0115]-[0116]).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 REBECCA L GRUSBY whose telephone number is (571) 272-1564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 PM.
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, Mark Ruthkosky can be reached at (571) 272-1291. 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.
/Rebecca L Grusby/Examiner, Art Unit 1785
Prosecution Insights