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 § 102
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 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 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Inaba et al. (US 2015/0315011, hereinafter “Inaba”).
Regarding claim 1, Inaba teaches in Figs. 7A-7B (shown below) a micro electro-mechanical system (MEMS) switch, comprising:
a substrate (21, Fig. 7A and ¶[0067]);
an anchor point (532B, Fig. 7A and ¶[0138]), on a side of the substrate;
a first signal line (51 on the left side of the anchor point 532B, Fig. 7 and ¶[0059]) and a first driving electrode (51 on the right side of anchor point 532B, Fig. 7A and ¶[0059]), on the side of the substrate on which the anchor point is located (Fig. 7A), wherein the first signal line and the first driving electrode are respectively arranged on two sides of the anchor point along a first direction, and the first direction is parallel to a substrate surface of the substrate; and
a distance between a side of the anchor point away from the substrate surface and the substrate surface (i.e. top surface of the anchor point, Fig. 7A) is greater than a distance between a side of the first signal line away from the substrate surface and the substrate surface (i.e. top surface of 51 on the left side, Fig. 7A), and greater than a distance between a side of the first driving electrode away from the substrate surface and the substrate surface (i.e. top surface of 51 on the right side, Fig. 7A), respectively (Fig. 7A);
a second signal line (52B, Fig. 7A and ¶[0135]), on a side of the anchor point close to the substrate; and
a switch beam (53B, Fig. 7A and ¶[0135]), connected with the anchor point, wherein, two ends of the switch beam are suspended and on the side of the anchor point away from the substrate (Fig. 7A), an orthographic projection of the switch beam onto the substrate surface coincides at least partially with an orthographic projection of the first signal line onto the substrate surface, and an orthographic projection of the first driving electrode onto the substrate surface, respectively (Fig. 7A).
PNG
media_image1.png
784
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2 (1), Inaba teaches wherein the switch beam comprises a plurality of switch beam segments (531B, Fig. 7A) with the anchor point (532B, Fig. 7A) as a dividing point;
the switch beam segments correspond to the first signal line (e.g. 51 on the left, Fig. 7A) and first driving electrode (e.g. 51 on the right, Fig. 7A) respectively;
when a distance between a switch beam segment on a side of the anchor point (532B, Fig. 7A) and the corresponding first signal line (i.e. 51 on the left side of anchor point, Fig. 7A) decreases, a distance between a switch beam segment (53B, Fig. 7A) on the other side of the anchor point (532B, Fig. 7A) and the corresponding first driving electrode (51 on the right side of the anchor point, Fig. 7A) increases; and when the distance between the switch beam segment on the side of the anchor point and the corresponding first signal line increases, the distance between the switch beam segment on the other side of the anchor point and the corresponding first driving electrode decreases (i.e. Inaba teaches that an alternating voltage is applied between 531a and 51a and 531b and 51b which would cause the distance between the switch beam segment 531b and 51b decrease as the distance between 531a and 51a increases, during one cycle, and increase and decrease, respectively, during the next cycle, ¶¶[0137]-[0139]).
Regarding claim 14 (1), Inaba teaches an electronic device, comprising the MEMS switch according to claim 1 (¶¶[0156]-[0163]).
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Li et al. (CN 107393767, hereinafter “Li”, cited on IDS and relying on provided English translation).
Regarding claim 1, Li teaches in Figs. 1-6 (Figs. 3-6 shown below) a micro electro-mechanical system (MEMS) switch, comprising:
a substrate (1, Fig. 3 and ¶[0045]);
an anchor point (7, Fig. 3 and ¶[0046]), on a side of the substrate (Fig. 3);
a first signal line (3, Figs. 3-4 and ¶[0046]) and a first driving electrode (17, Figs. 3-4 and ¶[0046]), on the side of the substrate on which the anchor point is located (Fig. 3), wherein the first signal line and the first driving electrode are respectively arranged on two sides of the anchor point along a first direction (Fig. 3), and the first direction is parallel to a substrate surface of the substrate (Fig. 3); and
a distance between a side of the anchor point (7, Fig. 3) away from the substrate surface (i.e. side close to element 14, Fig. 3) and the substrate surface is greater than a distance between a side of the first signal line (3, Fig. 3) away from the substrate surface and the substrate surface, and greater than a distance between a side of the first driving electrode (17, Fig. 3) away from the substrate surface and the substrate surface, respectively;
a second signal line (2, Fig. 3 and ¶[0046]), on a side of the anchor point close to the substrate (Fig. 3); and
a switch beam (14, Fig. 3 and ¶[0046]), connected with the anchor point (7, Fig. 3), wherein, two ends of the switch beam are suspended and on the side of the anchor point away from the substrate, an orthographic projection of the switch beam onto the substrate surface coincides at least partially with an orthographic projection of the first signal line onto the substrate surface, and an orthographic projection of the first driving electrode onto the substrate surface, respectively (Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
858
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
224
605
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2 (1), Li teaches wherein the switch beam comprises a plurality of switch beam segments (i.e. portions of 14 on two sides of anchor point 7, Fig. 3) with the anchor point as a dividing point;
the switch beam segments correspond to the first signal line (3, Fig. 3) and first driving electrode (17, Fig. 3) respectively;
when a distance between a switch beam segment on a side of the anchor point and the corresponding first signal line decreases, a distance between a switch beam segment on the other side of the anchor point and the corresponding first driving electrode increases; and when the distance between the switch beam segment on the side of the anchor point and the corresponding first signal line increases, the distance between the switch beam segment on the other side of the anchor point and the corresponding first driving electrode decreases (i.e. Li discloses the when voltage is applied to between 14 and 16 the distance between switch beam 14 and the contact 20 decreases in order to close the switch, where the same decrease in distance would happen when voltage is applied between 14 and 17, ¶[0061]).
Claim(s) 1-2, 10 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fitzgerald et al. (US 2022/0371882, hereinafter “Fitzgerald”, cited on IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Fitzgerald teaches in Figs. 1A-7C (shown below) a micro electro-mechanical system (MEMS) switch, comprising:
a substrate (Fig. 1A, ¶[0019]);
an anchor point (104, Figs. 1A-1C and ¶[0019]), on a side of the substrate;
a first signal line (121, Figs. 1A-1C and ¶[0019]) and a first driving electrode (122, Fig. 1A-1C and ¶[0019]), on the side of the substrate on which the anchor point is located (Figs. 1A-1C), wherein the first signal line and the first driving electrode are respectively arranged on two sides of the anchor point along a first direction (Figs. 1A-1C), and the first direction is parallel to a substrate surface of the substrate (Figs. 1A-1C); and
a distance between a side of the anchor point away from the substrate surface (i.e. top surface of the anchor 104) and the substrate surface is greater than a distance between a side of the first signal line away from the substrate surface (i.e. top of the electrode 121, Figs. 1A-1C) and the substrate surface, and greater than a distance between a side of the first driving electrode away from the substrate surface (i.e. top of the driving electrode 122, Figs. 1A-1C) and the substrate surface, respectively (Figs. 1A-1C);
a second signal line (123, Figs. 1A-1C and ¶[0019]), on a side of the anchor point close to the substrate; and
a switch beam (102, Figs. 1A-1C and ¶[0019]), connected with the anchor point (104, Figs. 1A-1C), wherein, two ends of the switch beam are suspended and on the side of the anchor point away from the substrate (Figs. 1A-1C), an orthographic projection of the switch beam onto the substrate surface coincides at least partially with an orthographic projection of the first signal line onto the substrate surface, and an orthographic projection of the first driving electrode onto the substrate surface, respectively (Figs. 1A-1C).
PNG
media_image4.png
802
496
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2 (1), Fitzgerald teaches wherein the switch beam comprises a plurality of switch beam segments (i.e. segments of 102 on two sides of 104, Figs. 1A-1C) with the anchor point (104, Figs. 1A-1C) as a dividing point;
the switch beam segments correspond to the first signal line (121, Figs. 1A-1C) and first driving electrode (122, Figs. 1A-1C) respectively;
when a distance between a switch beam segment on a side of the anchor point (104, Figs. 1A-1C) and the corresponding first signal line (121, Figs. 1A-1C) decreases (Fig. 1A0, a distance between a switch beam segment on the other side of the anchor point and the corresponding first driving electrode increases (Fig. 1A); and when the distance between the switch beam segment on the side of the anchor point and the corresponding first signal line increases (Fig. 1B), the distance between the switch beam segment on the other side of the anchor point and the corresponding first driving electrode decreases (Fig. 1B).
Regarding claim 10 (1), Fitzgerald teaches a driving method of a MEMS switch, applied to the MEMS switch according to any one of claims 1, wherein the driving method comprises:
applying a voltage between the first signal line (121, Fig. 1A) and the switch beam (102, Fig. 1A), such that the switch beam is contacted with the first signal line, and the switch is in a closed state (Fig. 1A);
stopping applying the voltage between the first signal line and the switch beam (Fig. 1C), and
applying a voltage between the first driving electrode and the switch beam, such that the switch beam is separated from the first signal line, and the switch is in an off state (Fig. 1B, ¶¶[0120]-[0126]).
Regarding claim 14 (1), Fitzgerald teaches an electronic device, comprising the MEMS switch according to claim 1 (Fig. 4, [0038]).
Regarding claim 15 (2), Fitzgerald teaches wherein the driving method comprises:
applying a voltage between the first signal line (121, Fig. 1A) and the switch beam (102, Fig. 1A), such that the switch beam is contacted with the first signal line, and the switch is in a closed state (Fig. 1A)
stopping applying the voltage between the first signal line and the switch beam (Fig. 1C), and
applying a voltage between the first driving electrode and the switch beam, such that the switch beam is separated from the first signal line, and the switch is in an off state (Fig. 1B, ¶¶[0120]-[0126]).
Claim(s) 3-7 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inaba, Li or Fitzgerald, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Reid et al. (US 2004/0012061, hereinafter “Reid”).
Regarding claim 3 (2), teaching of Inaba or Li or Fitzgerald was discussed above in the rejection of claim 2. Inaba or Li or Fitzgerald, however, does not explicitly teach a first insulation layer disposed on a side of the first driving electrode away from the substrate surface, wherein a distance between the side of the first insulation layer away from the substrate surface and the substrate surface is less than the distance between the side of the anchor point away from the substrate surface and the substrate surface.
Reid, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches in Fig. 2 and related text, that in MEMES devices electrodes (7, Fig. 2 and ¶[0008]) can be coated with anti-stiction coating (10, Fig. 2 and ¶[0009]) such that a distance between the side of the first insulation layer away from the substrate surface and the substrate surface is less than the distance between the side of the anchor point (5, Fig. 2 and ¶[0008]) away from the substrate surface and the substrate surface in order to reduce sticking forces between the switch beam and the electrode (¶[0009]).
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claim elements, using such elements would lead to predictable results, and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the first insulating layer disclosed by Reid on a side of the first driving electrode disclosed by Inaba or Li or Fitzgerald in order to reduce sticking forces between the switch beam and the first driving electrode.
Regarding claim 4 (3), the combined teaching of Inaba or Li or Fitzgerald and Reid was discussed above in the rejection of claim 3. Inaba or Li or Fitzgerald and Reid, however, do not explicitly teach a dielectric layer on the side of the first signal line away from the substrate surface; a distance between a side of the dielectric layer away from the substrate surface and the substrate surface is less than the distance between the side of the anchor point away from the substrate surface and the substrate surface.
Nonetheless, applying the insulating layer disclosed by Reid on the first signal line disclosed by Inaba, Li or Fitzgerald, in a similar manner as to the first driving electrode, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 3, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in order to reduce sticking forces between the switch beam and the first signal electrode (Reid, ¶[0009]).
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claim elements, using such elements would lead to predictable results, and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the a dielectric layer disclosed by Reid on a side of the first signal line disclosed by Inaba or Li or Fitzgerald and Reid in order to reduce sticking forces between the switch beam and the first driving electrode. It is noted that when the dielectric layer is applied to the first signal line in the MMES switch disclosed by Inaba or Li or Fitzgerald and Reid the distance between a side of the dielectric layer away from the substrate surface and the substrate surface would be less than the distance between the side of the anchor point away from the substrate surface and the substrate surface.
Regarding claim 5 (4), the combined teaching of Li or Fitzgerald and Reid further discloses a second driving electrode (Li, 16, Figs. 3-6 and ¶[0046] and Fitzgerald, 111, Figs. 1A-1C and ¶[0019]) on the substrate surface and between the first signal line (Li, 3, Figs. 3-6 and Fitzgerald, 121, Figs. 1A-1C) and the second signal line (Li, 17, Figs. 3 and 6 and Fitzgerald, 104, Figs. 1A-1C) adjacent to the first signal line (Li, 3, Figs. 3-6 and Fitzgerald, 121, Figs. 1A-1C); and
a distance between a side of the second driving electrode (Li, 16, Figs. 3-6 and Fitzgerald, 111, Figs. 1A-1C) away from the substrate surface and the substrate surface is less than the distance between the side of the anchor point away from the substrate surface and the substrate surface (Li, Figs. 3-6 and Fitzgerald, Figs. 1A-1C).
Regarding claim 6 (5), the combined teaching of Li or Fitzgerald and Reid further discloses wherein adjacent switch beam segments correspond to the first driving electrode (Li, 17, Figs. 3-6 and Fitzgerald, 122, Figs. 1A-1C) and second driving electrode (Li, 16, Figs. 3-6 and Fitzgerald, 111, Figs. 1A-1C) respectively;
when a distance between a switch beam segment on a side of the anchor point and the corresponding first driving electrode (Li, 17, Figs. 3-6 and Fitzgerald, Figs. 1A-1C) decreases, a distance between a switch beam segment on the other side of the anchor point and the corresponding second driving electrode (Li, 16, Figs. 3-6 and Fitzgerald, Figs. 1A-1C) increases (Li, ¶[0061] and Fitzgerald, ¶¶[0020]-[0026]); and
when the distance between the switch beam segment on the side of the anchor point and the corresponding first driving electrode (Li, 17, Figs. 3-6 and Fitzgerald, 122, Figs. 1A-1C) increases, the distance between the switch beam segment on the other side of the anchor point and the corresponding second driving electrode (Li, 16, Figs. 3-6 and Fitzgerald, 122, Figs. 1A-1C) decreases (i.e. Li teaches that when voltage is applied between first electrode 17 and switch beam 14 or second electrode 16 and switch beam 14, distance between the two decreases, leading to the distance between the other electrode and switch beam to increase, ¶[0061] and Fitzgerald, ¶¶[0020]-[0026]).
Regarding claim 7 (6), the combined teaching of Li and Reid was discussed above in the rejection of claim 6. Li or Fitzgerald and Reid, however, do not explicitly teach a second insulation layer on the side of the second driving electrode away from the substrate surface; a distance between the side of the second insulation layer away from the substrate surface and the substrate surface is less than the distance between the side of the anchor point away from the substrate surface and the substrate surface.
Nonetheless, applying the insulating layer disclosed by Reid on the second driving electrode, in a similar manner as to the first driving electrode, as discussed above in the rejection of claim 3, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, in order to reduce sticking forces between the switch beam and the first signal electrode (Reid, ¶[0009]).
Thus, since the prior art teaches all of the claim elements, using such elements would lead to predictable results, and as such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the insulation layer disclosed by Reid on the side of the second driving electrode disclosed by Li or Fitzgerald and Reid in order to reduce sticking forces between the switch beam and the first driving electrode. It is noted that when the insulation layer is applied to the second driving electrode in the MMES switch disclosed by Inaba or Li or Fitzgerald and Reid, the distance between a side of the insulation layer away from the substrate surface and the substrate surface would be less than the distance between the side of the anchor point away from the substrate surface and the substrate surface.
Regarding claim 11 (5), the combined teaching of Li or Fitzgerald and Reid further discloses
applying a voltage between the second driving electrode (Li, 16, Figs. 3-6 and Fitzgerald, 111, Figs. 1A-1C) and the switch beam (Li, 14, Figs. 3-6 and Fitzgerald, 102, Figs. 1A-1C), such that the distance between the switch beam and the second driving electrode decreases, the switch beam is contacted with the first signal line, and the switch is in a closed state; stopping applying the voltage between the first signal line and the switch beam, and applying a voltage between the first driving electrode and the switch beam, such that the distance between the switch beam and the first signal line increases, the switch beam is separated from the first signal line, and the switch is in an off state (Li, ¶[0061] and Fitzgerald, ¶¶[0021]-[0025]).
Regarding claim 16, the combined teaching of Fitzgerald and Reid discloses wherein the driving method comprises:
applying a voltage between the first signal line (121, Fig. 1A) and the switch beam (102, Fig. 1A), such that the switch beam is contacted with the first signal line, and the switch is in a closed state (Fig. 1A);
stopping applying the voltage between the first signal line and the switch beam (Fig. 1C), and
applying a voltage between the first driving electrode and the switch beam, such that the switch beam is separated from the first signal line, and the switch is in an off state (Fig. 1B, ¶¶[0120]-[0126]).
Regarding claim 17 (4), the combined teaching of Fitzgerald and Reid discloses, wherein the driving method comprises:
applying a voltage between the first signal line (121, Fig. 1A) and the switch beam (102, Fig. 1A), such that the switch beam is contacted with the first signal line, and the switch is in a closed state (Fig. 1A);
stopping applying the voltage between the first signal line and the switch beam (Fig. 1C), and
applying a voltage between the first driving electrode (Fitzgerald, 122, Figs. 1A-1C) and the switch beam (Fitzgerald, 102, Figs. 1A-1C), such that the switch beam is separated from the first signal line, and the switch is in an off state (Fig. 1B, ¶¶[0120]-[0126]).
Regarding claim 18 (6), the combine teaching of Fitzgerald and Reid discloses, wherein the driving method comprises:
applying a voltage between the second driving electrode (Fitzgerald, 111, Figs. 1A-1C) and the switch beam (Fitzgerald, 102, Figs. 1A-1C), such that the distance between the switch beam and the second driving electrode decreases, the switch beam is contacted with the first signal line, and the switch is in a closed state (Fig. 1A);
stopping applying the voltage between the first signal line and the switch beam (Fig. 1C), and
applying a voltage between the first driving electrode (Fitzgerald, 122, Figs. 1A-1C) and the switch beam (Fitzgerald, 102, Figs. 1A-1C), such that the distance between the switch beam and the first signal line increases, the switch beam is separated from the first signal line, and the switch is in an off state (Fitzgerald, ¶¶[0021]-[0026]).
Regarding claim 19 (7), the combine teaching of Fitzgerald and Reid discloses wherein the driving method comprises:
applying a voltage between the second driving electrode (Fitzgerald, 111, Figs. 1A-1C) and the switch beam (Fitzgerald, 102, Figs. 1A-1C), such that the distance between the switch beam and the second driving electrode decreases, the switch beam is contacted with the first signal line, and the switch is in a closed state (Fig. 1A);
stopping applying the voltage between the first signal line and the switch beam (Fig. 1C), and
applying a voltage between the first driving electrode (Fitzgerald, 122, Figs. 1A-1C) and the switch beam (Fitzgerald, 102, Figs. 1A-1C), such that the distance between the switch beam and the first signal line increases, the switch beam is separated from the first signal line, and the switch is in an off state (Fitzgerald, ¶¶[0021]-[0026]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 8-9 and 12-13 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claim 8, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, and to the examiner’s knowledge does not teach, disclose, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding a MEMS switch, particularly characterized by a switch beam segments comprising a plurality of first switch branch beams between a second signal line and a first driving electrode adjacent to the second signal line, with the first driving electrode comprising a plurality of first driving sub-electrodes, corresponding to the plurality of first switch branch beams, where an orthographic projection of a first switch branch beam of the plurality of first switch branch beams onto the substrate surface coincides at least partially with an orthographic projection of a corresponding first driving sub-electrode of the plurality of first driving sub- electrodes onto the substrate surface, in combination with all other elements of the MEMS switch recited in the claim(s). Claim(s) 12 which directly depends from claim(s) 8, and which include all of the limitations recited in claim(s) 8, is/are allowed for the similar reasons.
Regarding claim 9, the prior art of record, alone or in combination, and to the examiner’s knowledge does not teach, disclose, suggest, or render obvious, at least to the skilled artisan, the instant invention regarding a MEMS switch, particularly characterized by switch beam segments comprise a plurality of second switch branch beams between the second signal line and the second driving electrode adjacent to the second signal line, with second driving electrode comprising a plurality of second driving sub-electrodes, and the plurality of second driving sub-electrodes respectively corresponding to the plurality of second switch branch beams, where an orthographic projection of a second switch branch beam of the plurality of second switch branch beams onto the substrate surface coincides at least partially with an orthographic projection of a corresponding second driving electrode of the plurality of second driving sub-electrodes onto the substrate surface, and the orthographic projection of the first signal line onto the substrate surface, respectively, in combination with all other elements of the MEMS switch recited in the claim(s). Claim(s) 13 which directly depends from claim(s) 9, and which include all of the limitations recited in claim(s) 9, is/are allowed for the similar reasons.
Relevant Prior Art
The following prior art is relevant to the invention but not relied upon in any of the rejections:
Fitzgerald et al. (US 2017/0225942) discloses in Figs. 1-6 and related text a MEMS switch similar to that recited in claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANETA B CIESLEWICZ whose telephone number is 303-297-4232. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM - 2:30 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, Sue Purvis can be reached at 5712721236. 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.
/A.B.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2893
/SUE A PURVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2893
Prosecution Insights