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 .
Application Status
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9-11, 15-17, 23-25, 27, 30-39 are pending and have been examined in this application. Claims 1, 10, 25 are amended, claims 5, 7, 9, 11, 15-17, 23-25, 27, 30-36 are previously presented or original. Claims 2-4, 6, 8, 12-14, 18-22, 26, 28-29 are cancelled. Claims 37-39 are new.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
As of the date of this action, an information disclosure statement (IDS) has been filed on 12/16/2024 and reviewed by the Examiner.
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) 1, 5, 7, 9, 15, 17, 25, 30, 32-34, 36-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (WO 9004328 A1) to Skybakmoen in view of (US 20220142126 A1) to Holder.
In regards to claim 1, Skybakmoen anticipates an aquaculture system for supporting aquatic organisms comprising: a containment for retaining a body of water to provide habitat for the aquatic organisms (Skybakmoen; rearing tank with zones 1) and comprising, a base (Skybakmoen; base of tank, see FIG 2), a peripheral side wall and internal walls located so as to define a plurality of cells within the containment wherein each cell is defined by a portion of the peripheral wall (Skybakmoen; see FIG 3 with the peripheral wall located around each of 1, each cell 1 being defined by a portion of the peripheral wall; see annotated S2 below), two internal walls extendinq from the peripheral wall towards the inner area of the containment (Skybakmoen; the internal wall being each of 13 which extends towards S1, see annotated FIG 3 below), and a further wall which extends to the two internal walls with a space between the further wall and the internal walls (Skybakmoen; the further wall formed by the walls of the central structure S1 in annotated FIG 3 below, which defines spaces S3 between the walls of S1 and the internal walls 13), each cell being configured to hold a body of water which is rotatable within the cell (Skybakmoen; see FIG 1 with 9 and 11 demonstrating rotatable water), each cell being in fluid communication with an adjacent cell in the containment to permit passage of the aquatic organisms between the adjacent cells (Skybakmoen; see FIG 1 and FIG 3 where each cell 1 is in fluid communication due to spaces S3); at least one inlet for receiving water into each cell configured to allow the body of water in that cell to be rotatable (Skybakmoen; vertical pipe 15 defining a plurality of nozzles or inlets for introducing water to create the streams); at least one waste outlet in each cell for removing waste from the aquatic organisms (Skybakmoen; waste outlet through 5); and a water outlet for directly removing water from a cell in the containment (Skybakmoen; multiple outlets via each of 7, 8, each removing water directly from individual ‘cells’ in the containment).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
343
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
414
632
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
325
721
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Skybakmoen fails to teach a water outlet for removing water directly from at least two cells in the containment.
Holder teaches a water outlet for removing water directly from at least two cells in the containment (Holder; where each cell is each of the raceway tanks 101, the water ouetlet being raceway channel 112 conveying water that flows directly from each of 101 to the purification subsystem [0021]).
PNG
media_image4.png
343
511
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a singular water outlet which simultaneously removes water from multiple cells in a containment such as taught by Holder. The motivation for doing so would be to simultaneously extract water from multiple individualized ‘cells’, thereby making purification of the water removed more efficient and reducing the number of water outlets required.
In regards to claim 5, Skybakmoen as modified by Holder teach the aquaculture system according to claim 1 wherein the containment comprises at least 3 cells (Skybakmoen; see FIGs 1 and 3 which each have 4 cells).
In regards to claim 7, Skybakmoen as modified by Holder teach the aquaculture system according to claim 1 wherein each cell is shaped such that a body of water in the cell is rotatable with in the cell, wherein at least one of the internal walls comprises at least one space to enable fluid communication with an adjacent cell (Skybakmoen; internal walls 13 having a space S3 to enable fluid communication with adjacent cells, see annotated FIG 3).
In regards to claim 9, Skybakmoen as modified by Holder teach the aquaculture system according to claim 7 wherein the further wall for each cell is provided by a structure located generally in the center of the containment (Skybakmoen; structure S1 in FIG 3 located in the center of the containment, providing for the further wall for each cell 1).
In regards to claim 15, Skybakmoen as modified by Holder teach the aquaculture system according to claim 1 comprising 4 cells wherein the cells are arranged such that the cells are in a generally square arrangement (Skybakmoen; see FIG 3, where the cells 1 are arranged in a generally square arrangement).
In regards to claim 17, Skybakmoen as modified by Holder teach the aquaculture system according to claim 1 wherein the inlet for each cell is located so as to enable rotation of the body of water in that cell at a rate and direction substantially independently of the rate and direction of the body of water in the other cells (Skybakmoen; see FIGs 1 and 3 where each of 15 is located to enable outlet of water via nozzles which is independent of other cells; since each cell has its own one of 15 which thus allows independent rate and direction of water flow; also see where flow velocity can be varied in each zone).
In regards to claim 25, Skybakmoen teaches a method of farming an aquatic organisms in an aquaculture system comprising: i) providing an aquaculture system for farming aquatic organisms, comprising: a containment containing a body of water (Skybakmoen; rearing tank with zones 1) comprising a base (Skybakmoen; base of tank, see FIG 2), a peripheral side wall (Skybakmoen; see FIG 3 with the peripheral wall located around each of 1, see annotated S2) and internal walls (Skybakmoen; the internal wall being each of 13) located so as to define a plurality of cells defined within the containment wherein each cell is defined by a portion of the peripheral wall (Skybakmoen; see FIG 3 with the peripheral wall located around each of 1, each cell 1 being defined by a portion of the peripheral wall; see annotated S2 below), two internal walls extending from the peripheral wall towards the inner area of the containment (Skybakmoen; the internal wall being each of 13 which extends towards S1, see annotated FIG 3 below), and a further wall which extends to the two internal walls with a space between the further wall and the internal walls (Skybakmoen; the further wall formed by the walls of the central structure S1 in annotated FIG 3 below, which defines spaces S3 between the walls of S1 and the internal walls 13), each cell holding a portion of the body of water and each cell being in fluid communication with each other an adjacent cell in the containment to permit passage of the aquatic organisms between the adjacent cells to permit passage of the aquatic organisms between the cells (Skybakmoen; see FIG 1 and FIG 3 where each cell 1 is in fluid communication due to spaces S3); at least one inlet for introducing water into each cell (Skybakmoen; vertical pipe 15 defining a plurality of nozzles or inlets for introducing water to create the streams); at least one waste outlet in each cell for removing waste from the aquatic organisms (Skybakmoen; waste outlet through 5); and a water outlet for removing water directly from a cell in the containment (Skybakmoen; multiple outlets via each of 7, 8, each removing water directly from individual ‘cells’ in the containment); ii) rotating the body of water in each cell in a horizontal plane at a pre-determined angular velocity suitable for the aquatic organisms (Skybakmoen; “it is possible to vary the following parameters from zone to zone: … flow velocity … Thus each fish can swim to the zone which it considers best.”); iii) providing feed for the aquatic organisms (Skybakmoen; “the flow velocity and velocity distribution in the rearing tank ensures that the feed is distributed to the entire biomass and individuals gather in the zone which they find most advantageous” providing feed in zones); and iv) removing waste from each cell via the outlet in that cell (Skybakmoen; “at the same time the movement of the water ensures that the particle matter (excess feed and excrement) is removed from the bottom of the basin and the water volume together with the outlet water.” Removing excrement via the outlet).
PNG
media_image1.png
386
343
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Skybakmoen fails to teach a water outlet for removing water directly from at least two cells in the containment.
Holder teaches a water outlet for removing water directly from at least two cells in the containment (Holder; where each cell is each of the raceway tanks 101, the water ouetlet being raceway channel 112 conveying water that flows directly from each of 101 to the purification subsystem [0021]).
PNG
media_image4.png
343
511
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a singular water outlet which simultaneously removes water from multiple cells in a containment such as taught by Holder. The motivation for doing so would be to simultaneously extract water from multiple individualized ‘cells’, thereby making purification of the water removed more efficient and reducing the number of water outlets required.
In regards to claim 30, Skybakmoen as modified by Holder teach the aquaculture system according to claim 1, wherein each cell is of a generally circular, polygonal or part circular, part polygonal shape (Skybakmoen; the cells 1 being polygonal).
In regards to claim 32, Skybakmoen as modified by Holder teach the aquaculture system according to claim 1, wherein the inlet comprises a plurality of nozzles or slots (Skybakmoen; 15 having a plurality of nozzles).
In regards to claim 33, Skybakmoen as modified by Holder teach the aquaculture system according to claim 32 wherein the inlet in each cell comprises a plurality of nozzles located at or near one or more of the cell walls (Skybakmoen; 15 having a plurality of nozzles, see FIG 3 where 15 is near the cell walls) and aligned to provide a flow of water into the cell in a circumferential direction thereby to impart force to rotate the body of water in the cell (Skybakmoen; the streams of water 9, 11, 10 are provided for via 15 to create the rotating motion of the water seen in FIGS 1-3).
In regards to claim 34, Skybakmoen as modified by Holder teach the aquaculture system according to claim 32 wherein the inlet comprises a plurality of nozzles aligned in a horizontal array and/or a vertical array (Skybakmoen; see FIG 2 where 15 is vertically aligned, therefore the nozzles of 15 would be in a vertical array).
In regards to claim 36, Skybakmoen as modified by Holder teach the aquaculture system according to claim 1 wherein the inlets are located such that the body of water in a cell is rotatable in the opposite direction to the body of water in an adjacent cell (Skybakmoen; see FIGs 1 and 3 where the water in each cell 1 is rotatable in opposite directions to bodies of water in adjacent cells, see each of 9 rotating opposite to an adjacent cell).
In regards to claim 37, Skybakmoen as modified by Holder teach the aquaculture system according to claim 1, wherein the water outlet removes water directly from each cell in the containment (Skybakmoen; teaching the cells as in claim 1) (Holder; teaching the water outlet 107 removing water directly from each cell 101).
In regards to claim 38, Skybakmoen as modified by Holder teach the aquaculture system according to claim 1, wherein the water outlet is located adjacent to two or more cells (Holder; 107 is adjacent to multiple cells 101).
In regards to claim 39, Skybakmoen as modified by Holder teach the aquaculture system according to claim 1, wherein the waste outlet in each cell is separate from the water outlet (Skybakmoen; each waste outlet 5 is a separate structure from the water outlets 7, 8) (Holder; each waste outlet 111 is separate from the singular water outlet 107).
Claim(s) 10-11, 16, 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (WO 9004328 A1) to Skybakmoen as modified by (US 20220142126 A1) to Holder as applied to claims 9, 15, 11 above, in further view of (EP 0059591 A1) to Seymour.
In regards to claim 10, Skybakmoen teaches the aquaculture system according to claim 9, but fails to teach wherein the structure comprises the water outlet.
Seymour teaches wherein the structure (Seymour; central structure 13 at the center of tank 10) comprises the water outlet (Seymour; 13 having a central outlet with a weir, see FIGs 1 and 2).
PNG
media_image5.png
484
443
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Skybakmoen, Holder, and Seymour are analogous art from similar fields of endeavor i.e. tanks which require recirculating water treatment.
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 device of Skybakmoen as modified by Holder such that the central structure at the center of the tank comprises the singular water outlet with a weir such as taught by Seymour. The motivation for doing so would be to position the water outlet at a position to effectively draw water directly from each cell and minimize the number of outlets required for water to flow.
In regards to claim 11, Skybakmoen as modified by Holder teaches the aquaculture system according to claim 9, wherein the water ouetlet comprises a weir for the removal of water from each cell (Holder; weir 109) but fails to teach wherein the structure comprises a weir for the removal of water from each cell.
Seymour teaches wherein the structure (Seymour; central structure 13 at the center of tank 10) comprises a weir for the removal of water from each cell (Seymour; 13 having a central outlet with a weir, see FIGs 1 and 2).
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 device of Skybakmoen as modified by Holder such that the central structure at the center of the tank comprises the water outlet with a weir such as taught by Seymour. The motivation for doing so would be to position the water outlet at a position to effectively draw water directly from each cell and minimize the number of outlets required for water to flow.
In regards to claim 16, Skybakmoen as modified by Holder teaches the aquaculture system according to claim 15 wherein the cells peripheral wall for each cell is generally of constant distance whereby the containment has a generally quatrefoil shape (Skybakmoen; see FIG 3 where the peripheral wall of each cell 1 is at a generally constant distance from a centerpoint of the cell to the peripheral wall; and are arranged to create a quatrefoil shape when rotated 90 degrees).
Skybakmoen fails to teach the distance being a radius.
Seymour teaches the peripheral wall being curved (Seymour; see FIG 3 with 10 having a curved peripheral wall) the distance being a radius (Seymour; the curved peripheral wall having a generally constant radius).
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 device of Skybakmoen as modified by Holder such that the peripheral wall is curved such as taught by Seymour. The motivation for doing so would be to guide water moving in a circular direction.
In regards to claim 31, Skybakmoen as modified by Holder and Seymour teaches the aquaculture system according to claim 11, wherein the weir comprises a dam to permit flow of water from each of the cells into the structure (Seymour; 13 having a central outlet with a weir, see FIGs 1 and 2; the dam being made of walls 16).
Claim(s) 23, 27, 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (WO 9004328 A1) to Skybakmoen as modified by (US 20220142126 A1) to Holder as applied to claims 1, 25, and 33 above, in further view of NPL “Hydrodynamics of a Large-scale Mixed-Cell Raceway (MCR): Experimental Studies” Labatut et. al 2007.
In regards to claim 23, Skybakmoen as modified by Holder teaches the aquaculture system according to claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein less than 10% of the body of water within a cell transfers to an adjacent cell.
Labatut teaches wherein there is minimal transfer of water between adjacent cells (Labatut; “Also, even though cell 1 had three solid-walls and cell 2 just two, the fact that no statistical differences were found between cells 1 and 2 indicated that the hydraulic boundary layer at the outer portion of the rotating vortex can be as effective as a solid-wall in maintaining the rotating fluid flow limited to a cell. However, dispersion of kinetic energy between cells cannot be prevented by the hydraulic boundary by itself, as the jet plumes observed in the velocity contours appear much less defined and narrower in that region.”).
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 device of Skybakmoen as modified by Holder such that it uses the principles of Labatut to minimize water volume transfer between cells utilizing changes in velocity and direction of the flow between cells to create a hydraulic boundary such as taught by Labatut, since doing so would reinforce the ability of Skybakmoen to create cells with different characteristics to allow for fish to disperse to desired areas of care.
Skybakmoen as modified by Holder and Labatut fail to teach wherein less than 10% of the body of water within a cell transfers to an adjacent cell, however the percentage of water transfer being less than 10% is not integral to the device’s function, rather it is a result of other parameters chosen. For example, while controlling the velocity and direction of the flow of water within adjacent cells could provide benefits to the hydraulic barrier to prevent transfer of volume between cells, it does not directly impact how the device is constructed or operated. One of ordinary skill in the art is expected to routinely experiment with the parameters, especially when the specifics are not disclosed, so as to ascertain the optimum or workable ranges for a particular use. Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. The motivation for determining a velocity and direction for flow of adjacent cells such that transfer of water is less than 10% between cells would be to reinforce the ability of Skybakmoen to create cells with different characteristics to allow for fish to disperse to desired areas of care.
In regards to claim 27, Skybakmoen as modified by Holder teaches the method according to claim 25, but fails to explicitly teach the method comprises controlling the flow rate of water to the cells such that the velocity of the rotatable water is from 1.5 to 2.5 times the body length of the aquatic organisms per second.
NPL Labatut teaches controlling the flow rate of water to the cells such that the velocity of the rotatable water is from 1.5 to 2.5 times the body length of the aquatic organisms per second (Labatut; “in 3.7-m-diameter circular tanks claimed that ‘optimum’ water velocities for culturing fish of 12–24 cm body length were in the range of 15–20 cm/s.” where 12 cm body length compared to 20 cm/s velocity is approximately 1.67 times difference; which is between 1.5 and 2.5 times).
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 device of Skybakmoen as modified by Holder such that the velocity of the rotatable water is controlled to be 1.5 to 2.5 times the body length of the aquatic organisms per second, such as taught by Labatut. The motivation for doing so would be to provide a water velocity that would help the tanks achieve self-cleaning, but also which would provide fish with ideal swimming conditions while preventing fatigue.
In regards to claim 35, Skybakmoen as modified by Holder teaches the aquaculture system according to claim 33 but fails to explicitly teach it comprising at least 3 nozzles wherein the nozzles are independently arranged at an angle of 0 to 45 degrees relative to the cell wall adjacent to the nozzle.
Labatut teaches comprising at least 3 nozzles (Labatut; 5 or 10 nozzles; see FIG 2) wherein the nozzles are independently arranged at an angle of 0 to 45 degrees relative to the cell wall adjacent to the nozzle (Labatut; see FIG 2 where the nozzles are arranged with individual positions, each one being directed “tangentially to the raceway wall”, thereby having an angle with respect to the wall of at least 0, which is an angle between 0-45 degrees relative to the wall).
PNG
media_image6.png
588
1220
media_image6.png
Greyscale
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 device of Skybakmoen as modified by Holder such that it has at least 3 nozzles, the nozzles being positioned relative to the cell wall adjacent to the nozzle at an angle of 0-45 degrees as taught by Labatut. The motivation for doing so would be to provide water into the cells in a desired direction for the flow to either be clockwise or counterclockwise.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (WO 9004328 A1) to Skybakmoen as modified by (US 20220142126 A1) to Holder as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of (WO 9521134 A1) to Lygren.
In regards to claim 24, Skybakmoen as modified by Holder teaches the aquaculture system according to claim 1 but fails to explicitly teach wherein the containment has one dimension of at least 35m.
Lygren teaches wherein the containment (Lygren; water treatment basin 2), has one dimension of at least 35 m (Lygren; page 3 line 36 of the specification, indicating the basin may have a base surface of about 10m x 50m; 50m being a dimension of at least 35m).
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 device of Skybakmoen as modified by Holder such that it has a dimension of at least 35m, or 50m as taught by Lygren. The motivation for doing so would be to create a larger containment with a larger containment volume for more fish or more cells to house more fish.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 25 with respect to the amended claim language have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Specifically, Holder is introduced to teach the amended claim language.
Applicant argues that Skybakmoen cannot be modified with the other cited art because it would make Skybakmoen inoperable for its intended purpose and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to separate the waste outlet and the water outlet of Skybakmoen and to move the water outlet to a structure at the center of the containment.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Skybakmoen already teaches that the water outlet and the waste outlet are separate structures. In Skybakmoen, the water outlet is shown to take water from an upper portion of the water level, while the waste outlet removes waste from each cell at the base of the cell. Moving or repositioning this water outlet to be central to the device such as in Seymour would allow for the water outlet to continue to provide the function of removing water from the top surface of the tank, while still allowing each cell’s water to rotate within its cell towards its center. See additionally the modified 103 rejection above, with Holder. Holder teaches the water outlet being not only a separate structure, which is already taught by Skybakmoen, but positioned in an entirely different location such that a singular water outlet can service multiple cells of rotating water. The water in these cells is allowed to drain from a top surface while maintaining the rotational function of each cell. Seymour is thus introduced to teach positioning such a drain at the center of a square tank would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
Applicant argues that Seymour does not disclose a tank with multiple zones and thus one would not have been motivated to modify a zonal treatment system (Skybakmoen) with a single-cell treatment tank (Seymour) that does not consider how to configure a multiple zone treatment system such that each zone behaves independently. Applicant additionally argues that Seymour does not teach the amended claim language of a water outlet away from the center of rotation of a body of water, as described by applicant.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In light of the amendments, Holder is introduced above to teach a singular water outlet capable of draining water from multiple cells of rotating water, and therefore multiple zones. Seymour is thus further introduced to teach that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, to reposition such a singular drain which services multiple zones to a central position when the tank is a square. The rejection is made with the combination of Skybakmoen, Holder, and Seymour together. Seymour’s positioning of the drain ensures water flows from equal parts of the tank, and it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to reposition a singular water outlet to effectively service each zone equally based on the shape of the tank.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATELYN T TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-0023. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 8-6.
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, KIMBERLY BERONA can be reached on (571) 272-6909. 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.
/KATELYN T TRUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3647
Prosecution Insights