DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s preliminary submission filed on 4/18/2024 has been entered. Claims 1-12 remain pending in this application.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error – “control plan” should be “control plane”; see Specification [0065]. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “user equipment (UE) configured as” in claim 1, “an/the NF communication unit (is) configured to” in claims 2-11, and “an/the SBI module configured to” in claims 4-6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
In this case, claim 1 recites NO elements.
Claims 2-3, 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claims purport to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fail to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claims recite a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
In this case, claims 2-3, 7-11 recite a SINGLE element – “an/the NF communication unit”.
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.
Claim 1 is 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. In this case, the claim recites “a user equipment (UE) configured as a service-based architecture (SBA) performing communication using a message according to a service-based interface (SBI) between network functions (NFs)”, but the scope of the claim is unclear because one cannot determine what, if any, elements are present within the claimed UE. Examiner is interpreting claim 1 to comprise an NF communication unit, similar to claim 2, for the purposes of examination.
Claims 2-12 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.
The term “in relation to” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “in relation to” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention, because one cannot determine the exact scope of the communications that are “required in relation to use of the service”.
Similarly, the term “related to” in claim 12 is also a relative term which renders the claim indefinite for substantially similar reasons as above.
Examiner is treating these all communication “using a service-based interface (SBI) message” as being “related” for the purposes of examination.
Furthermore, the claim limitation “an/the NF communication unit (is) configured to” in claims 2-11 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. In this case, the claimed UE and NF communication unit is only disclosed in the form of functional block diagrams that do not teach any structure for the functional blocks. Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Similarly, the claim limitation “an/the SBI module configured to” in claims 4-6 also invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, where the written description also fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function, because the claimed SBI module unit is also only disclosed in the form of functional block diagrams that do not teach any structure for the functional blocks, and so the claims are further rejected for substantially similar reasons as above.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suthar et al. (US 10,299,128, hereinafter Suthar) in view of Ding et al. (US 2023/0308853, hereinafter Ding).
Regarding claim 1, Suthar discloses a user equipment (UE) performing communication using a message (FIG 3A illustrates schematic block diagram of a roaming architecture with a local breakout scenario for a service based interface representation of a Service Based Architecture (SBA) – Suthar Col 2 Ln 1-4; one or more NFs in SBA 132 – Suthar Col 9 Ln 66-67; FIG. 3A shows UE 308 communicating using N1 to AMF 320 in SBA 132).
Suthar does not disclose where (1) the UE is configured as a service-based architecture, and (2) the message is according to a service-based interface (SBI) between network functions (NFs). Ding, however, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a client (in this case, the (R)AN) instead of the UE; see 310 of Suthar FIG. 3A and the dashed outline of Ding FIG. 10) being changed from the traditional configuration to one where the (R)AN is reconfigured as a SBA NF that communicates with the other NFs via SBI (the interaction among computing functions and other RAN/CN functions are illustrated with an example 6G Service Based Architecture (SBA) where the N2 is removed and the CU-CP connects to the other NFs via SBI – Ding ¶0198, FIG. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the disclosure of Suthar by applying the SBI taught by Ding to the non-SBI network functions disclosed by Suthar to comprise the SBA and SBI limitations as claimed, in order to provide advantages, including optimizing latency, resource efficiency, and allowing the end device to augment the computing (Ding ¶0036).
Regarding claim 2, Suthar discloses a user equipment (UE) using a service, the UE comprising an NF communication unit configured to perform communication required in relation to use of the service (FIG. 2 illustrates a schematic block diagram of an exemplary network device or Network Function (NF) entity 200 that may be used with one or more embodiments described herein, e.g., particularly as User Equipment (UE) and/or other NFs within SBA 132 – Suthar Col 5 Ln 10-14; Suthar FIG. 2 discloses multiple services 244, 246 in memory 240, and network interfaces 210), wherein the NF communication unit is configured to perform communication using a message (FIG 3A illustrates schematic block diagram of a roaming architecture with a local breakout scenario for a service based interface representation of a Service Based Architecture (SBA) – Suthar Col 2 Ln 1-4; one or more NFs in SBA 132 – Suthar Col 9 Ln 66-67; FIG. 3A shows UE 308 communicating using N1 to a NF in SBA 132).
Suthar does not disclose where the message is a service-based interface (SBI) message according to an SBI between network functions (NFs). Ding, however, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a client (in this case, the (R)AN) instead of the UE; see 310 of Suthar FIG. 3A and the dashed outline of Ding FIG. 10) being changed from the traditional configuration to one where the (R)AN is reconfigured as a SBA NF that communicates with the other NFs via SBI (the interaction among computing functions and other RAN/CN functions are illustrated with an example 6G Service Based Architecture (SBA) where the N2 is removed and the CU-CP connects to the other NFs via SBI – Ding ¶0198, FIG. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the disclosure of Suthar by applying the SBI taught by Ding to the non-SBI network functions disclosed by Suthar to comprise the SBA and SBI limitations as claimed, in order to provide advantages, including optimizing latency, resource efficiency, and allowing the end device to augment the computing (Ding ¶0036).
Regarding claim 3, Suthar and Ding teach wherein the NF communication unit communicates with an NF, wherein the NF is at least one of an NF service in the UE, other UE, an NF service in other UE, an NF of a control plan, and an NF of a user plane (Suthar FIG. 3A shows UE 308 communicating using N1 to the AMF in SBA 132, which is an NF; Applicant’s Specification [0004] defines the AMF as being part of the control plane; as the elements are listed in the alternative (“at least one of”), the prior art only needs to disclose one of the listed alternatives, where at least “an NF of a control plan[sic]” has been taught).
Regarding claim 4, Suthar and Ding teach wherein the NF communication unit comprises an SBI module configured to process the SBI message (the CU-CP connects to the other NFs via SBI – Ding ¶0198; Ding FIG. 10 depicts said CU-CP as a block within the RAN).
Regarding claim 5, Suthar and Ding teach wherein the SBI module is configured to operate in at least one of request/response-based message transmission/reception and subscription/notification-based message transmission/reception (a network function (NF) entity… receives session request data associated with a User Equipment (UE) – Suthar Col 2 Ln 67 to Col 3 Ln 2; as the elements are listed in the alternative (“at least one of”), the prior art only needs to disclose one of the listed alternatives, where at least “request/response-based message transmission/reception” has been taught).
Regarding claim 6, Suthar and Ding teach wherein the SBI module is configured to perform conversion between a message according to other interface and the SBI message according to the SBI in the case of message transmission/reception [Ding FIG. 5 describes the message sequence that includes RRC messages between the UE and the RAN, and Ding FIG. 11 depicts the RAN Comp CF being between the UE and the rest of the SBA; as the RAN accesses the SBA via SBI, and provides RRC messages back to the UE, the RAN is “performing conversion between a message according to other interface and the SBI message according to the SBI” as claimed].
Regarding claim 8, Suthar and Ding teach wherein the NF communication unit is configured to use the SBI message when transmitting a notification according to detection of a specific event subscribed by an access and mobility management function (AMF) (the AMF 1444 may allow other functions… to communicate with the UE 1402 and the RAN 1404 and to subscribe to notifications about mobility events with respect to the UE 1402 – Ding ¶0255).
Regarding claim 9, Suthar and Ding teach wherein the NF communication unit is configured to directly communicate with a session management function (SMF) (the network entities that form SBA 132… can be implemented either as a network element on a dedicated hardware, as a software instance… or as a virtualized function… as is appreciated by those skilled in the art – Suthar Col 9 Ln 24-34; Suthar FIG. 3A shows a direct connection between UE 308 and SBA 132, including SMF 325; an implementation of SBA 132 on a network element, where UE 308 has a direct connection to SBA 132, effectively has a direct connection between UE 308 and SMF 325) that manages/controls [Examiner is interpreting the backslash as meaning “or”] a UE session by using the SBI message when processing session management for the UE (the network entities that form SBA 132 include… SMF 325 – Suthar Col 9 Ln 24-25; SMF 325 is responsible for session management, IP address allocation to UE(s) – Suthar Col 9 Ln 40-41; as the elements are listed in the alternative (“or”), the prior art only needs to disclose one of the listed alternatives, where at least “manages a UE session” has been taught; as the NFs of Suthar have previously been modified as taught by Ding, the modified SMF reads on the SBI claim limitation).
Regarding claim 10, Suthar and Ding teach wherein the NF communication unit is configured to directly communicate with a policy control function (PCF) (the network entities that form SBA 132… can be implemented either as a network element on a dedicated hardware, as a software instance… or as a virtualized function… as is appreciated by those skilled in the art – Suthar Col 9 Ln 24-34; Suthar FIG. 3A shows a direct connection between UE 308 and SBA 132, including PCF 345v; an implementation of SBA 132 on a network element, where UE 308 has a direct connection to SBA 132, effectively has a direct connection between UE 308 and PCF 345v) that manages/controls [Examiner is interpreting the backslash as meaning “or”] a plurality of policies comprising a QoS policy by using the SBI message when processing a QoS policy for the UE (the network entities that form SBA 132 include… Policy Control Function (PCF) 345v/345h – Suthar Col 9 Ln 24-28; if UE 308 has multiple sessions… information on packet flows to PCF 345v, which is responsible for policy control in order to support Quality of Service – Suthar Col 9 Ln 43-48; as the elements are listed in the alternative (“or”), the prior art only needs to disclose one of the listed alternatives, where at least “controls a plurality of policies comprising a QoS policy” has been taught; as the NFs of Suthar have previously been modified as taught by Ding, the modified PCF reads on the SBI claim limitation).
Regarding claim 11, Suthar and Ding teach wherein the NF communication unit is configured to directly communicate (the network entities that form SBA 132… can be implemented either as a network element on a dedicated hardware, as a software instance… or as a virtualized function… as is appreciated by those skilled in the art – Suthar Col 9 Ln 24-34; Suthar FIG. 3A shows a direct connection between UE 308 and SBA 132, including NRF 340v; an implementation of SBA 132 on a network element, where UE 308 has a direct connection to SBA 132, effectively has a direct connection between UE 308 and NRF 340v) by using the SBI message when performing a registration process of registering an NF of the UE in a network repository function (NRF) that manages/controls [Examiner is interpreting the backslash as meaning “or”] information about each NF in a network (the network entities that form SBA 132 include… Network Repossitory [sic] Function (NRF) 340v/340h – Suthar Col 9 Ln 24-27; FIG. 6 illustrates an example simplified procedure 600 for registering User Equipment (UE)… 600 can represent operations performed by a NF entity (e.g., AMF 320, AUSF 355, NEF 335, etc.) as part of the 5G core network – Suthar Col 26 Ln 31-36; NRF 340v is a NF entity, and thus can also register UEs; “registering an NF of the UE” is an action that both manages and controls information about said NF by the entity doing the registration, in this case the NRF, so each NF’s information is managed and controlled as each NF is registered; as the NFs of Suthar have previously been modified as taught by Ding, the modified NRF reads on the SBI claim limitation).
Regarding claim 12, the instant claim is directed towards a substantially similar invention as recited in claim 2, and is thus rejected for substantially similar reasons.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suthar in view of Ding as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Mas Rosique et al. (US 2024/0388638, hereinafter Mas Rosique).
Regarding claim 7, Suthar and Ding teach wherein the NF communication unit is configured to directly communicate with an function [Suthar FIG. 3A shows a direct connection between UE 308 and AMF 320] by using the SBI message [as the NF communication units of Suthar have previously been modified as taught by Ding, the modified AMF reads on the SBI claim limitation].
Suthar and Ding fail to teach wherein the NF communication unit is configured to directly communicate with an edge application server discovery function (EASDF) by using the SBI message when changing information about a server connected to use the service. Mas Rosique, however, in the same field of endeavor, teaches communicating with an EASDF when changing information about a server connected to use the service (EASDF influences the DNS resolution so that it conveys a user (topological location) that allows DNS to select an EAS for a PSA closer to the user than the current PSA – Mas Rosique ¶0010; the procedure requires that the network… selects an EASDF for the PDU session and provisions it as the DNS resolver for the PDU session – Mas Rosique ¶0011).
It would have been further obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the network taught by Suthar and Ding to comprise the EASDF as claimed, in order to allow DNS to select an EAS for a PSA closer to the user than the current PSA (Mas Rosique ¶0010); as said EASDF is depicted as being in the same tier as the AMF, SMF, and other NFs found within SBA 132, adding said EASDF to SBA 132, where SBA 132 is implemented as a network element, would effectively provide a direct connection between the UE and said EASDF; modifying said EASDF as taught by Ding would read on the SBI claim limitation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEON Y TSENG whose telephone number is (571)270-3682. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM MST, with every other Friday off.
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, WING CHAN can be reached at 571-272-7493. 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.
/LEON Y TSENG/Examiner, Art Unit 2441
/JOHN A FOLLANSBEE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights