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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in response to Applicant’s Request for Reconsideration dated 04/13/2026.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-25 are currently pending.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 8 and 22-24 have been amended.
Claim(s) 7 has been canceled.
Claim(s) 25 have been added.
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.
Claim 8 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.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “wherein (ii) applies”. However, claim1, from which claim 8 depends, does not recite a condition (ii). Accordingly, the limitation lacks antecedent basis. For purposes of Examination of the merits, it is interpreted that claim 8 depends from claim 2.
Claim Interpretation
The pollution degree is understood by the Examiner as defined in para. [0023] of the instant published specification (1, 2 or 3, but is preferably 1).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 9, 11-20, 22 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2011/0214716 A1, Krajewski et al. (hereinafter “Krajewski”) in view of US 2016/0163903 A1, Yang et al. (hereinafter “Yang”).
Regarding claim 1
Krajewski teaches a solar module (400) [Figs. 4A-4B and paras. 0058-0059] comprising:
one or more solar cells (418) having a front face and a back face [Fig. 4A and para. 0058], said solar cells (418) being electrically connected to a terminal (corresponding to external connection point) via one or more electrically conductive interconnect members (corresponding to busbars or other points of electric contact, such as one or more connectors) [Figs. 4A-4B and 9A-9B, paras. 0043, 0066, 0069 and 0076-0077], and surrounded by an encapsulant (solar cells 418 are encapsulated by material 410) [Figs. 4A-4B and paras. 0058-0059];
an insulating backsheet (corresponding to back layer 406) arranged to overlay the one or more solar cells (418) and encapsulant (410) on a back face side of the module (400) [Figs. 4A-4B and paras. 0058-0059]; and
a laminate interlayer (corresponding to moisture barrier 402 and insulation sheet 404) interposed between the encapsulant (410) and the backsheet (406) [Figs. 4A-4B and para. 0058], the laminate interlayer (402 and 404) comprising an electrically insulating layer (corresponding to insulation sheet 404) and a metallic barrier film (corresponding to moisture barrier 402 which may be a pinhole-free metallic material) arranged in that order from a front face side of the module (400) to the back face side of the module (400) [Figs. 4A-4B, paras. 0050 and 0058];
wherein the laminate interlayer (402/404) has a lateral extent less than the lateral extent of the backsheet (406) (“[b]ack layer 406 has planar dimensions larger than those of the moisture barrier 402 and insulation sheet 404”) [Figs. 4A-4B and para. 0058].
PNG
media_image1.png
268
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Krajewski, Fig. 4B
Krajewski does not teach a laminate interlayer comprising two or more non-contiguous regions.
Yang teaches a solar module comprising an interlayer structure (corresponding to top insulating layer 442 and bottom conductive interlayer 444) having two or more non-continuous regions (see 464, 462 and 448) such that electrical paths through the backsheet may be stablished thereby coupling adjacent solar strings without the need of additional tabbing wires between the two strings which not only saves materials cos but also simplifies fabrication process [Fig. 4B, paras. 0053 and 0059].
Krajewski and Yang are analogous inventions in the field of solar modules. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the laminate interlayer of Krajewski to comprise one or more non-continuous regions, as in Yang, in order to create electrical pathways through the backsheet, in addition to the moisture barrier properties of the interlayer, thereby allowing for adjacent solar elements to be electrically coupled without the need of additional tabbing wires, reducing costs and simplifying the fabrication process.
Regarding claim 6
Modified Krajewski teaches the solar module as set forth above, wherein the laminate interlayer (402/404) substantially overlays all of the one or more solar cells (418) on a back face side [Krajewski, Figs. 4A-4B].
Regarding claim 9
Modified Krajewski teaches the solar module as set forth above, wherein the one or more electrically conductive interconnect members comprises an interconnect busbar (busbars or other points of electric contact) [Krajewski, Figs. 4A-4B and 9A-9B, paras. 0066, 0069 and 0076].
Regarding claim 11
Modified Krajewski teaches the solar module as set forth above. Modified Krajewski discloses the electrically insulating layer (404) comprising a PET layer having a thickness of 1-10 mils (0.0254 mm to 0.254 mm; 1 mil = 0.0254 mm) [Krajewski, paras. 0015 and 0051].
Accordingly, because the structure of the electrically insulating layer (404) disclosed in modified Krajewski is identical to the one described in the instant specification (para. [0087] of the instant published application states “[a]s PET has an RTI of greater than 90°C, it meets the IEC standards for distance through insulation as defined in IEC 61730-1:2016”), the limitation “wherein the electrically insulating layer has a relative thermal index (RTI) of greater than 90°C” is inherently disclosed in the art.
The court has held that products of identical chemical composition cannot have mutually exclusive properties. A chemical composition and its properties are inseparable. Therefore, if the prior art teaches the identical chemical structure, the properties applicant discloses and/or claims are necessarily present. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 709, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1658 (Fed. Cir. 1990)
Regarding claim 12
Modified Krajewski teaches the solar module as set forth above, wherein the electrically insulating layer (404) comprises a material selected from the group consisting of: polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyolefins (PO), polyamides (PA), and polycarbonates (PC) [Krajewski, paras. 0015 and 0051].
Regarding claim 13
Modified Krajewski teaches the solar module as set forth above, wherein the electrically insulating layer (404) has a thickness of 0.01 mm or more (1 to 10 mills = 0.0254 mm to 0.254 mm; 1 mil = 0.0254 mm) [Krajewski, paras. 0015 and 0051].
Regarding claim 14
Modified Krajewski teaches the solar module as set forth above, wherein the metallic barrier film (402) comprises a foil layer, optionally an aluminum foil layer or a copper foil layer (“[i]n addition to aluminum or alloys thereof, metallic moisture barriers may be copper, palladium, titanium, gold, silver, iron, molybdenum, stainless steel, steel, zinc, alloys thereof such as brass, or other combinations thereof.”) [Krajewski, para. 0050].
Regarding claim 15
Modified Krajewski teaches the solar module as set forth above, wherein the metallic barrier film (402) has a thickness of 5 µm or more (between 5 and 500 microns) [Krajewski, para. 0050].
Regarding claim 16
Modified Krajewski teaches the solar module as set forth above, wherein the laminate interlayer (402/404) comprises one or more primer layers disposed on a front face side and/or a back face side of the interlayer (the insulation sheet a multilayer laminate of PET/EVA, the EVA corresponding to the one or more primer layers) [Krajewski, para. 0050].
Regarding claim 17
Modified Krajewski teaches the solar module as set forth above, wherein the one or more primer layers comprise a polyolefin material (i.e., EVA) [Krajewski, para. 0050]
Regarding claim 18
Modified Krajewski teaches the solar module as set forth above, wherein each of the one or more primer layers comprises a material selected from the group consisting of: ethylene vinyl acetate (EVA), polyethylenes (PE) including linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE), and polyolefin-elastomers (POE) [Krajewski, para. 0050]
Regarding claim 19
Modified Krajewski teaches the solar module as set forth above, wherein the one or more primer layers (corresponding EVA layer within the laminate of the insulation sheet 404 OR to bond between sealing material 414 and insulation sheet 404) are laminated on the electrically insulating layer (404) and/or metallic barrier film (402) via an adhesive layer (bond between layers may be through an adhesive) [Krajewski, Fig. 4B, paras. 0051-0052, 0066, 0069 and 0072].
Regarding claim 20
Modified Krajewski teaches the solar module as set forth above, wherein the backsheet (406) is a polymeric backsheet [Krajewski, para. 0052].
Regarding claim 22
Krajewski teaches a method for manufacturing a solar module (400) [Figs. 4A-4B and paras. 0058-0059], the method including the steps of:
(i) providing one or more solar cells (418), said solar cells (418) being electrically connected to a terminal (corresponding to external connection point) via one or more electrically conductive interconnect members (corresponding to busbars or other points of electric contact, such as one or more connectors) [Figs. 4A-4B and 9A-9B, paras. 0066, 0069 and 0076-0077];
(ii) arranging an encapsulant (410) to surround the one or more solar cells (418) [Figs. 4A-4B and paras. 0058-0059];
(iii) arranging a backsheet (corresponding to back layer 406) to overlay the one or more solar cells (418) and encapsulant (410) on a back face side of the module (400) [Figs. 4A-4B and paras. 0058-0059]; and
(iv) arranging a laminate interlayer (corresponding to moisture barrier 402 and insulation sheet 404) having a lateral extent less than the lateral extent of the backsheet (406) (“[b]ack layer 406 has planar dimensions larger than those of the moisture barrier 402 and insulation sheet 404”) to be interposed between the encapsulant (410) and the backsheet (406) [Figs. 4A-4B and para. 0058],
wherein the laminate interlayer (402 and 404) comprises an electrically insulating layer (corresponding to insulation sheet 404) and a metallic barrier film (corresponding to moisture barrier 402 which may be a pinhole-free metallic material) arranged in that order from a front face side of the module (400) to the back face side of the module (400) [Figs. 4A-4B, paras. 0050 and 0058].
Krajewski does not teach a laminate interlayer comprising two or more non-contiguous regions.
Yang teaches a solar module comprising an interlayer structure (corresponding to top insulating layer 442 and bottom conductive interlayer 444) having two or more non-continuous regions (see 464, 462 and 448) such that electrical paths through the backsheet may be stablished thereby coupling adjacent solar strings without the need of additional tabbing wires between the two strings which not only saves materials cos but also simplifies fabrication process [Fig. 4B, paras. 0053 and 0059].
Krajewski and Yang are analogous inventions in the field of solar modules.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the laminate interlayer of Krajewski to comprise one or more non-continuous regions, as in Yang, in order to create electrical pathways through the backsheet, in addition to the moisture barrier properties of the interlayer, thereby allowing for adjacent solar elements to be electrically coupled without the need of additional tabbing wires, reducing costs and simplifying the fabrication process.
Regarding claim 24
Modified Krajewski teaches the method as set forth above, wherein the laminate interlayer (402/404) is attached to the backsheet (406) before the backsheet is arranged to overlay the one or more solar cells and encapsulant on a back face side of the module (a PET/adhesive/Al foil/adhesive/PVF pre-laminate stack assembly is formed) [Krajewski, para. 0072], and
wherein steps (iii) and (iv) are performed as a single method step of arranging a combination interlayer-backsheet to overlay the one or more solar cells and encapsulant on a back face side of the module (“[t]he laminate stack may then be assembled with the solar cells, front layer and other module components to complete the module”) [Krajewski, para. 0072].
Claim(s) 2-5 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krajewski in view of Yang, as applied to claims 1, 6, 9, 11-20, 22 and 24 above, and further in view of US 2021/0408309 A1, Yu et al. (hereinafter “Yu”).
Regarding claim 2
Modified Krajewski teaches the solar module as set forth above, wherein one or both of (i) and (ii) applies:
(i) wherein the solar module further comprises an electrically conductive frame (metal frame) [Krajewski, para. 0064];
(ii) wherein the one or more electrically conductive interconnect members extend through a horizontal plane in which the laminate interlayer lies (see conductive paste within vias 462 and 464) [Yang, Fig. 4B and para. 0061].
Modified Krajewski is silent to the following parameters within conditions (i) and (ii):
a first predetermined minimum creepage distance provided between an edge of the laminate interlayer and the electrically conductive frame, and
a second predetermined minimum creepage distance provided between an edge of the laminate interlayer and the one or more electrically conductive interconnect members.
Yu teaches that the safety performance of photovoltaic modules should meet safety standards for creepage distance (electrical clearance distance and distance through insulation) in the IEC61730-1 standard, wherein through adjustment and design of the encapsulating material, it is helpful to reduce the creepage distance thereby reducing material consumption and weight of the photovoltaic module [paras. 0022 and 0043-0044].
Modified Krajewski and Yu are analogous inventions in the field of solar modules. Absent a showing of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the first and second predetermined minimum creepage distances (result-effective variables), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize said parameters through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired safety performance for creepage distance in the IEC61730-1 standard while reducing the material consumption and weight of the solar module, thus reducing costs.
It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claim 3
Modified Krajewski teaches the solar module as set forth above, wherein the first and/or second predetermined minimum creepage distances are selected based on Table 3 of IEC 61730-1:2016 [Yu, para. 0043].
Regarding claim 4
Modified Krajewski teaches the solar module as set forth above, wherein (i) applies [Krajewski, para. 0064].
With regards to the first predetermined minimum creepage distance being selected to be greater than or equal to the value given in Row 1(a) or Row 3 of Table 3 of IEC 61730-1:2016 for at least the single module voltage or VOC, and the pollution degree of the module, Yu teaches that the safety performance of photovoltaic modules should meet safety standards for creepage distance (electrical clearance distance and distance through insulation) in the IEC61730-1 standard, wherein through adjustment and design of the encapsulating material, it is helpful to reduce the creepage distance thereby reducing material consumption and weight of the photovoltaic module [paras. 0022 and 0043-0044].
Accordingly, in the absence of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the first predetermined minimum creepage distance (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize said parameter through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired safety performance for creepage distance in the IEC61730-1 standard while reducing the material consumption and weight of the solar module, thus reducing costs. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Regarding claims 5 and 8
Modified Krajewski teaches the solar module as set forth above, wherein (ii) applies (see conductive interconnecting members comprising a conductive paste within vias 462 and 464 extending through a horizontal plane in which the laminate interlayer, 442/444, lies) [Yang, Fig. 4B, paras. 0053 and 0061], and wherein the one or more electrically conductive interconnect members extend through a gap (corresponding to vias 462 and 464) between the non-contiguous regions of the interlayer [Yang, Fig. 4B and para. 0061].
With regards to a second predetermined minimum creepage distance provided between an edge of the laminate interlayer and the one or more electrically conductive interconnect members (instant claim 8), wherein the second predetermined minimum creepage distance is selected to be greater than or equal to the value given in Row 1(a) or Row 3 of Table 3 of IEC61730-1:2016 for at least the single module voltage or VOC, and the pollution degree of the module (instant claim 5), Yu teaches that the safety performance of photovoltaic modules should meet safety standards for creepage distance (electrical clearance distance and distance through insulation) in the IEC61730-1 standard, wherein through adjustment and design of the encapsulating material, it is helpful to reduce the creepage distance thereby reducing material consumption and weight of the photovoltaic module [Yu, paras. 0022 and 0043-0044].
Accordingly, in the absence of criticality or unexpected results with respect to the first predetermined minimum creepage distance (a result-effective variable), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize said parameter through routine experimentation in order to achieve the desired safety performance for creepage distance in the IEC61730-1 standard while reducing the material consumption and weight of the solar module, thus reducing costs.
It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art [MPEP 2144.05].
Claim(s) 10 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krajewski in view of Yang, as applied to claims 1, 6, 9, 11-20, 22 and 24 above, and further in view of US 2019/0259883 A1, Aranami et al.
Regarding claim 10
Modified Krajewski is silent to the terminal being located on a back face side of the module.
Aranami shows that, in solar modules, positioning a terminal (See terminal box 4 comprising output wirings 5) is a known structure known in the art [Figs. 1 and 3, para. 0039].
Modified Krajewski and Aranami are analogous inventions in the field of solar modules.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have positioned the terminal of modified Krajewski on a back side of the module, as disclosed in Aranami, as such is a commonly known structure in the art and one would have recognized that such location would avoid a reduction in the active surface area of the device (i.e., on the light incident side).
Regarding claim 21
Krajewski teaches the one or more solar cells comprising, for example, microcrystalline, amorphous, polymer or thin film solar cells [para. 0055].
Krajewski is silent to the one or more solar cells being heterojunction technology (HJT) cells.
Aranami shows that crystalline solar cell elements can be selected from single crystal silicon, polycrystalline silicon, a heterojunction type, or a compound solar cell element such as III-V group [para. 0032].
Krajewski and Aranami are analogous inventions in the field of solar modules.
Because Aranami teaches choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solar cell structures, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to pursue the known options with reasonable expectation of success [see MPEP 2143].
Since Aranami teaches that heterojunction solar cells lead to the anticipated success, said structure is not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense [see MPEP 2143].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 23 is 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.
Claim 25 is allowed over the cited art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 23
Krajewski teaches the method as set forth above.
Krajewski teaches that the step (iv) is performed simultaneously to step (iii) wherein a pre-laminate layer including the laminate interlayer (402/404) is bonded with the back layer prior to laminating to the other components of the module [paras. 0072-0073].
Accordingly, Krajewski fails to disclose that the step (iv) of arranging a laminate interlayer (402/404) to be interposed between the encapsulant (410) and the backsheet (406) of the solar module (400) is performed between the steps (ii) of arranging an encapsulant (410) to surround the one or more solar cells (418), and (iii) of arranging a backsheet (406) to overlay the one or more solar cells (418) and encapsulant (410) on a back face side of the module (400).
One would not be motivated to modify the order of steps (iii) and (iv) in Krajewski as such would destroy the desired operation of Krajewski, in which a pre-laminate stack including the laminate interlayer and the backsheet layer is formed prior to laminating with the encapsulating material.
Regarding claims 25
Claim 25 is allowed for the same reasons as set forth in claim 23 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 is allowable over the cited reference because the cited reference fails to disclose the claim 1 recitation "wherein the laminate interlayer comprises two or more non-contiguous regions".
Applicant states that “[n]on-contiguous regions are regions which do not adjoin.”
Applicant argues that Yang at Figure 4B discloses a cross-sectional view of two solar cell strings connected in parallel (see paragraph [0030]), and paragraph [0061] discloses that "to prevent shorting between busbars 452 and 454 through the conductive interlayer 444, gap 448 can be created within conductive interlayer 444".
Applicant argues that Yang discloses a single, continuous conductive interlayer with cut-out style gaps to create electrically isolated islands within the same continuous conductive interlayer and as such Yang does not teach an interlayer structure having two or more non-continuous regions.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner identifies the top insulating layer 442 and bottom conductive interlayer 444 disclosed in Yang as the interlayer structure. Yang’s express teaching of gaps (448) within said interlayer structure necessarily results in multiple isolated regions of the interlayer structure i.e., regions that do not adjoin and are therefore non-continuous. Even if initially formed as a continuous layer, the addition of gaps (448) results in two or more non-continuous regions separated by said gaps.
Accordingly, Yang’s interlayer comprising gaps satisfies the limitations of the claim because it includes distinct regions separated by a gap.
Regarding claim 22, applicant states that the claim is patentable over the cited reference for at least the reasons presented with respect to claim 1. Examiner disagrees. Claim 22 is not patentable over the cited art as set forth for claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 2-21 and 24, Applicant does not provide any pertinent arguments other than stating that they are allowable for their dependency from an allowable base claim. Examiner disagrees and notes that claims 1 and 22 are not patentable over the cited art as set forth above. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 2-21 and 24 are maintained.
Conclusion
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 MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS whose telephone number is (571)272-5054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 9:00-5:00 - EST.
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, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303)297-4684. 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.
/MAYLA GONZALEZ RAMOS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights