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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Claim objections are raised/maintained to certain claims as set forth in the following Detailed Action.
Double Patenting Rejections
The Double Patenting Rejections are withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 102/103 Rejections
Applicant's arguments filed 7/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim(s) 16-22, 24, 26, 27 and 30-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ramamoorthy (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0085219 A1).
For independent claims 16, 32, 35, Applicants argue Ramamoorthy fails to disclose automatically rearranging the plurality of images into at least one sequence, the at least one sequence including ordered images from a plurality of viewing angles of the object substantially evenly distributed around 360 degrees. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Ramamoorthy discloses a processor to automatically rearrange a smoothly turning image set of an object into a sequence of images for storage in an organized fashion in a main image matrix (par. 18 and 58). Ramamoorthy explains its system performs an image capturing procedure which captures images at a predetermined angular interval (alpha) across a 360 degree rotation, so that the images are stored in the ordered fashion in the main image matrix (par. 73 and 75).
Applicants argue Ramamoorthy fails to disclose this limitation because Ramamoorthy implements a mechanical turntable arrangement. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
There is no language within independent claims 16, 32 and 35 which would preclude the use of a mechanical turntable architecture. It is also unclear how the use of a mechanical turntable architecture is inconsistent with the disclosures of Ramamoorthy describing its processor for automatically rearranging a smoothly turning image set of an object into a sequent of images for storage in a main image matrix. Furthermore, Ramamoorthy describes the mechanical turntable architecture is implemented with a motor control system for automatic operation in conjunction with the operation of the processor by a computer (par. 57).
Next, Applicants argue Ramamoorthy fails to disclose automatically determining whether to add at least one hotspot to at least one image in the at least one sequence. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicants argue Ramamoorthy discloses the hotspot generation is performed manually using a composer device. However, Ramamoorthy discloses the composer device is implemented by a computer comprising the processor and further discloses: “The hotspot information can be manually generated or generated automatically by inserting a colored material on the object that acts as a trigger” (par. 22 and 62).
Therefore, Ramamoorthy discloses the limitations of claims 16, 32 and 35.
For the remaining claims, Applicants argue for their allowance based on their dependence to claims 16, 32 and 35.
It follows the remaining claims are rejected for the reasons discussed above and in the following Detailed Action.
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 32 and 35 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 32, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
A computer-implemented method, the computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining data describing an object, the data describing the [[first]] object including information about a plurality of images of the object to be obtained and converted into an interactive rotatable 360-degree presentation of the object;
obtaining the plurality of images of the object;
automatically rearranging the plurality of images into at least one sequence, the at least one sequence including ordered images from a plurality of viewing angles of the object substantially evenly distributed around 360 degrees; and
automatically determining whether to add at least one hotspot to at least one image in the at least one sequence.
For claim 35, Examiner believes this claim should be amended in the following manner:
A machine-readable storage medium including instructions which when executed by at least one processor causes operations comprising:
obtaining data describing an object, the data describing the [[first]] object including information about a plurality of images of the object to be obtained and converted into an interactive rotatable 360-degree presentation of the object;
obtaining the plurality of images of the object;
automatically rearranging the plurality of images into at least one sequence, the at least one sequence including ordered images from a plurality of viewing angles of the object substantially evenly distributed around 360 degrees; and
automatically determining whether to add at least one hotspot to at least one image in the at least one sequence.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it encompasses nonstatutory subject matter.
Claim 35 is directed to a “machine-readable storage medium”. However, Applicants’ Specification fails to define the “machine-readable storage medium” and explain what forms the “machine-readable storage medium” may take. Furthermore, Applicants’ Specification explains its invention may be implemented with computer systems distributed across a network such that instructions may be downloaded through the network (Specification at par. 50 and 52). Thus, “machine-readable storage medium” may be broadly interpreted to cover signals, carrier waves and other ineligible subject matter. Therefore, claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for encompassing nonstatutory subject matter.
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 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) 16-22, 24, 26, 27 and 30-35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ramamoorthy (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0085219 A1) (made of record of the IDS submitted 9/17/2024).
For claim 16, Ramamoorthy discloses a system for generating an interactive rotatable 360-degree presentation of an object (see Ramamoorthy at [02 and 73-74] with the generation of a multi-dimensional image of an object from a series of successive images of an object to form a 360-degree presentation of the object), the system comprising:
an interface configured to (see Ramamoorthy at [60] where the data can be stored on a storage device, [22] describes the various removable media that can store the matrix data, such as a CD-ROM):
obtain data describing the object (see Ramamoorthy at [189] with the metadata and the image matrix data),
and obtain a plurality of images of the object (see Ramamoorthy at [60] with the automatic capture of images to copy an object, see the image capture method of [58] that describes the capture of a series of images to store in a main image matrix);
and a processor configured to (see Ramamoorthy at [18] with the image processor):
automatically rearrange the plurality of images into at least one sequence (see Ramamoorthy at [58] with the creation of a smoothly turning image set of the object which is stored in an organized fashion in a main image matrix),
the at least one sequence including ordered images from a plurality of viewing angles of the object substantially evenly distributed around 360 degrees (see Ramamoorthy at [73] with the image capturing procedure which captures images at a predetermined angular interval (alpha) across a 360 degree rotation, the images are stored in an ordered fashion in a main image matrix according to [75]);
automatically determine whether to add at least one hotspot to at least one image in the at least one sequence (see Ramamoorthy at [62] with composer which can add hotspots to an image, and where the hotspot information can be generated automatically by inserting a colored material on the object that acts as a trigger).
For claim 17, depending on claim 16, Ramamoorthy discloses wherein the processor is further configured to:
automatically merge the ordered images of the at least one sequence into at least one 360-degree view of the object (see Ramamoorthy at [178] with the viewer system that makes the actual presentation, see also [17 and 73-74] where each image data set is representative of an image of the object as viewed from an associated image capture viewing angle across 360-degrees of the object);
and automatically merge the at least one 360-degree view of the object into the interactive rotatable 360-degree presentation of the object (see Ramamoorthy at [73-74 and 222] with the user input to interact with the 3D space to manipulate the display of the object to perform a simulated rotation of the 360-degree presentation of the object).
For claim 18, depending on claim 16, Ramamoorthy discloses wherein the at least one hotspot is associated with a separate media element (see Ramamoorthy at [62] where the hotspots can be embedded to trigger a presentation of metadata or web link connection, see [193] where if a hotspot is selected during presentation then a control action is initiated and could result in display of any external or internal metadata such as audio, video, graphics).
For claim 19, depending on claim 18, Ramamoorthy discloses wherein the processor is further configured to enable access to the separate media element when selected by a viewer of the interactive rotatable 360-degree presentation of the object (see Ramamoorthy at [62] where the hotspots can be embedded to trigger a presentation of metadata or web link connection, see [193] where if a hotspot is selected during presentation then a control action is initiated and could result in display of any external or internal metadata such as audio, video, graphics).
For claim 20, depending on claim 18, Ramamoorthy discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: receive a user input selecting the at least one hotspot, the at least one hotspot enabling access to the separate media element when selected by a viewer of the interactive rotatable 360-degree presentation of the object (see Ramamoorthy at [62] with composer which can add hotspots to an image, and where the hotspot information can be generated automatically by inserting a colored material on the object that acts as a trigger; see Ramamoorthy at [62] where the presence of a colored material on the object will determine if a hotspot is to be automatically added with the automatic addition of hotspot information which is embedded in an image; see Ramamoorthy at [62] where the hotspots can be embedded to trigger a presentation of metadata or web link connection, see [193] where if a hotspot is selected during presentation then a control action is initiated and could result in display of any external or internal metadata such as audio, video, graphics); and display, in response to the user input, the separate media element (see Ramamoorthy at [62] where the hotspots can be embedded to trigger a presentation of metadata or web link connection, see Ramamoorthy at [193] where if a hotspot is selected during presentation then a control action is initiated and could result in display of any external or internal metadata such as audio, video, graphics).
For claim 21, depending on claim 18, Ramamoorthy discloses wherein the at least one hotspot is a conditional hotspot that is added to a plurality of interactive rotatable 360-degree presentations that meet certain criteria (see Ramamoorthy at [62], [189-190] and [193] where the hotspot is added to the image according to external metadata information corresponding to colored material that acts as a trigger as a conditional hotspot meeting criteria of a user generation or automatic generation of the colored material on the object and a user clicking on the hotspot trigger to activate the conditional hotspot).
For claim 22, depending on claim 18, Ramamoorthy discloses wherein the separate media element comprises any of text, an additional image, a video, a web page link, and an additional interactive rotatable 360-degree presentation (see Ramamoorthy at [193] with the hotspot being linked to the presentation of audio files, video files, graphic files, or text files).
For claim 24, depending on claim 16, Ramamoorthy discloses wherein the processor is further configured to resize the plurality of images to a common size (see Ramamoorthy at [66] where the images of the object are captured by the camera and then scaled to a smaller size in a consistent manner, see also Ramamoorthy at [232] where a zoom button enables a user to expand the pixels of a selected area of a currently displayed image so that they fit in the same size as the original image).
For claim 26, depending on claim 16, Ramamoorthy discloses wherein the processor is further configured to determine a position for the at least one hotspot on the at least one image (see Ramamoorthy at [62] with the composer which can add hotspots to an image, and where the hotspot information can be generated based on a preplaced colored material on the object that acts as a trigger which corresponds to the object and see Ramamoorthy at [193] where a user clicks on the position of the hotspot trigger in the image for activating media elements associated with the hotspot).
For claim 27, depending on claim 16, Ramamoorthy discloses wherein automatically rearranging the plurality of images comprises determining an order for the plurality of images (see Ramamoorthy at [196-211] with the numbering system for images which specifies the order for arrangement).
For claim 30, depending on claim 16, Ramamoorthy discloses wherein the processor is further configured to determine a position for the at least one hotspot on each of the ordered images based on predetermined information corresponding to the object (see Ramamoorthy at [62] with the composer which can add hotspots to an image, and where the hotspot information can be generated based on a preplaced colored material on the object that acts as a trigger which corresponds to the object).
For claim 31, depending on claim 30, Ramamoorthy discloses wherein the processor is further configured to determining the separate media element based on the predetermined information corresponding to the object (see Ramamoorthy at [193] where the hotspot is linked by a predetermined association to a portion of an image that is operated to provide further information about the object, where that information can be a presentation of meta-data such as audio, video, or web links), the separate media element being any of text, an additional image, a video, a web page link, and an additional interactive rotatable 360-degree presentation (see Ramamoorthy at [193] with the hotspot being linked to the presentation of audio files, video files, graphic files, or text files).
For claim 32, Ramamoorthy discloses a computer-implemented method, the computer-implemented method comprising ([02 and 73-74] see the generation of a multi-dimensional image of an object from a series of successive images of an object to form a 360-degree presentation of the object):
obtaining data describing the object ([189] see the metadata and the image matrix data),
the data describing the first object including information about a plurality of images of the object to be obtained and converted into the interactive rotatable 360-degree presentation of the object ([179] see the .hlg data file which contains information about file generation and data streams pertaining to main image matrix coded image data, this is the image data that is used to generate the three dimensional object presentation according to [213, 215]);
obtaining the plurality of images of the object ([60] see the automatic capture of images to copy an object, see the image capture method of [58] that describes the capture of a series of images to store in a main image matrix);
automatically rearranging the plurality of images into at least one sequence ([58] see the creation of a smoothly turning image set of the object which is stored in an organized fashion in a main image matrix),
the at least one sequence including ordered images from a plurality of viewing angles of the object substantially evenly distributed around 360 degrees ([73] see the image capturing procedure which captures images at a predetermined angular interval (alpha) across a 360 degree rotation, the images are stored in an ordered fashion in a main image matrix according to [75]);
automatically determining whether to add at least one hotspot to at least one image in the at least one sequence ([62] see composer which can add hotspots to an image, and where the hotspot information can be generated automatically by inserting a colored material on the object that acts as a trigger).
For claim 33, depending on claim 32, Ramamoorthy discloses further comprising:
automatically merging the ordered images of the at least one sequence into at least one 360-degree view of the object ([178] see the viewer system that makes the actual presentation, see also [17 and 73-74] where each image data set is representative of an image of the object as viewed from an associated image capture viewing angle across 360-degrees of the object);
and automatically merging the at least one 360-degree view into the interactive rotatable 360-degree presentation of the object ([73-74 and 222] see the user input to interact with the 3D space to manipulate the display of the object to perform a simulated rotation).
For claim 34, depending on claim 32, Ramamoorthy discloses wherein the at least one hotspot is associated with a separate media element ([62] see where the hotspots can be embedded to trigger a presentation of metadata or web link connection, see [193] where if a hotspot is selected during presentation then a control action is initiated and could result in display of any external or internal metadata such as audio, video, graphics).
For claim 35, Ramamoorthy discloses a machine-readable storage medium including instructions which when executed by at least one processor (see Ramamoorthy at [22 and 55] describing storage media for storing instructions for execution by a processor to perform the functions of a computer) causes operations comprising:
obtaining data describing an object ([189] see the metadata and the image matrix data),
the data describing the object including information about a plurality of images of the object to be obtained and converted into an interactive rotatable 360-degree presentation of the object ([179] see the .hlg data file which contains information about file generation and data streams pertaining to main image matrix coded image data, this is the image data that is used to generate the three dimensional object presentation according to [213, 215]);
obtaining the plurality of images of the object ([60] see the automatic capture of images to copy an object, see the image capture method of [58] that describes the capture of a series of images to store in a main image matrix);
automatically rearranging the plurality of images into at least one sequence ([58] see the creation of a smoothly turning image set of the object which is stored in an organized fashion in a main image matrix),
the at least one sequence including ordered images from a plurality of viewing angles of the object substantially evenly distributed around 360 degrees ([73] see the image capturing procedure which captures images at a predetermined angular interval (alpha) across a 360 degree rotation, the images are stored in an ordered fashion in a main image matrix according to [75]); and
automatically determining whether to add at least one hotspot to at least one image in the at least one sequence ([62] see composer which can add hotspots to an image, and where the hotspot information can be generated automatically by inserting a colored material on the object that acts as a trigger).
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamoorthy in view of Lanahan et al. (U.S. Patent Application 2010/0005417 A1, hereinafter “Lanahan”).
For claim 23, depending on claim 16, Ramamoorthy does not disclose a hotspot is associated with a point.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Lanahan.
Lanahan similarly discloses a system and method for rotating a presentation of media (page 3/par. 37). Lanahan explains a user may designate a point in its media for the addition of a hotspot and an associated media element for access by a user (page 3/par. 37). It follows Ramamoorthy may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Lanahan to designate an appropriate point on its at least one image to add its at least one hotspot so that the hotspot automatically follows the point as the interactive rotatable 360-degree presentation rotates.
A person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Ramamoorthy with the teachings of Lanahan. Lanahan is analogous art in dealing with a system and method rotating a presentation of media (page 3/par. 37). Lanahan discloses its association of a hotspot with a designated point is advantageous in appropriately presenting additional information for an associated media item at a desired point (page 3/par. 37). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Lanahan into Ramamoorthy for appropriately presenting additional information for an associated media item at a desired point. Therefore, claim 23 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamoorthy in view of Hauk (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0152806 A1) (made of record of the IDS submitted 9/17/2024).
For claim 25, depending on claim 16, Ramamoorthy discloses wherein the interactive rotatable 360-degree presentation comprises an interior view of the object and an exterior view of the object (see Ramamoorthy at [75], [226] and Fig. 16 where a user may perform the simulated rotation to view exterior view images of an object such as a drill; see also Ramamoorthy at [76] where an object may be manipulated by opening a door which would expose an interview view and [157] where a part may be removed which would also expose an interior view).
Examiner finds Ramamoorthy discloses a 360-degree view comprising an exterior view image of an object and an interior view image of the object.
In any case, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Hauk.
Hauk similarly discloses a system and method for presenting a sequence of images for desired objects (page 1/par. 5) where the images present a 360 degree view of the desired objects (page 3/par. 28). Hauk explains its 360 degree presentation of an object such as a vehicle may include images of the vehicle’s exterior (page 3/par. 28) and may further include images of the vehicle’s interior (page 3/par. 31). It follows Ramamoorthy may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Hauk to incorporate exterior and interior view images of its object in its interactive rotatable 360-degree view.
A PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Ramamoorthy with the teachings of Hauk. Hauk is analogous art in dealing with a system and method for presenting a sequence of images for desired objects (page 1/par. 5) where the images present a 360 degree view of the desired objects (page 3/par. 28). Hauk discloses its 360 degree view of desired objects is advantageous in implementing a virtual showroom so that a user may effectively view exterior and interior of desired objects to make an informed purchase (page 1/par. 5; and page 3/par. 28 and 31). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Hauk into Ramamoorthy for implementing a virtual showroom so that a user may effectively view exterior and interior of desired objects to make an informed purchase. Therefore, claim 25 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamoorthy in view of Hauk further in view of Yamamoto (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0244314 A1) (made of record of the IDS submitted 9/17/2024).
For claim 28, depending on claim 16, Ramamoorthy as modified by Hauk discloses wherein the plurality of images comprises an exterior image of the object and an interior image of the object (see Ramamoorthy at [75], [226] and Fig. 16 where a user may perform the simulated rotation to view exterior view images of an object such as a drill; see also Ramamoorthy at [76] where an object may be manipulated by opening a door which would expose an interview view and [157] where a part may be removed which would also expose an interior view; Hauk similarly discloses a system and method for presenting a sequence of images for desired objects (page 1/par. 5) where the images present a 360 degree view of the desired objects (page 3/par. 28); Hauk explains its 360 degree presentation of an object such as a vehicle may include images of the vehicle’s exterior (page 3/par. 28) and may further include images of the vehicle’s interior (page 3/par. 31) and it follows Ramamoorthy may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Hauk to incorporate exterior and interior view images of its object in its interactive rotatable 360-degree view).
Ramamoorthy as modified by Hauk does not disclose a close-up image.
However, these limitations are well-known in the art as disclosed in Yamamoto.
Yamamoto similarly discloses a system and method for displaying a plurality of images (page 1/par. 2). Yamamoto explains its images may be presented as an arrangement of images including a close-up image (page 3/par. 45). It follows Ramamoorthy and Hauk may be accordingly modified with the teachings of Yamamoto to accommodate a close-up image of its objects among its plurality of images.
A PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify Ramamoorthy and Hauk with the teachings of Yamamoto. Yamamoto is analogous art in dealing with a system and method for displaying a plurality of images (page 1/par. 2). Yamamoto discloses its use of a close-up image is advantageous in appropriately attracting attention more than other images arranged in a plurality of images (page 3/par. 45). Consequently, a PHOSITA would incorporate the teachings of Yamamoto into Ramamoorthy and Hauk for appropriately attracting attention more than other images arranged in a plurality of images. Therefore, claim 28 is rendered obvious to a PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 29 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form.
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 CHARLES TSENG whose telephone number is (571)270-3857. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, Xiao Wu can be reached at (571) 272-7761. 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.
/CHARLES TSENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2613
Prosecution Insights