DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 4 & 16 – 17 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.
First, claim 4 recites, “the curved line is convex on the first main surface side with respect to the straight line.” Claim 1 recites the first main surface is flat. Therefore, it is unclear how a convex line is formed on the first main surface side. Furthermore, paragraph [0056] of the specification states “the curved line is convex toward the first main surface 100A with respect the strain light 122L,” in reference to Fig. 6. It is assumed Applicant intended to recite the term “toward” instead of “on.” Clarification is requested.
Second, claim 3 recites the “an angle formed by a straight line connecting one end point and the other end point of the stepped region in the first direction and an extension line of the bottom region is 25° or more and 90° or less.” This suggests the thickness variation of stepped region is formed as a straight line at an angle of 25° – 90°. Claim 4 recites the thickness variation of the stepped region is formed as a curved line. The stepped region cannot be formed as both a straight line and a convex line in the same embodiment. Clarification is requested.
With regard to claim 16, the claim recites “…in a state where the thin regions from a curved surface having a curvature radius R (mm) by elastic deformation…” Applicant’s specification teaches an embodiment in which the stepped region of the thin region has a curved (convex) surface (see Fig. 7). The specification also teaches the glass is in a bent state due to elastic deformation (see Fig. 2). Therefore, it is unclear whether the curvature of radius R recited in claim 1 referring to the curvature radius of the stepped region shown in Fig. 7 or the curvature of radius of the glass in a bent state. Due to the presence of the term “by elastic deformation,” the Examiner has assumed the claim is reciting the radius of curvature of the bent glass. However, clarification is requested.
With regard to claim 17, the claim recites “the thin region is held in a movable state.” The specification fails to clarify definition of the term “movable state.” It is unclear whether “movable state” refers to the elastic deformable property of the thin portion, or refers to the thin region not bonded to the display. Clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 12, & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kanungo et al. (US 2021/0047235 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Kunungo et al. teach a glass sheet (paragraph [0015] & [0073]) having a first main surface and a second main surface opposite to the first main surface, and a plurality of channels (i.e., “recessed surface”) in the second main surface such that the bottom of each channel which forms a thin region of the glass sheet and the region between the channels form a thick region adjacent to said thin regions.
The thin region includes: a bottom region that is flat on the second main surface side in a state where the first main surface is fixed so as to make contact with a flat surface; and a wall of the channels (i.e., “stepped region provided between the bottom region and thick region”) (Fig. 3A, shown below), and the thin region satisfies the following formula (1):
PNG
media_image1.png
138
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
in the formula (1), when a direction perpendicular to a thickness direction of the glass and also perpendicular to a direction in which a thickness of the glass is constant in the stepped region is defined as a first direction,
PNG
media_image2.png
150
508
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As shown in Fig. 3A above, such that the length of the stepped region (Ga) and is equal to zero. Therefore, the structure of Fig. 3A has a value of Applicant’s recited Formula 1, wherein the length of the thin region (“S” in Fig. 3A above) is Gw, and Gw/Gw is equal to 1.0, which is greater than 0.5.
With regard to claim 2, as shown in Fig. 3A above, the thick region includes a region that is flat in the state where the first main surface is fixed so as to make contact with a flat surface.
With regard to claim 3, in a cross section including the thickness direction and the first (length) direction, where the first main surface if fixed to make contact with a flat surface (i.e., a non-bent glass structure), the angle formed by a straight line connecting one end point and the other endpoint of the stepped region in the first direction and an extension line of the bottom region is 90° (Fig. 3A above).
With regard to claim 12, Kunungo et al. teach a glass structure comprising the glass sheet discussed above for claim 1, wherein the one or more channels can be completely or partially filled with material (i.e., “filler”) (63) (paragraph [0081] & Fig. 4C).
PNG
media_image3.png
210
274
media_image3.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 14, Kunungo et al. teach the glass sheet is a component of a liquid crystal display device (paragraphs [0002] – [0006]), which also comprises a display panel (paragraphs [0054] & [0057]).
Kunungo et al. do not teach the display device is “on-vehicle.”
However, when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “on-vehicle” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
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 – 2, 5 – 6, & 8 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2021/0107829 A1).
With regard to claim 1, Chen et al. teach a glass sheet (803 of Fig. 10) having a first main surface and a second main surface (2103 of Fig. 22) opposite to the first main surface (2205 of Fig. 22). The glass sheet has a thick region and a thin region that is adjacent to the thick region, has a recessed surface in the second main surface, and is thinner than the thick region, wherein the thin region includes: a bottom region that is flat on the second main surface side in a state where the first main surface is fixed so as to make contact with a flat surface; and a transition portion (2213 or 2219 of Fig. 22) (i.e., “stepped region”) provided between the bottom region and thick region (Figs. 10 & 22).
PNG
media_image4.png
412
282
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
134
538
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Chen et al. teach a single groove 2115 (i.e. “thin region”) may be formed in the glass-based ribbon forming the sheet along a groove width 2119 of central portion 2120 to form the foldable substrate 2103 although multiple grooves may be provided. A width 2119 extends in a direction of the length and can be from about 4 mm to about 45 mm (paragraph [0127]). A first transition portion 2211 extending a distance 2213 between a central region 2216 and a first portion 2215 in the direction 2113 of the length of the foldable substrate. The distance 2213 of the first transition portion and/or distance 2219 of the second transition portion can be about 1 mm or more and about 3 mm or less (paragraph [0128]).
In other words, Applicant’s thin region length Gw is equivalent to Chen’s width regions 2213 + 2119 + 2219 and Applicant’s stepped region Ga is equivalent to Chen’s transition portions 2213 or 2219. As such, Chen et al. teach Gw in the range of about 6 mm to about 51 mm and Ga in the range of about 1 mm to about 3 mm.
Applicant’s recited formula is as follows:
PNG
media_image1.png
138
316
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, Chen suggests Applicant’s formula 1 in the range of 0 – 0.96, which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of greater than or equal to 0.5. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 2, as shown in Fig. 22 above, Chen et al. teach the thick region includes a region that is flat in the state where the first main surface is fixed so as to make contact with a flat surface.
With regard to claims 5 – 6, Chen et al. teach the glass sheet (foldable substrate) is chemically strengthened (paragraphs [0062], [0074], & [0108]) and two or more grooves (thin regions) in a length (first) direction (Fig. 10), wherein the transition portion (“stepped region”) may form a curved surface (paragraph [0122] & Fig. 9).
Chen et al. do not explicitly teach Applicant’s recited formulas 2 – 4.
However, Chen et al. teach a ratio of the Gs/T of (ratio of thick region length (Applicant’s “Gs”) to thick region thickness (Applicant’s “ts”)) is preferably 1.5 or less for reducing the bend-induced stress (paragraph [0116]). The ratio (Gw/T) of the groove width (Applicant’s “Gw”) to the substrate thickness (T) (Applicant’s “ts”) can be 0.1 or more, which can provide for reduced bend-induced stress in a foldable substrate comprising a plurality of grooves (paragraph [0120]). The ratio of the groove depth (i.e., measure of Applicant’s bottom region thickness) to thickness of the thick region (T) is preferably in the range of 0.3 or more for providing reduced bend-induced stress in the foldable substrate (paragraph [0117]).
Furthermore, Chen et al. teach chemically strengthening the foldable substrate (glass sheet) can enable small bend radii because the compressive stress from the chemical strengthening (i.e., Applicant’s “compressive pressure due to chemical strengthening, σcs” of Formula 4) can counteract the bend-induced tensile stress on the outermost surface of the substrate (paragraph [0130]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Chen et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust multiple variables, including the thickness of the thick region, the groove depth (i.e., thickness of the bottom region when depth is subtracted from thickness of thick region), groove width (thin region length), groove spacing (thick region length), and compressive pressure due to chemical strengthening through routine experimentation in order to achieve reduced bend-induced stress. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 8, Chen et al. teach the substrate (glass sheet) thickness (T) (i.e., “thick region thickness”) can be about 80 µm (0.08 mm) or more, more preferably about 200 µm (0.2 mm) or more, and about 3 mm or less, more preferably 2 mm or less (paragraph [0113]), which includes Applicant’s claimed range of 0.2 mm or more and 2.5 mm or less. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 9, Chen et al. teach groove depth can be 3 µm or more and 1.5 mm or less (paragraph [0117]). The thickness of the bottom region is the groove depth subtracted from the total thickness (discussed above for claim 8). As such, the thickness of the bottom region is calculated as [80 – 3000 µm] – [3 – 1500 µm], which is range of 77 – 1497 um (i.e., 0.077 mm to 1.497 mm), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 0.05 mm to 0.5 mm. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 10, Chen et al. teach a groove (“thin region”) length in the direction of the width of the foldable substrate, and a groove (“thin region”) width in a direction of a length of the foldable substrate that is perpendicular to the width of the foldable substrate (paragraphs [0014] & [0119]).
With regard to claim 11, Chen et al. teach the glass is foldable (i.e., “bendable”) with the width of the grooves (perpendicular to the thickness direction and the groove length in the first direction) (paragraphs [0114] & [0119]).
With regard to claim 12, As shown in Fig. 10, Chen et al. teach optically clear adhesive (1005) fills the grooves (i.e., “thin region”) in the surface of the glass sheet (803).
PNG
media_image4.png
412
282
media_image4.png
Greyscale
With regard to claim 13, Chen teaches the index of refraction of the foldable substrate and an index of refraction of the optically clear adhesive (filler) preferably has a differential of about 0.001 to about 0.07 (paragraph [0143), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 0.008 or less. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to claim 14, Chen et al. teach an embodiment in which a structure 2401 comprising the glass sheet discussed above is used as display device applications (paragraph [0003]), wherein a display 1103 is disposed over a foldable substrate 2103 via an optically clear adhesive such that the thin region of the glass sheet is bent (i.e., “elastically deformed”) (P0136 & Fig. 24).
PNG
media_image6.png
350
222
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Chen et al. do not teach the display device is “on-vehicle.”
However, when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “on-vehicle” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
With regard to claim 15, as discussed above for claim 14, the thin regions taught by Chen et al. is inherently capable of being elastically deformed in the bent state.
The Examiner has interpreted “state where the thin region is elastically deformed” refers to the state of bending/folding of the glass (See Applicant’s specification, paragraphs [0015] & [0066]). Therefore, Applicant’s recited bonding of the glass structure to the display in a bent/folded state is a product-by-process limitation.
Claim 15 defines the product by how the product was made. Thus, claim 15 is a product-by-process claim. For purposes of examination, product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulation of the recited steps, only the structure implied by the steps. See MPEP 2113. In the present case, the recited steps imply a structure having a foldable glass sheet bonded to a display (panel), wherein the thinner regions of the glass sheet are capable of elastic deformation when in a bent state. The reference suggests such a product.
Examiner refers applicant to MPEP § 2113 [R - 1] regarding product-by-process claims. “The patentability of a product does not depend on its method or production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product or the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process." In re Thorpe, 777, F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (citation omitted)
Once the examiner provides a rationale tending to show that the claimed product appears to be same or similar to that of the prior art, although produced by a different process, the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with evidence establishing an unobvious difference between the claimed product and the prior art product. In re Marosi, 710 F.2d 798, 802, 218, USPQ 289, 292 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
Claim(s) 3 – 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sunwood et al. (US 2021/0315116 A1).
With regard to claim 3, Chen et al. do not explicitly teach the angle of a straight line connecting one end point and the other end point of the transition portion (i.e., “stepped region”) (shown in Chen’s transition portions, i.e., “stepped regions” of Fig. 22 above) is in the range of 25° or more and 90° or less (wherein the stepped region is a straight line).
Sunwoo et al. teach a flexible glass-based cover window for a flexible display device, wherein the folding region has a smaller thickness (i.e., “thin region”) than the planar regions (i.e., “thick regions”). Inclined portions having low gradients at opposite ends of the folding portion (bordering the planar portions) adjust the size of an angle of reflection by a reflective surface at the entire region of the folding portion in order to minimize light interference and visibility to the naked eye at the reflective surface (paragraph [0064]).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Sunwoo et al., it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to adjust gradient (angle) of the inclined portions (i.e., “stepped regions”) through routine experimentation in order to minimize light interference and visibility to the naked eye at the reflective surface. It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 4, Chen et al. teach the groove may comprise a curved surface that is convex toward the first main surface side (paragraph [0122] & Fig. 9).
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jones et al. (US 2018/0217639 A1).
With regard to claim 7, Chen et al. do not teach the curvature radius R of the curved surface (curved region by elastic deformation, i.e., bend radius) formed by at least one region of the thin regions is 10 mm or more and 10,000 mm or less.
Jones et al. teach a foldable electronic display device comprising a glass substrate, wherein the glass substrate comprises a thick region and relief features (i.e., plurality of thin regions) such that the thin regions are centered in a bend region of the glass substrate (Figs. 14A – 14B, 17A – 17B, 18A – 18B, 19A – 19B). The thin region of the glass substrate served to reduce the internal stress when the glass substrate is folded between flat and bent states (paragraph [0127]). The fold or bend region may have a minimum bend radius of curvature of less than 25 mm (paragraph [0060]), which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 10 mm or more and 10,000 mm or less.
The minimum bend radius may be determined by the size and shape of the relief features (i.e., groove/thin region). In general, the wider or larger the relief feature (i.e., “thin region”), the smaller or tighter the minimum bend radius. Conversely, the narrower or smaller the relief features, the larger the minimum bend radius (paragraph [0140]). The display device comprising the glass substrate (i.e., Applicant’s “glass structure”) may be bend in a fully folded (or closed) configuration (i.e., “wound up”) in order to protect the cover and display from abrasion (paragraphs [0093] – [0094] & Figs. 5A – 5C shown below).
Therefore, based on the teachings of Jones et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form the glass substrate of the foldable display device taught by Chen et al. with a minimum radius of curvature of less than 25 mm, which overlaps with Applicant’s claimed range of 10 mm or more and 10,000 mm or less, by adjusting the size and shape of the grooves (thin regions) to enable folding of the display device into the desired configuration. As set forth in MPEP 2144.05, in the case where the claimed range “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Jones et al. (US 2018/0217639 A1).
With regard to claim 16, Chen et al. teach the display device comprising the foldable glass substrate (sheet) is foldable, but do not explicitly teach the glass structure (display device) is wound up.
Jones et al. teach a foldable electronic display device comprising a glass substrate, wherein the glass substrate comprises a thick region and relief features (i.e., plurality of thin regions) such that the thin regions are centered in a bend region of the glass substrate (Figs. 14A – 14B, 17A – 17B, 18A – 18B, 19A – 19B). The thin region of the glass substrate served to reduce the internal stress when the glass substrate is folded between flat and bent states (paragraph [0127]). The display device comprising the glass substrate (i.e., Applicant’s “glass structure”) may be bend in a fully folded (or closed) configuration (i.e., “wound up”) in order to protect the cover and display from abrasion (paragraphs [0093] – [0094] & Figs. 5A – 5C shown below).
PNG
media_image7.png
522
484
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, based on the teachings of Jones et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to configure a foldable device such that it is enabled to be wound up into a fully folded (closed/wound up) configuration for protecting a cover layer and display layer of the electronic display device from abrasion.
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al., as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Youn et al. (US 2020/0183457 A1).
With regard to claim 17, Chen et al. teach the thick region of the is bonded to a display, but do not explicitly teach the display device comprises a frame body, wherein the thick regions of the glass sheet are bonded to said frame body. Chen et al. teach thin regions of the glass substrate in the folding area and thick regions of the glass substrate in the non-folding area (Figs. 10 & 24 shown above).
Youn et al. teach a foldable display device comprising a panel assembly (110) and a set frame (170) (paragraph [0046]). The panel assembly (110) comprises a cover window formed of glass (112) and a display panel (111) (paragraph [0073]), and configured such that the panel assembly can be folded (paragraph [0051]). The set frame is disposed below the panel assembly to support the non-folding area of the panel assembly (paragraph [0053]). As shown in Fig. 1, the set frame is not disposed below the folding area.
Furthermore, Youn et al. teach the panel assembly comprises a frame (114) to protect a back plane and the display panel (paragraph [0086]). The frame is disposed below the non-folding region of the cover window, but not the folding region such that the frame is not folded and does not apply stress to the device due to folding (paragraph [0088]). In other words, the foldable area is “held in a movable state.”
Therefore, based on the teachings of Youn et al., it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to form a foldable display device comprising a frame, wherein the frame is bonded to non-foldable thick regions of the glass substrate (cover window), yet also allows the thin regions of a glass substrate in a foldable region to be “held in a movable state,” in order to support the foldable cover window without applying unwanted stress to the foldable device when folded.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA whose telephone number is (571)270-1552. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (9 a.m. to 10 p.m.).
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, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. 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.
/NICOLE T GUGLIOTTA/Examiner, Art Unit 1781
/FRANK J VINEIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights