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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed June 22, 2026, with respect to independent claim 31 have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in this office action.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following claim is drafted by the examiner and considered to distinguish patentably over the art of record in this application, it is presented to applicant for consideration:
Combining claims 21, 35, and 41 together as a single claim.
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 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.
Claims 21-23, 30-32, and 36-41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gribetz (Pub No. US 2017/0236320).
As per claim 21, Gribetz teaches the claimed:
21. A scene builder system comprising:
a processor; and a memory storing instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor (In Gribetz in figure 8A which shows CPU and GPU processors and in [0102] “Processing devices or processors suitable for the execution of a computer program include, by way of example, both general and special purpose microprocessors, and any one or more processors of any kind of digital computer. Generally, a processor will receive instructions and data from a read-only memory or a random access memory or both”), cause the scene builder system to:
transmit, to a web application (Gribetz in [0035] “For example, the system may implement a web browser application, which renders the HTML elements of the document for presentation to a user”), a plurality of low-fidelity digital three-dimensional (3D) objects ( This occurs in figure 1 at step 144 where a low-fidelity model for 3D virtual elements is transmitted to the web application. It is noted that Gribetz also suggests transmitting multiple low-fidelity 3D objects, e.g. please see Gribetz in [0005] “In some general aspects, the apparatuses, methods, systems, components and techniques described herein provide access to digital content including 3-D virtual elements … In one example, an augmented reality display system may initially render a low fidelity model of the virtual element. In one example, the low fidelity model of the virtual element may be tethered to the digital content in which the virtual element is included”
In this passage, Gribetz in [0005] refers to “3-D virtual elements” in the plurality suggesting that their system also has additional embodiments where more than 1 low-fidelity digital three-dimensional (3D) object can be transmitted to the web application. This feature is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because a designer may often want to have more than 1 low-fidelity 3D object able to be transmitted and displayed and interacted with by the user. This is further suggested in [0054] of Gribetz where they refer to: “In one example, a visual indication of the points in the cloud may be rendered within the 3-D virtual space (e.g., to aid a user in manipulating real world objects in order to affect virtual elements in the virtual 3-D space)” and in [0066] “… As shown in the example of FIG. 3, a user environment 300 as viewed through a stereographic augmented or virtual reality system by the user includes both real world objects and virtual elements.“ Again here, the mention to include multiple virtual elements in the scene or user environment, suggests the need for Gribetz to initially transmit a plurality of low-fidelity digital three-dimensional (3D) objects (especially when those 3D objects are not initially available by the client system). Gribetz in [0077] states that it is advantageous to first download low-fidelity versions of digital 3D objects because they have less data and thus faster download times. Thus, this feature is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, when evaluating the evidence provided by the Gribetz reference);
receive, from the web application, a first digital 3D scene comprising a second digital 3D object selected from the plurality of low-fidelity 3D objects (Gribetz in [0005] “… In this example, untethering of the low fidelity model from the digital content may server as a trigger to download and render the high fidelity model of the virtual element.” Figure 6 shows the received first digital 3D scene (desk with low-fidelity 3D objects on it).);
access a mapping of a first digital 3D object and the second digital 3D object, the first digital 3D object having a higher fidelity than the second digital 3D object (This occurs in figure 2 in step 220 “Access High Fidelity Virtual Element”. In Gribetz, there is a correspondence (or mapping) between the high-fidelity version of a digital 3D object and the low fidelity version of a digital 3D object, e.g. in figure 6 the low-fidelity version of the 3D watch object 601 is mapped in figure 7 to its corresponding high-fidelity version of the 3D watch object 703. Thus, Gribetz has some type of mapping present, e.g. to know that the object 601 is mapped to object 703);
and convert, using the mapping, the first digital 3D scene into a second digital 3D scene, the second digital 3D scene having a higher fidelity than the first digital 3D scene (This occurs in figure 2 in step 242 “Replace Low Fidelity Virtual Element with Rendered High Fidelity Virtual Element”. Also, please see the transition from figure 6 to 7. Figure 6 shows the received first digital 3D scene (desk with objects on it). Figure 7 shows the first scene converted into the second 3D scene having a higher fidelity version of the watch located on the desk).
As per claim 22, Gribetz teaches the claimed:
22. The scene builder system of claim 21, wherein the first digital 3D scene includes the second digital 3D object (Figure 6 shows the received first digital 3D scene (desk with objects on it) including second digital 3D object 601 (the second digital 3D object)); and wherein converting, using the mapping, the first digital 3D scene into the second digital 3D scene comprises converting the second digital 3D object into the first digital 3D object (The first 3D scene shown in figure 6 is converted into the second digital 3D scene shown in figure 7. This is done by using the mapping to replace the low-fidelity 3D watch object 601 (second digital 3D object) into the high-fidelity 3D watch object 703 (first digital 3D object). Also, please see figure 2 in step 242 as well where the low-fidelity 3D digital object is replaced with a high-fidelity 3D digital object).
As per claim 23, Gribetz teaches the claimed:
23. The scene builder system of claim 21, wherein the first digital 3D object has a greater size than the second digital 3D object (This is shown where in figure 7 the high-fidelity 3D watch object 703 (first digital 3D object) has a greater size than the low-fidelity 3D watch object 601 (second digital 3D object) shown in figure 6); and wherein the second digital 3D scene has a greater size than the first digital 3D scene (This is shown in figure 7 where the second digital 3D scene has a greater size than the first digital 3D scene in figure 6 because the second digital 3D scene in figure 7 has a larger high-fidelity 3D watch object 703 (first digital 3D object) on the desk compared to the low-fidelity 3D watch object 601 (second digital 3D object) shown in figure 6).
As per claim 30, Gribetz teaches the claimed:
30. The scene builder system of claim 21, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the scene builder system to render a high-fidelity two-dimensional (2D) image of the second digital 3D scene (Gribetz in figure 7 shows the second digital 3D scene rendered. It is rendered as a high-fidelity 2D image because it contains high-fidelity object 703. Also, please see Gribetz in [0078] “… In one example, a visual indicator may be used to report on the progress of the full-poly download. As shown in FIG. 7, once fully downloaded, the high-fidelity virtual element 703 is rendered in the workspace 702, untethered from frame 701. The high-fidelity virtual element replaces the previously rendered low-fidelity virtual element”, [0082] “… The data store of the server system, stored both the high and low-fidelity representations or models of the virtual elements. The server system also may store a state required to render a 3-D virtual space and evaluate the position of virtual elements in the user's physical environment“).
As per claim 31, the reasons and rationale for the rejection of claim 21 is incorporated herein.
Gribetz teaches the claimed: user interface and plurality of manipulatable digital 3D objects in figures 6 and 7 where first and second digital 3D objects 601 and 703 are shown respectively. Figure 6 corresponds to the claimed first digital 3D scene and figure 7 corresponds to the claimed second digital 3D scene. Also, please see the 2nd half of [0077] “… The low-fidelity virtual element may be manipulated by the user within the 3-D virtual environment” and the end of [0078] “… As shown in FIG. 7, once fully downloaded, the high-fidelity virtual element 703 is rendered in the workspace 702, untethered from frame 701. The high-fidelity virtual element replaces the previously rendered low-fidelity virtual element. Once in the workspace, any additional metadata or transformations may be triggered. For example, one or more of annotations 705, animations, or transformations, such as an exploded view 704 may be provided as determined by the metadata and attributes downloaded for the high-fidelity virtual element.”
Gribetz teaches of transmission of data representing the first digital 3D scene to create the second digital 3D scene in figure 1 where the client and server are able to communicate to each using transmission steps. Thus, includes transmitted data representing the first digital 3D scene that is stored on the server and thus needs to be transmitted to the client to create the second digital 3D scene (e.g. the need to transmit high fidelity versions of objects), e.g. in step 144 in order to create the first digital 3D scene. For example, please see Gribetz in [0058] “If the client system determines that the low-fidelity virtual element is untethered from the content as a result of the interaction, in operation 220, the client system accesses and loads a corresponding high-fidelity virtual element. For example, the client system may request downloading of the content for the high-fidelity virtual element from a server at the location returned by the API call.”
As per claim 32, Gribetz teaches the claimed:
32. The scene builder application of claim 31, wherein transmitting the data representing the first digital 3D scene to the platform to create the second digital 3D scene corresponding to the first digital 3D scene (Gribetz in figure 2 in step 215 where answering yes to the first digital 3D object becoming untethered, transmits a request to create a corresponding second digital 3D scene with an object with higher fidelity) comprises transmitting a request to create a two-dimensional (2D) image of one or more of the first digital 3D scene or the second digital 3D scene (Gribetz teaches that the transmitted request to create the higher fidelity second digital 3D scene results in a request to rendering a 2D image of that scene, e.g. please see Gribetz in figure 7 shows the second digital 3D scene rendered. It is rendered as a high-fidelity 2D image because it contains high-fidelity object 703. Also, please see Gribetz in [0078] “… In one example, a visual indicator may be used to report on the progress of the full-poly download. As shown in FIG. 7, once fully downloaded, the high-fidelity virtual element 703 is rendered in the workspace 702, untethered from frame 701. The high-fidelity virtual element replaces the previously rendered low-fidelity virtual element”, [0082] “… The data store of the server system, stored both the high and low-fidelity representations or models of the virtual elements. The server system also may store a state required to render a 3-D virtual space and evaluate the position of virtual elements in the user's physical environment“).
As per claim 36, Gribetz teaches the claimed:
36. The scene builder application of claim 31, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the scene builder application to determine an availability of a product associated with a given digital 3D object of the plurality of manipulatable digital 3D objects (Gribetz in [0042] “In operation 122, the server system determines whether a 3-D virtual element is available corresponding to the request from the client system. For example, the server system parses the message to determine and process the message content. In one example, the server system processes the GUID to determine whether the system can identify a virtual element that matches the requested GUID. If a match is found, the system determines whether there are any restrictions or constraints of access regarding the virtual element. For example, the virtual element may include a share setting, such as public, private, or user specific. If the share setting is private or user specific, the system uses an identification associated with the client device (e.g., the unique user ID) to look up whether the user has the appropriate credentials or level of access.”).
As per claim 37, Gribetz teaches the claimed:
37. The scene builder application of claim 31, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the scene builder application to receive a plurality of inputs from a plurality of different users to edit the first digital 3D scene (Gribetz in [0042] “In operation 122, the server system determines whether a 3-D virtual element is available corresponding to the request from the client system … If a match is found, the system determines whether there are any restrictions or constraints of access regarding the virtual element. For example, the virtual element may include a share setting, such as public, private, or user specific. If the share setting is private or user specific, the system uses an identification associated with the client device (e.g., the unique user ID) to look up whether the user has the appropriate credentials or level of access.”
In this instance, the editing corresponds to the request to retrieve a high-fidelity version of the object, e.g. going from the first digital 3D scene in figure 6 to edit it to become the second digital 3D scene in figure 7. This editing can be from receiving a plurality of requests (edits) from different client users. Thus, according to Gribetz in [0042], sometimes credentials or sharing privileges need to be checked first).
As per claim 38, this claim is similar in scope to limitations recited in claim 21 and 23, and thus is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 39, Gribetz teaches the claimed:
39. The method of claim 38, further comprising, by the computing system, rendering an image of the second digital 3D scene, the image of the second digital 3D scene including a product represented by each of the first digital 3D object and the second digital 3D object (Gribetz in figure 7 shows the second digital 3D scene rendered. It is rendered as a high-fidelity 2D image because it contains high-fidelity object 703 (first digital 3D object being a watch product). Also, the second digital 3D object 601 represents a watch product in figure 6 as well. Also, please see Gribetz in [0078] “… In one example, a visual indicator may be used to report on the progress of the full-poly download. As shown in FIG. 7, once fully downloaded, the high-fidelity virtual element 703 is rendered in the workspace 702, untethered from frame 701. The high-fidelity virtual element replaces the previously rendered low-fidelity virtual element”, [0082] “… The data store of the server system, stored both the high and low-fidelity representations or models of the virtual elements. The server system also may store a state required to render a 3-D virtual space and evaluate the position of virtual elements in the user's physical environment“).
As per claim 40, Gribetz teaches the claimed:
40. The method of claim 38, further comprising, by a plurality of different computing systems, editing the first digital 3D scene prior to the computing system converting the first digital 3D scene into the second digital 3D scene (Gribetz in figure 2 where the first digital 3D scene is editing by using object untethering at step 215 before converting the first digital 3D scene into the second digital 3D scene by using object replacement at step 242).
As per claim 41, Gribetz teaches the claimed:
41. The scene builder system of claim 21,
wherein the first digital 3D scene comprises spatial relationship data for the
second digital 3D object (In figure 6 where the first digital 3D scene has a spatial relationship where the second digital 3D object 601 is placed in front of the user and located on the desk); and
wherein converting, using the mapping, the first digital 3D scene into the second
digital 3D scene (In figure 6 where the first digital 3D scene with the low-fidelity object 601 is converted into the second digital 3D scene in figure 7 with the high-fidelity object 703) comprises:
identifying the second digital 3D object in the first digital 3D scene by parsing the first digital 3D scene (In figure 2 at step 215 the second digital 3D object (high-fidelity version) is identified by looking at the un-tethering of the low-fidelity version. The untethering is identifying by parsing using the hand input, e.g. please see the 2nd half of [0055] “… By tracking one or more hands of a user … The identified gestures may be provided as input for simulating manipulation of the virtual element within the bounding volume within a user's field-of-view. For example, an identified gesture may be correlated to a perceived position of a virtual element within the bound volume and the virtual element may be configured to react to the gesture in an interactive manner” In this passage, the parsing is the correlating of the gesture to a perceived position of a virtual element located in the first digital 3D scene);
selecting the first digital 3D object based on the identification of the second digital 3D object and the mapping of the first digital 3D object and the second digital 3D object (This occurs in figure 2 in step 220 where a high fidelity version of the digital object is accessed (first digital 3D object) based upon identifying the untethering of the low-fidelity version of the object at step 215. Figure 7 shows that the high fidelity version of the digital object (first digital 3D object) is mapped based upon the low fidelity version of the digital object (second digital 3D object) in figure 6); and
placing the first digital 3D object into the second digital 3D scene using the spatial relationship data (In figures 6 and 7 where the first and second digital 3D objects are placed in the scene using the spatial relationship data (e.g. that the watch is located in front of the user and located on the top of the desk) ).
Claims 24, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gribetz in view of Liu (Pub No. US 2018/0330480 A1).
As per claim 24, Gribetz alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Gribetz in combination with Liu teaches the claimed:
24. The scene builder system of claim 21, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the scene builder system to reduce a size of the first digital 3D object to create the second digital 3D object (Liu in figure 3 and in paragraph [0098] where a first digital 3D digital object with a high-fidelity (high polygon count) is reduced in size to create a second digital 3D digital object with a low-fidelity (low polygon count). The claimed feature is taught when the size reduction from Liu is applied to create the low-fidelity object from the high-fidelity object in Gribetz).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the size reduction of the 3D digital object as taught by Liu with the system of Gribetz in order to provide an effectively method in which to generate lower-fidelity versions of 3D objects from the high-fidelity versions of those same objects.
As per claim 25, Gribetz alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Gribetz in combination with Liu teaches the claimed:
25. The scene builder system of claim 21, wherein a vertex count of the first digital 3D object is greater than a vertex count of the second digital 3D object (Liu in figure 3 and in paragraph [0098] where a first digital 3D digital object with a high-fidelity (high polygon count and higher vertex count) is reduced in size to create a second digital 3D digital object with a low-fidelity (low polygon count and a low vertex count). The claimed feature is taught when the vertex reduction from Liu is applied to create the low-fidelity object from the high-fidelity object in Gribetz).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the vertex reduction of the 3D digital object as taught by Liu with the system of Gribetz. The motivation of claim 24 is incorporated herein.
As per claim 27, Gribetz alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Gribetz in combination with Liu teaches the claimed:
27. The scene builder system of claim 21, wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the scene builder system to convert the first digital 3D object into the second digital 3D object. (Liu in figure 3 and in paragraph [0098] where a first digital 3D digital object with a high-fidelity (high polygon count) is converted to create a second digital 3D digital object with a low-fidelity (low polygon count). The claimed feature is taught when the size reduction conversion from Liu is applied to create the low-fidelity object from the high-fidelity object in Gribetz).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the size reduction conversion of the 3D digital object as taught by Liu with the system of Gribetz. The motivation of claim 24 is incorporated herein.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gribetz in view of Hickman et al. (US Patent 8,471,849).
As per claim 26, Gribetz alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Gribetz in combination with Hickman teaches the claimed:
26. The scene builder system of claim 21, wherein the mapping is a database entry that identifies the first digital 3D object and the second digital 3D object (Hickman in col 6, lines 51-59 “In one instance, the database 214 may include a data set having a first level of detail and a data set having a second level of detail that is higher than the first level of detail for the 3D model. The second data set may be larger in terms of size, and involve more computational effort to render. In response to a request to render the 3D model, the prioritization component 212 may divide the data set into data associated with portions of the 3D object data model that can be progressively streamed or downloaded in the determined order.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the database entry as taught by Hickman with the system of Gribetz in order to better organize groups of associated 3D model versions together. For example, the database entry may help store and keep track of which different level of detail versions of objects are associated with each other. This may help with their storage and later retrieval use to send to client devices for display.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gribetz in view of Liu in further view of Hamedi et al. (US Pub 2011/0050691 A1).
As per claim 28, Gribetz alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Gribetz and Liu in combination with Hamedi teaches the claimed:
28. The scene builder system of claim 27, wherein converting the
first digital 3D object into the second digital 3D object comprises:
identifying a plurality of subcomponents of the first digital 3D object; and
converting each subcomponent of the plurality of subcomponents of the first digital 3D object into a respective subcomponent of a second plurality of subcomponents of the second digital 3D object (As mentioned above for claim 27, Liu teaches of converting the first digital 3D object into a second digital 3D object by simplifying and reducing the amount of mesh data present in the 3D object, e.g. as shown in figure 3 and paragraph [0098] in Liu. Liu is silent about identifying and converting subcomponents per se as part of their conversion process. Hamedi teaches that these features were known in the art, e.g. please see Hamedi in figures 8 and 9 and in paragraph [0048] where individual portions or faces (subcomponents) of the 3D model are identified and then the simplification process is performed on these portions (subcomponents) in order to reduce mesh data. This also reduces the complexity (level of detail) of the 3D digital object as well).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identify and convert subcomponents as taught by Hamedi with the system of Gribetz as modified by Liu in order to divide the mesh simplification process up into individual steps or portions. This may help when the mesh simplification process is performed at different parts of the 3D digital object at a time. This maybe more useful for the user to better customize or control the mesh simplification process and how it is performed over the 3D digital model.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gribetz in view of Tsuchiya et al. (US 2021/0358327 A1).
As per claim 29, Gribetz alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Gribetz in combination with Tsuchiya teaches the claimed:
29. The scene builder system of claim 21, wherein receiving the first digital 3D scene comprises receiving, from a scene builder application, a data object that identifies the second digital 3D object (As mentioned above for claim 21, Gribetz teaches of receiving the second digital 3D object as a high-fidelity 3D digital object. Gribetz is silent however the claimed “a data object that identifies the second digital 3D object” per se. Tsuchiya teaches this feature in [0159] “In the model, the name of the 3D model file including the three-dimensional shape information of the work target device 4 is described, so that it is possible to access the 3D model file separately stored in the storage 302 or the like.”. In this instance, the name of the 3D model file corresponds to the claimed data object that helps identify the second digital 3D object).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the data object as taught by Tsuchiya with the system of Gribetz. This helps the system differentiate and keep track of various different digital 3D objects. For example, the data object may help the system organize and keep track of many different types of objects since the data object helps identify the digital 3D object.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gribetz in view of Noorkami et al. (US Patent 12,299,805).
As per claim 33, Gribetz alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Gribetz in combination with Noorkami teaches the claimed:
33. The scene builder application of claim 32, wherein the request to create the 2D image comprises one or more of a camera angle or a lighting for the 2D image. (Please see Noorkami in col 9, lines 41-45 where the request to rendering is taught and in col 17, lines 10-15 and lines 40-43 where the request includes a camera parameter list (camera angles). The rendering of the 3D scene is shown in figure 3D and is taught in col 11, lines 49-50).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include camera angles as part of the 2D image creation as taught by Noorkami with the system of Gribetz. This provides more customized control for the user or requester over the final appearance of the created 2D image.
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gribetz in view of Ghosh et al. (Pub No. US 2008/0238916 A1).
As per claim 35, Gribetz alone does not explicitly teach the claimed limitations.
However, Gribetz in combination with Ghosh teaches the claimed:
35. The scene builder application of claim 31, wherein the first digital 3D object and the second digital 3D object represent a template of a room (Ghosh in figure 12 where the small manipulatable 3D digital object represents a 3D house object where the house contains a room. The claimed feature is taught when the 3D house object in figure 12 of Ghosh is placed on the desk in figures 6 and 7 of Gribetz).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the template of a room as taught by Ghosh with the system of Gribetz in order to have an intuitive way to see and manipulate a building object in 3D space (Ghosh in [0087]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL F HAJNIK whose telephone number is (571) 272-7642. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm.
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.
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.
/DANIEL F HAJNIK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2616
Prosecution Insights