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 .
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.
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 1-17 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.
Independent claim 1 discloses: “a central sprayer configured to generate a main sprayer of the liquid”. It is unclear how the central sprayer can generate a “sprayer”. Based on disclosure, Examiner believes this is a typo. This limitation should read: a central sprayer configured to generate a main spray of the liquid. Examiner will interpret it as such.
Independent claim 1 discloses: “a spray sprayer for guiding and shaping the spray of droplets”. Based on disclosure, Examiner believes this is a typo; as it is a spray shaper the feature that is in charge of guiding and shaping the droplets. As such, this limitation should read: a spray shaper for guiding and shaping the spray of droplets. Examiner will interpret it as such.
Claims 2-16 are indefinite for depending on claim 1.
Claims 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 15 disclose alternative limitations with language like “in particular”, “even more particularly” and/or “further in particular”. These terms render the claims indefinite because it is unclear which one of the alternatives in these claims is positively claimed. For examination purposes, Examiner will interpret these limitations as “or”, since the claims are disclosing alternative features when using these terms. Clarification is required.
Claim 5 discloses the term “substantially parallel” which is a relative term, which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, it is not clear what encompasses something that is substantially parallel.
Claim 7 discloses the term “at least approximately sixty to seventy peripheral nozzles” which is a relative term, which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, it is not clear what encompasses at least approximately 60 to 70 peripheral nozzles.
Claim 10 discloses the term “at least approximately 0.8 mm” which is a relative term, which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, it is not clear what encompasses at least approximately 0.8 mm.
Claim 11 discloses “a common collision nozzles”. It is unclear what this means, which renders the claim indefinite. Based on disclosure, Examiner believes this term should read: a common collision point. It will be interpreted as such.
Claim 12 discloses: “an angle between the inner nozzles and a longitudinal axis of the spray shaper”. It is unclear if the angle is defined between one of the inner nozzles and the axis of the shaper or if the angle is defined between all the inner nozzles and the axis of the shaper. For examination purposes, Examiner will interpret it as the former.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the spray shaper" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 discloses the term “at least approximately 75 degrees” which is a relative term, which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. As such, it is not clear what encompasses at least approximately 75 degrees.
Claim 16 discloses “supplying a liquid” in line 4. However, independent claim 1 already introduces “a liquid”. As such, this is considered double inclusion, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if there are one or more than one liquids used in the apparatus. Based on disclosure, this limitation in claim 16 will be interpreted as: supplying the liquid.
Claim 16 discloses “a further inlet” which implies that there are two inlets, this one being the second one. However, there is no other inlet claimed in this claim or any of the preceding claims. The term “further” inlet renders the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as “an inlet”.
Independent claim 17 recites the limitation "the liquid" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Independent claim 17 discloses “a further inlet” which implies that there are two inlets, this one being the second one. However, there is no other inlet claimed in this claim. The term “further” inlet renders the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as “an inlet”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 17 is, as best understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mock et al (U.S. 2013/0247295).
Regarding claim 17, as best understood, Mock teaches a flow separating element (defined by upper disk 41), for use in combination with a central sprayer (defined by lower nozzle disk 42) configured to generate a main spray of a liquid (as disclosed in Par 0108); the central sprayer comprising at least two nozzle sets of inner nozzles (first nozzle set 44 and second nozzle set 44’), each nozzle set comprising at least two inner nozzles (each set of nozzles 44 and 44’ comprise three nozzles, as seen in Fig 12) arranged to create colliding jets of the liquid (as disclosed in the abstract) and thereby create a spray of droplets of the liquid (as disclosed in Par 0017), and a spray shaper (defined by nozzle channels 48) for guiding and shaping the spray of droplets (as disclosed in Pars 0111-0113, the channels 48 are designed to guide and shape the spray),
the flow separating element comprising at least one further inlet (defined by bore 43) for supplying a liquid to be sprayed (Par 0108 discloses the upper portion of 41 impinged with fluid under pressure, thus bore 43 acts as an inlet for supplying fluid);
the flow separating element, when joined to the central sprayer (41 joined to 42, as seen in Fig 12), forming a liquid communication from the at least one further inlet to a first subset of the inner nozzles and not to a second subset of the inner nozzles (flow separating element 41 forms communication with one subset of inner nozzles 44, but not with another subset of inner nozzle 44’, as disclosed in Par 0108; wherein element 41 is rotated to algin the inlet 43 with a selected nozzle subset).
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.
Claims 1-6, 8 and 10-15 are, as best understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosko et al (U.S. 2007/0194148) in view of Mock et al (EP 3,578,269 A1). Note: references to Mock are referencing the copy provided by Examiner herewith.
Regarding claim 1, Rosko teaches an outlet (defined by spray head 14) for spraying a liquid, such as water or a water-based mixture (as disclosed in Par 0002), comprising
- a central sprayer (defined by cartridge 16) configured to generate a main spray of the liquid (Par 0078 discloses 16 configured to dispense a central stream of water; wherein Par 0078 also discloses the central sprayer as an aerator configured to produce a central aerated stream);
- a set of peripheral nozzles (98), configured to generate a peripheral spray of the liquid (as seen in Fig 1 and Par 0080, nozzles 98 create a peripheral spray), the peripheral spray at least partially surrounding the main spray (Par 0080 discloses the nozzles 98 arranged around the main spray produced by 16).
However, Rosko does not teach the central sprayer comprising a set of at least two inner nozzles arranged to create colliding jets of the liquid and thereby create a spray of droplets of the liquid, and a spray shaper for guiding and shaping the spray of droplets.
Mock teaches a cartridge for a water tap (see abstract) wherein the cartridge comprises a set of at least two inner nozzles (12, seen in Figs 3 and 4) arranged to create colliding jets of the liquid (as seen in Figs 3 and 4 and disclosed in Par 0123) and thereby create a spray of droplets of the liquid (see Par 0034), and a spray sprayer (84) for guiding and shaping the spray of droplets (as disclosed in Par 0124).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rosko to incorporate the teachings of Mock to provide a central sprayer that provides good washing experience, i.e. the feeling of a full flow of water and good rinsing, at a low flow rate but without increasing the pressure prior to dispensing the water or water based mixture; by using two colliding nozzles, this is achieved with small energy loss in the system (as disclosed by Mock in Pars 0025 and 0027). Examiner notes that Mock teaches a nozzle configuration that generates a flow of a mixture of air and water droplets, i.e. an aerator (see Par 0014), and Rosko discloses that the central sprayer can be configured as an aerator to produce a central aerated stream (see Par 0078). As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would look to Mock to implement an energy-efficient aerator nozzle as the central sprayer in the device of Rosko.
Regarding claim 2, Rosko and Mock teach the outlet of claim 1, comprising a supply chamber (chamber 64 of Rosko), and wherein the central-sprayer and the peripheral nozzles both are arranged to be supplied with liquid from the supply chamber (as disclosed in Par 0133, all the spray devices disclosed by Rosko can be configured such that water is sent to both water outlets simultaneously, in this case water in chamber 64 is sent to both the central sprayer and the peripheral nozzles).
Regarding claim 3, Rosko and Mock teach the outlet for claim 1. However, they do not teach the apparatus wherein the central sprayer and the peripheral nozzles are dimensioned so that a total flow rate through all the peripheral nozzles lies between 0.2 and 1.6 times a flow rate through the central sprayer, or between 0.4 and 1.1 times, or wherein the total flow rate through all the peripheral nozzles is at least approximately the same as the flow rate though the central sprayer.
As best understood, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any suitable relative dimensions between the central sprayer and the peripheral nozzles, such that their relative flow rates include the claimed flow rates, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. As it was determined in In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc.(see MPEP 2144.04 IV A). In the present case, Rosko and Mock disclose a device that performs the function of dispensing water through a central sprayer and peripheral nozzles. Therefore, it would be obvious to find an optimal relative dimensions for the central sprayer and the peripheral nozzles. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for having the specific relative flow rates claimed. Applicant merely discloses that the peripheral nozzles are configured such to contain the central spray, which is a feature that is taught by Rosko in Par 0086. Finally, changes in relative flow rate would affect the characteristics of the combined sprays, i.e. relative flow rate is a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would be obvious to try (see KSR MPEP 2141 III) different flow rates to meet any desired spraying characteristic, based on intended use – such as a garden sprayer, showerhead, faucet, etc.
Regarding claim 4, Rosko and Mock teach the outlet according to claim 1,wherein the peripheral nozzles form a section of a ring or a complete ring around the central sprayer, in particular a section of a circle or a complete circular ring (as seen in Fig 1 of Rosko, the peripheral nozzles 98 form a complete ring around the central sprayer 16).
Regarding claim 5, Rosko and Mock teach the outlet according to claim 1, wherein for each of the peripheral nozzles, its longitudinal axis deviates from a longitudinal axis of the central sprayer, by less than twenty degrees, or by less than ten degrees, or wherein it is substantially parallel to the longitudinal axis of the central sprayer (as best understood, as seen in Fig 5, each peripheral nozzle 98 has an axis that is substantially parallel to a lingual axis of the central sprayer 16).
Regarding claim 6, Rosko and Mock teach the outlet according to claim 1. However, they do not teach the apparatus wherein an average distance of the peripheral nozzles from a longitudinal axis of the central sprayer is between seven and eighteen millimeters, or between nine and fourteen millimeters, or between eleven and twelve millimeters.
As best understood, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any suitable distance between the peripheral nozzle to the axis of the central sprayer, including the claimed ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves routine skill in the art. As it was determined in In re Aller: "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" (see MPEP 2144.05 II A). In the present case, Rosko discloses all the general structure of the claim, i.e. peripheral nozzles and a central sprayer. Therefore, it would be obvious to find an optimal or workable distance range between the two features. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for having the distance between the peripheral nozzle to the axis of the central sprayer be within the claimed ranges. Finally, changes in this relative distance affects the characteristics of the resulting water spray, i.e. this distance is a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would be obvious to try (see KSR MPEP 2141 III) different distances to meet any desired spraying characteristic, based on intended use – such as a garden sprayer, showerhead, faucet, etc.
Regarding claim 8, Rosko and Mock teach the outlet according to claim 1. However, they do not teach the apparatus wherein a total area of the peripheral nozzles is smaller than two times or 1.1 times or one time or 0.9 times of a total area of the inner nozzles.
As best understood, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any suitable relative dimensions between the peripheral nozzles and the inner nozzles, such that their relative area includes the claimed relative area, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. As it was determined in In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc.(see MPEP 2144.04 IV A). In the present case, Rosko and Mock disclose a device that performs the function of dispensing water through peripheral nozzles and inner nozzles. Therefore, it would be obvious to find an optimal relative dimensions for the peripheral nozzles and the inner nozzles. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for having the specific relative areas claimed. Finally, changes in relative areas would affect the flow rate sprays, i.e. relative areas is a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would be obvious to try (see KSR MPEP 2141 III) different areas to meet any desired spraying characteristic, based on intended use – such as a garden sprayer, showerhead, faucet, etc.
Regarding claim 10, Rosko and Mock teach the outlet according to claim 1, wherein an inner diameter of the inner nozzles lies between 0.6 mm and 1.2 mm, or wherein it is at least approximately 0.8 mm (as best understood, Mock teaches the inner nozzles 12 having a diameter of 0.8 mm, see Par 0074).
Regarding claim 11, Rosko and Mock teach the outlet according to claim 1, wherein the central sprayer comprises two or four or more inner nozzles, or wherein these inner nozzles have a common collision point (as best understood, Mock teaches two inner nozzles 12, that have a common point, as seen in Figs 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 12, Rosko and Mock teach the outlet according to claim 1, wherein an angle between the inner nozzles and a longitudinal axis of the spray shaper is between 65 and 90 degrees, in particular between 70 and 80 degrees, in particular wherein it is at least approximately 75 degrees (as best understood, Mock teaches the angle of a nozzle with relation to the shaper as being 70 degrees, see Par 0038).
Regarding claim 13, Rosko and Mock teach the outlet according to claim 1, wherein the central sprayer with the inner nozzles and a skirt (defined by body 102 of Rosko) with the peripheral nozzles (skirt 102 includes the peripheral nozzles 98, as seen in Fig 4 of Rosko). However, Rosko does not teach these parts manufactured as a single piece, or as a single piece of plastic material.
As best understood, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the central sprayer, peripheral nozzles and skirt integral to each other, since it has been held that forming in one piece an article which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves only routine skill in the art; as it was determined in In re Larson where the court held that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice, unless there were any new or unexpected results (see MPEP 2144.04 V B). In the present case, Applicant has no disclosed any criticality for making these pieces as a single piece. Thus, this is an obvious matter of design choice.
Regarding claim 14, Rosko and Mock teach the outlet according to claim 1,wherein the peripheral nozzles are manufactured by drilling (regarding the nozzles being made by a drilling process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process (MPEP 2113). Therefore, the process of making the peripheral nozzles does not have any patentable weight, since Rosko teaches all the structure of the nozzles).
Regarding claim 15, Rosko and Mock teach the outlet according to claim 1, designed for an operating pressure of the liquid between one and six bar (Mock teaches the device operating between 1.5 – 3 bar, see Par 0079), and a combined flow rate of the main spray and the peripheral spray between 2 and 4 liters per minute, or between 2.5 and 3.5 liters per minute ((Mock teaches the device having a flow rate of 2-3 liters per minute, see Par 0079) (Moreover, since Rosko and Mock teach all the claimed structural features, their device is deemed capable of performing as claimed).
Claims 7 and 9 are, as best understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosko et al (U.S. 2007/0194148) in view of Mock et al (EP 3,578,269 A1); further in view of Hanna et al (U.S. 2014/0263760).
Regarding claim 7, Rosko and Mock teach the outlet according to claim 1. However, they do not teach the apparatus comprising between forty and a hundred and twenty peripheral nozzles, or between fifty and eighty peripheral nozzles, or particular at least approximately sixty to seventy peripheral nozzles.
As best understood, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add more peripheral nozzles such that the total is within the claimed number, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art; as it was determined in In re Harza, where the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (MPEP 2144.04 VI B). In this case adding more peripheral nozzles would yield predictable results, such as an increase of flow rate of the peripheral spray pattern.
Moreover, Hanna teaches a splashless spray head (seen in Fig 1) that comprises a series of peripheral nozzles (2) and a central sprayer (defined by inner nozzles 3); wherein the spray head includes 100 peripheral nozzles (disclosed in Par 0024).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rosko and Mock to incorporate the teachings of Hanna to provide at least one hundred peripheral nozzles based on the maximum limit of overall flow rate intended (as disclosed in Par 0030 of Hanna), furthermore, Hanna teaches the configuration configured to prevent water splashing (see abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Rosko and Mock teach the outlet according to claim 1. However, they do not teach the apparatus wherein an inner diameter of the peripheral nozzles lies between 0.05 and 0.35 millimeters, in particular between 0.15 and 0.25 millimeters.
As best understood, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select any suitable inner diameter of the peripheral nozzles, including the claimed ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves routine skill in the art. As it was determined in In re Aller: "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation" (see MPEP 2144.05 II A). In the present case, Rosko discloses all the general structure of the claim, i.e. peripheral nozzles and a central sprayer. Therefore, it would be obvious to find an optimal or workable diameters for the peripheral nozzles. Furthermore, Applicant has not disclosed any criticality for having the claimed diameter ranges. Finally, changes in nozzle diameter affect the characteristics of the resulting water spray, i.e. nozzle diameter is a result-effective variable. Therefore, it would be obvious to try (see KSR MPEP 2141 III) different diameters to meet any desired spraying characteristic, based on intended use – such as a garden sprayer, showerhead, faucet, etc.
Moreover, Hanna teaches a splashless spray head (seen in Fig 1) that comprises a series of peripheral nozzles (2) and a central sprayer (defined by inner nozzles 3); wherein the peripheral nozzles have an inner diameter of 0.28 mm (see Par 0024).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rosko and Mock to incorporate the teachings of Hanna to provide the peripheral nozzles with a diameter of 0.28 mm since Hanna teaches a configuration configured to prevent water splashing (see abstract).
Claim 16 is, as best understood, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rosko et al (U.S. 2007/0194148) in view of Mock et al (EP 3,578,269 A1); further in view of Mock et al (U.S. 2013/0247295), hereafter referred to as “Mock 2013”.
Regarding claim 16, Rosko and Mock teach the outlet according to claim 1. However, they do not teach the apparatus comprising a flow separating element, the flow separating element - comprising at least one further inlet for supplying the liquid to be sprayed; when joined to the central sprayer, forming a liquid communication from the at least one further inlet to a first subset of the inner nozzles and not to a second subset of the inner nozzles.
Mock 2013 discloses a nozzle device that comprises a plurality of inner nozzles (44) that produce colliding jets (as seen in Fig 12), and a flow separating element (41), the flow separating element - comprising at least one further inlet (defined by bore 43) for supplying the liquid to be sprayed (Par 0108 discloses the upper portion of 41 impinged with fluid under pressure, thus bore 43 acts as an inlet for supplying fluid); when joined to a central sprayer (defined by 42), forming a liquid communication from the at least one further inlet to a first subset of the inner nozzles and not to a second subset of the inner nozzles (flow separating element 41 forms communication with one subset of inner nozzles 44, but not with another subset of inner nozzle 44’, as disclosed in Par 0108; Fig 12 shows the different subsets where 44 includes three nozzles and 44’ includes three different nozzles; wherein element 41 is rotated to algin the inlet 43 with a selected nozzle subset).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Rosko and Mock to incorporate the teachings of Mock 2013 to provide flow selector in order to select fluidly different inner nozzles to achieve different spraying characteristics (as disclosed in Par 0108 of Mock 2013).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN C BARRERA whose telephone number is (571)272-6284. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F Generally 10am-4pm and 6-8pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ARTHUR O. HALL can be reached on 571-270-1814. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
If there are any inquiries that are not being addressed by first contacting the Examiner or the Supervisor, you may send an email inquiry to TC3700_Workgroup_D_Inquiries@uspto.gov.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUAN C BARRERA/
Examiner, Art Unit 3752
/CHEE-CHONG LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752 August 4, 2026
Prosecution Insights