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 (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.
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending (claim 1 independent), and have been examined herein on the merits.
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.
5. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
6. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 11-12,15-16, 18,19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinichi (JP 2010103455 A (from the English translation document)).
Regarding claim 1, Shinichi teaches a plasma source (Fig 7, Paragraph# 8), comprising: a plasma deposition head (Fig 7, see figure annotation below) comprising: an aperture (considered to be the gas ejection port #24 in Fig 1 and described in paragraph #17 and 18) for delivering an atmospheric plasma from the plasma deposition head to a substrate, and comprising a slotted cavity having parallel walls extending from opposing
edges of the aperture (considered to be gap between the ground electrode#10 and the voltage electrode#12 in Fig 7, Paragraph# 13 ); an electrode , mounted in the slotted cavity and extending from an interior of the plasma deposition head towards the aperture (considered to be voltage electrode #12 in Fig 7, paragraph#15 ) ; and a gas supply system comprising a gas inlet (Fig 7, gas inlet 22 ), a gas supply chamber (see figure annotation below) and gas outlet (Fig 7, gas outlet # 26).
Shinichi appears to have split or dual gas outlets close to the end of the gas ejection port giving a plurality of gas ports. Therefore, in light of this disclosure and in paragraph 19 where it is understood that so long as “VS” is larger than “VG”, then uniform plasma flow can be maintained. In light of this disclosure, it is indicated that the voltage electrode (12) can be oriented to be closer to the substrate (20) so long as the VS/VG arrangement is maintained. This arrangement is considered to indicate to a person of ordinary skill in the art that it is known to have a plurality of gas outlets opposite the voltage electrode (12) considered act as the claimed “electrode plate” in applicant figure 1.
In as much as the applicant has claimed a specific flow of gas, the disclosure of Shinichi is considered to provide such a similar structure that is it would as provide the same or substantially similar flow of gases to be rendered capable of producing such a flow and obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
In accordance, the functional limitations above are only given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing said functions. See MPEP 2114.
Gas supply chamber with a plurality of gas outlets is used for even mass flow distribution and the placement of the plurality of outlets on opposite site of the electrode plate is within the prior art apparatus would allow it to perform the function as claimed.
The Examiner posits that the prior art apparatus would be capable of providing divided mass flow of gas thought plurality of outlets on opposite side of the electrode. (see Fig 7, From Shinichi).
PNG
media_image1.png
849
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
FIG 7: Annotated schematic diagram illustrating plasma processing apparatus. (Shinichi reference).
Regarding claim 2, Shinichi teaches wherein the gas supply chamber extends along a width of the electrode plate and across the opposing sides of the electrode plate. (described in paragraph# 6 shown in Fig 7 above)
Regarding claim 3, Shinichi teaches wherein the gas supply chamber and the plurality of gas outlets are integrated in the plasma deposition head. (described in paragraph #11, shown in Fig 7)
Regarding claim 4 , Shinichi teaches wherein the gas supply chamber comprises: a divide volume, connected to the gas inlet (see Fig 7 annotated , gas inlet# 22,paragraph# 13) and extending across the opposing sides of the electrode plate (see annotated Fig 7 above).
Modified Shinichi doesn’t teach wherein the divide volume is arranged for receiving the mass flow of gas from the gas inlet, and dividing the mass flow of gas between the opposing sides of the electrode plate.
However, the examiner interprets wherein the divide volume is arranged for receiving the mass flow of gas from the gas inlet, and dividing the mass flow of gas between the opposing sides of the electrode plate. as an intended use of the claimed apparatus.
In accordance, the functional limitations above are only given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing said functions. See MPEP 2114.Gas supply chamber is used for flow distribution and the placement of the dividing volume within the prior art apparatus would allow it to perform the function as claimed.
The Examiner posits that the prior art apparatus would be capable of receiving the mass flow of gas from the gas inlet, and dividing the mass flow of gas between the opposing sides of the electrode plate. as an intended use of the claimed apparatus. (see Fig 7, Shinichi).
Modified Shinichi teaches a supply volume, connected to the divide volume and extending along a width of the electrode plate (Fig 7).
Modified Shinichi doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein the supply volume is arranged for receiving the divided mass flow of gas from the divide volume, and uniformly supplying the mass flow of gas along the width of the electrode plate towards the plurality of
gas outlets.
However, the examiner interprets wherein the supply volume is arranged for receiving the divided mass flow of gas from the divide volume, and uniformly supplying the mass flow of gas along the width of the electrode plate towards the plurality of gas outlets as an intended use of the claimed apparatus.
In accordance, the functional limitations above are only given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing said functions. See MPEP 2114.
The supply volume of gas supply chamber for a substrate deposition is used for receiving a volume of gas and the placement of the plurality of outlets within the prior art apparatus would allow it to perform the function as claimed.
The Examiner posits that the prior art apparatus would be capable of uniformly supplying the mass flow of gas along the width of the electrode plate towards the plurality of
gas outlets. (see Fig 7, From Shinichi).
Regarding claim 5 , modified Shinichi teaches wherein the supply volume comprises a ‘’channelled’’ section (Fig 7, gap between the ground electrode 10 and the voltage electrode 12), wherein the’’ channelled’’ section comprises a plurality of channels arranged along the width of the electrode plate and connecting the gas supply chamber to respective gas outlets of the plurality of gas outlets. (See annotated Fig 7 below)
Modified Shinichi doesn’t explicitly disclose wherein each channel of the plurality of channels is arranged for directing a portion of the mass flow of gas from the gas supply chamber towards a respective gas outlet of the plurality of gas outlets.
However, the examiner interprets wherein each channel of the plurality of channels is arranged for directing a portion of the mass flow of gas from the gas supply chamber towards a
respective gas outlet of the plurality of gas outlets as an intended use of the claimed apparatus.
In accordance, the functional limitations above are only given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing said functions. See MPEP 2114.
Gas channels are used for control mass flow distribution toward gas outlets and the placement of gas channels within the prior art apparatus would allow it to perform the function as claimed.
The Examiner posits that the prior art apparatus would be capable of directing a portion of the mass flow of gas from the gas supply chamber towards a respective gas outlet of the plurality of gas outlets.
PNG
media_image2.png
847
621
media_image2.png
Greyscale
FIG. 7 : Annotated schematic diagram illustrating plasma processing apparatus. (Shinichi reference)
Regarding claim 11, Shinichi teaches wherein the plasma deposition head further comprises: a first part that defines a first wall of the parallel walls of the slotted cavity; and
a second part that defines a second wall of the parallel walls of the slotted cavity, wherein the electrode plate comprises: a mountable part that is mounted to at least one of the first part and/or the second part of the plasma deposition head; and a suspensible part that extends from the mountable part and is free on all other sides. (In Fig 7 of Shinichi annotated below, the first part is the wall parallel to ground electrode#10 and the second part is the wall parallel to ground electrode#10 the mountable part representing the dark shaded area and the suspensible part the grey shaded area).
PNG
media_image3.png
847
621
media_image3.png
Greyscale
FIG. 7 : Annotated schematic diagram illustrating plasma processing apparatus. (Shinichi reference)
Regarding claim 12, Shinichi teaches wherein the mountable part is clamped between the first part and the second part of the plasma deposition head.(In Fig 7, of Shinichi annotated above, the first part is the wall parallel to ground electrode#10 and the second part is the wall parallel to ground electrode#10 the mountable part representing the dark shaded area and the suspensible part the grey shaded area).
Regarding claim 15, modified Shinichi teaches wherein the plasma deposition head further comprises an exhaust system for discharging gas from the substrate, the exhaust system comprising an exhaust port (gas ejection port # 24, Fig 4, paragraph#17) and one or more exhaust channels integrated in the plasma deposition head, wherein the one or more exhaust channels extend between the substrate and the exhaust port parallel to the slotted cavity (Fig 7, exhaust channel just right above substrate# 20).
Regarding claim 16, modified Shinichi teaches wherein the electrode plate comprises a distal edge that is aligned with the opposing edges of the aperture within 3 millimeters. (minimum gap dimension VG of the gap between the ground electrode# 10 and the voltage electrode#12 shown in Fig 7 is described to be about 0.5 mm to 3 mm in paragraph# 21).
Regarding claim 18, Shinichi teaches wherein the plasma deposition head is made of an electrically conductive material. (Shinichi teaches in Paragraph# 37 the electrode#12 include a metal surface which is an electrically conductive material inside the deposition head).
Claims 6,7,13,14,19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinichi (JP 2010103455 A (from the English translation) as applied to claims 1-5, 11-12, 15-16, 18, 19 above and further in view of Levy (US Patent 7850780 B2).
The limitations of claims 1-5, 11-12, 15-16, 18, 19 are set above
Regarding claim 6 , modified Shinichi doesn’t teach wherein the “channelled “section is provided by a stack of shim plates, mounted between one of the parallel walls of the slotted cavity wall and the electrode plate, wherein the stack of shim plates covers the gas supply chamber and the plurality of gas outlets, wherein the plurality of channels is provided by cut outs in each shim plate of the stack of shim plates.
However, Levy teaches wherein the “channelled “section is provided by a stack of shim plates, mounted between one of the parallel walls of the slotted cavity wall and the electrode plate (Fig 9A, 9B, 9C, col 24, lines 54-61)), wherein the stack of shim plates covers the gas supply chamber and the plurality of gas outlets (Figs 4, 9B, Col 24, lines 27-34) , wherein the plurality of channels is provided by cut outs in each shim plate of the stack of shim plates.(Apertures #168, Figs 11A, 11B).
Shinichi and Levy both teach film deposition on substrate and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Shinichi reference to include a stack of shim plates with cut outs throughout the plurality of channels from the teaching of Levy in order to incorporate improve distribution for delivery of gaseous materials ensuring a highly uniform thin film deposition. (Levy, Col 12, lines 1-13).
Regarding claim 7 , modified Shinichi doesn’t teach wherein the “channelled” section comprises restrictions, for determining the mass flow of gas from the gas supply chamber towards the plurality of gas outlets along the width of the electrode plate.
However, Levy teaches wherein the “channelled” section comprises restrictions, for determining the mass flow of gas from the gas supply chamber towards the plurality of gas outlets along the width of the electrode plate. (Col 26, lines 1-9).
Shinichi and Levy both teach film deposition on substrate and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Shinichi reference to include throughout the channeled section from the teaching of Levy in order to provide a reproducible pressure drop for each channel output. (Levy, Col 26, lines 1-9).
Regarding claim 13, Shinichi teaches the first part, the second part of the electrode plate (Fig 4)
Modified Shinichi doesn’t teach wherein on each opposing side of the electrode plate, a stack of shim plates is clamped between the first part or the second part and the electrode plate, wherein each stack of shim plates covers the gas supply chamber and the plurality of gas outlets, wherein each shim plate of each stack of shim plates is provided with cut outs, thereby creating a channel structure, for directing the mass flow of gas from the gas supply chamber through each stack of shim plates towards the plurality of gas outlets.
However, Levy teaches wherein each stack of shim plates covers the gas supply chamber and the plurality of gas outlets, wherein each shim plate of each stack of shim plates is provided with cut outs (Apertures #168, Figs 11A, 11B)., thereby creating a channel structure, for directing the mass flow of gas from the gas supply chamber through each stack of shim plates towards the plurality of gas outlets (Figs 4, 9B, Col 24, lines 27-34).
Shinichi and Levy both teach film deposition on substrate and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Shinichi reference to include a stack of shim plates with cut outs throughout covering the gas supply chamber from the teaching of Levy in order to incorporate improve distribution for delivery of gaseous materials ensuring a highly uniform thin film deposition. (Levy, Col 12, lines 1-13).
Regarding claim 14, Shinichi teaches the first wall and second wall of the slotted cavity at the opposing sides of the electrode plate (See annotated Fig 4).
Modified Shinichi doesn’t teach wherein each stack of shim plates has a total thickness that defines a respective nominal gap width between the first wall and the second wall[s]] of the slotted cavity and the opposing sides of the electrode plate.
However, Levy teaches stack of shim plates (Figs 4, 9B, Col 24, lines 27-34).
Modified Shinichi by Levy both teach film deposition on substrate and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Shinichi reference to include a stack of shim plates from the teaching of Levy in order to improve distribution for delivery of gaseous materials ensuring a highly uniform thin film deposition. (Levy, Col 12, lines 1-13).
Modified Shinichi further by Levy doesn’t explicitly teach wherein each stack of shim plates has a total thickness that defines a respective nominal gap width between the first wall and the second wall of the slotted cavity and the opposing sides of the electrode plate.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, as of the effective filing date of the instant application, to discover the optimum range of thickness for the stack of shim plates defining the nominal gap width between the first wall and the second wall of the slotted cavity and the opposing sides of the electrodes through routine experimentation in order to improve distribution for delivery of gaseous materials ensuring a highly uniform thin film deposition. (Levy, Col 12, lines 1-13). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claim 19, Shinichi disclosed plasma for forming films deposition on the surface of a substrate but does not specifically mention the apparatus is for atomic layer deposition.
However, Levy specifically discloses the atomic layer deposition apparatus using a deposition head for substrate deposition (Col 1, lines 36-40).
Shinichi and Levy both teach film deposition on substrate and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to the use the apparatus of Shinichi generating plasma source for atomic layer deposition on the substrate as Levy mentioned that such systems are known to use such plasma production to achieve highly uniform deposition (Levy, Col 12, lines 1-13).
Regarding claim 20, modified Shinichi doesn’t teach further comprising a transport mechanism arranged for transporting the substrate and the plasma source relative to each other in parallel to a plane of the substrate.
However, Levy teaches further comprising a transport mechanism arranged for transporting the substrate and the plasma source relative to each other in parallel to a plane of the substrate. (Fig 1, Motion mechanism provided between substrate#20 and the delivery head#10 either by the movement of substrate, by movement of delivery head or by the movement of both, Col 12 lines 44-47).
Shinichi and Levy both teach deposition of gas to substrate and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Shinichi reference to include a transport mechanism for transporting the substrate and the plasma source from the teaching of Levy which is suitable to high-volume deposition applications in which the substrate dimensions exceed the size of the deposition head (Levy, col 25, lines 45-49).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinichi (JP 2010103455 A (from the English translation) and Levy (US Patent 7850780 B2) as applied to claims 6, 7, 13, 14,19, 20 above and further in view of Cowe (US Pub 2021/0327727 A1).
Regarding claim 8, modified Shinichi doesn’t teach wherein the restrictions are formed by decreasing a size of one or more cut outs in each shim plate of the stack of
shim plates.
However, Cowe teaches wherein the restrictions are formed by decreasing a size of one or more cut outs in each shim plate of the stack of shim plates. (Fig 3a, seal plate 305a is considered to act as a shim plate of the claimed invention, paragraph # 50).
Shinichi and Cowe both teach gas flow processing and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Shinichi reference to include different size of cut outs in shim plate from the teaching of Levy in order to allow different amount of gas flow though the cut outs. (Levy, Paragraph #50).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinichi (JP 2010103455 A (from the English translation ) and Levy (US Patent 7850780 B2) as applied to claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 20 and further in view of Jeon (US Pub 2018/0149187 A1).
The limitations of claims 6-7, 13, 14, 20 are set above
Regarding claim 9, modified Shinichi doesn’t teach wherein the restrictions are formed by decreasing a thickness of one or more shim plates of the stack of shim plates.
However, Jeon teaches wherein the restrictions are formed by decreasing a thickness of one or more shim plates of the stack of shim plates (Fig 2, shim plate# 30 thickness can be increase or decrease to control flow rate, Paragraph # 9).
Shinichi and Jeon both teach gas flow processing and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Shinichi reference to include different thickness of the shim plate from the teaching of Jeon in order to increase to adjust meaning increase or decrease the flow of gas (Jeon, Paragraph# 9).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinichi (JP 2010103455 A (from the English translation) as applied to claims 1-5, 11-12, 15-16, 18, 19 and further in view of MA (US Pub 2007/0119371 A1).
The limitations of claims 1-5, 11-12, 15-16, 18, 19 are set above
Regarding claim 10, modified Shinichi doesn’t disclose “the gas supply system comprises a flow homogenizer, arranged for equally distributing the mass flow of gas along the width of the electrode plate, wherein the flow homogenizer comprises holes that extend from the plurality of channels into the first wall of the parallel walls of the slotted cavity at an acute angle and connect with a recess in the first wall that is in communication with the slotted cavity, and wherein the recess comprises a homogenizer plane that is oriented substantially perpendicular to the mass flow of gas directed through the holes.’’
However, MA teaches wherein the gas supply system comprises a flow homogenizer (Fig 5B 5C, Paragraph # 91, the plasma baffle insert# 500), wherein the flow homogenizer comprises holes (Fig 3B, slots 510)that extend from the plurality of channels into the first wall of the parallel walls of the slotted cavity at an acute angle and connect with a recess in the first wall that is in communication with the slotted cavity( MA teaches in Paragraph# 91, and wherein the recess comprises a homogenizer plane that is oriented substantially perpendicular to the mass flow of gas directed through the holes. (In Fig 5B and 5C of MA of paragraph# 91 teaches the slots 510 provide access to the flow of gas at an injection angle).
Shinichi and MA both teach plasma deposition and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Shinichi reference to include the baffle insert# 500 of MA teaching with the gas supply system structure of Shinichi in order to provide the process flow gas at a uniform flow rate (MAParagraph# 17).
Modified Shinichi by MA doesn’t explicitly disclose the gas supply system comprises a flow homogenizer, arranged for equally distributing the mass flow of gas along the width of the electrode plate.
However, the examiner interprets wherein the gas supply system comprises a flow homogenizer, arranged for equally distributing the mass flow of gas along the width of the electrode plate, wherein the flow homogenizer comprises holes that extend from the plurality of channels into the first wall of the parallel walls of the slotted cavity at an acute angle and connect with a recess in the first wall that is in communication with the slotted cavity.
as an intended use of the claimed apparatus.
In accordance, the functional limitations above are only given patentable weight to the extent that the prior art would be capable of performing said functions. See MPEP 2114.
The flow homogenizer included in the gas supply system of a plasma deposition system is used for control mass flow distribution and its placement within the prior art apparatus structure (Shinichi, Fig 4) would allow it to perform the function as claimed.
The Examiner posits that the prior art apparatus would be capable of equally distributing the mass flow of gas along the width of the electrode plate extending from the plurality of channels into the first wall of the parallel walls of the slotted cavity at an acute angle and connect with a recess in the first wall that is in communication with the slotted cavity.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shinichi (JP 2010103455 A (from the English translation ) as applied to claims 1-5, 11-12, 15-16, 18 and further in view of Ohkuni (US Patent 5404079).
The limitations of claims 1-5, 11-12, 15-16, 18 are set above
Regarding claim 17, modified Shinichi doesn’t teach wherein the electrode plate comprises laminated alumina layers, and wherein a metal electrode is printed on one of the alumina layers.
However, Ohkuni teaches wherein the electrode plate comprises laminated alumina layers, and wherein a metal electrode is printed on one of the alumina layers. (Col 8,lines 65-68, col 9 lines 1-528).
Shinichi and Ohkuni both teach plasma deposition and are thus considered to be analogous art. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the instant application, to modify the Shinichi reference to include the alumina layer on the electrode in order to provide higher plasma density and prevent metal contamination (Ohkuni, Col 9, lines 1-10).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Dobbyn (us Pub 2005/0241582 A1 Figs 1,2) teaches an atmospheric plasma generation assembly with the deposition to the substrate, MITSUHISA (JP 2004111949 A) teaches Figs 1, 2,9) teaches a method and device for plasma treatment with desired fine linear portion of accurate treatment.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLUWAFEMI LUCRECE LIGAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5444. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-5:00.
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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. 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.
/OLUWAFEMI LUCRECE LIGAN/Examiner, Art Unit 1718
/GORDON BALDWIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Prosecution Insights