DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown / labeled or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 2: The operating mechanism inside the triangular gable end modules.
Claim 3: The I-beam which (may) comprise two parts connected at a mechanical joint.
Claim 8: The concrete or steel foundations.
Claim 14: Pre-assembling on a jig, lifting the roof module.
Claim 15: Modular foundations of steel or concrete.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-15 is/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.
At the outset, numerous elements are rejected throughout as lacking proper antecedent basis. It is possible that only the first instance need to be amended to “a” or “an.”
Re claim 1, claim 1 recites, “the aforementioned wall structure and roof structure” in lines 2-3, “the honeycomb board elements” in line 7, “the side walls” in line 7 and “the corners” in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the wall structure and the roof structure,” “the at least one honeycomb board element,” “the wall modules,” and “corners” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 2, claim 2 recites, “the arrangement” in line 3, “the corners” in line 4 and “the triangular gable end module(s)” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the sliding door arrangement,” “corners” and “the triangular gable end modules” and will be interpreted as such.
In addition, claim 2 recites, “its bottom part” in line 3 and “its top part” in line 3-4. Numerous elements are previously introduced and thus, it is unclear as to which this language refers. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the sliding door arrangement” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 3, claim 3 recites, “the parts” in line 2, “the ends” in line 3, “the honeycomb board elements” in line 4, “the pitch” in line 5 and “the honeycomb board elements” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the one or two parts,” “ends,” “the at least two honeycomb board elements of the roof module,” “a pitch,” and “the at least two honeycomb board elements of the roof module” and will be interpreted as such.
In addition, claim 3 recites, “wherein the bottom chord is an I-beam, which comprises one or two parts, whereby the parts are connected to each other with a mechanical joint.” This language allows the bottom chord to be one part. However, the claim further recites that the bottom chord parts are connected to each other with a mechanical joint. It is unclear how the bottom chord can be one part yet be connected to itself with a mechanical joint. For the purposes of this examination, this language will be interpreted as requiring an I-beam that is one part, or an I-beam that is two parts that are connected at a mechanical joint.
Re claim 4, claim 4 recites, “the point” in line 3, “the ridge” in line 3, and “the roof module” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “a point,” “a ridge,” and “the roof modules” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 5, claim 5 recites, “the flanges” in line 2, “the ridge” in line 2, “the roof module” in line 2 and “the roof module” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “flanges,” “a ridge,” “the roof modules” and “the roof modules” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 6, claim 6 recites, “the ridge” in line 3, “the roof module” in line 3, and “the aforementioned side” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “a ridge,” “the roof modules” and “a side” and will be interpreted as such.
In addition, claim 6 recites, “its sides” in line 2 and “its tip” in line 3. Numerous elements are previously introduced and thus, it is unclear as to which this language refers. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the center support” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 7, claim 7 recites, “the bottom edge” in line 2, “the honeycomb board elements” in line 2-3, “the roof module” in line 3 and “the bottom edge” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “a bottom edge,” “the at least two honeycomb board elements of the roof module,” “the roof modules” and “a bottom edge” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 9, claim 9 recites, “the ground” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “ground” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 10, claim 10 recites, “the aforementioned structures” in line 6, “the wall modules and roof modules” in line 17, “the case” in line 18, “the side walls” in line 18, “the wall modules” in line 19 and “the corners” in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the wall structure and the roof structure,” “the wall module and the roof module,” “a case,” “side walls,” “the wall module” and “corners” and will be interpreted as such.
In addition, claim 10 recites, “a ballistic shelter” in line 6-7. A ballistic shelter is previously recited in line 1. It is unclear if this the same or different than that of line 1. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the ballistic shelter” and will be interpreted as such.
In addition, claim 10 recites, “the ballistic shelter wall” in line 3, line 4 and line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the ballistic shelter” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 12, claim 12 recites, “the honeycomb board elements” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the self-supporting honeycomb board element” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 13, claim 13 recites, “the wall modules” in line 2-3, “the lifting holes” in line 3 and “the flanges” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “the wall module,” “lifting holes” and “flanges” and will be interpreted as such.
In addition, claim 13 recites, “its position” in line 2. Numerous elements are previously introduced and thus, it is unclear as to which this language refers. It appears this language is intended to refer to “the roof module” and will be interpreted as such.
Re claim 14, claim 14 recites, “the top” in line 3 and “the wall modules” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. It appears this language is intended to recite, “a top” and “the wall module” and will be interpreted as such.
Claim(s) 8, 11 and 15 is/are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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(s) 1, 4, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Johnson et al (“Johnson”) (US 2013/0340603).
Re claim 1, Johnson discloses a ballistic shelter (10; [0079]) comprising a wall structure (14), a roof structure (16) and triangular gable ends (118/120) providing ballistic protection ([0079]), whereby the aforementioned wall structure (14) and roof structure (16) comprise honeycomb board elements (206; [0080]) wherein the ballistic shelter (10) is self-supporting (Fig. 1) and comprises roof modules (102) comprising at least two honeycomb board elements (102; [0079]), a bottom chord (Fig. 5B bottom chord of 82) and a center support (84), wall modules (64) comprising at least a honeycomb board element ([0080]) and vertical support elements (50) on the honeycomb board elements (64) of the side walls (64) of the ballistic shelter (10) as well as horizontal support elements (88) at the corners (of 10, see Fig. 6D for example) of the ballistic shelter (10), and triangular gable end modules (118/120).
Re claim 4, Johnson discloses the ballistic shelter according to claim 1, wherein two honeycomb board elements (102; [0080]) of the roof module (16) are fastened to each other (Fig. 1A) with a mechanical joint (Fig. 5I) at the point of the ridge (84) of the roof module (102) by means of a flange (98).
Re claim 7, Johnson discloses the ballistic shelter according to claim 1, wherein the bottom chord (bottom chord of 82) is fastened to (at the intersection of 88 and 80) the bottom edge (bottom edge of 102) of the honeycomb board elements (102) of the roof module (16) or to a height (h) (Fig. 1) from the bottom edge (bottom edge of 102).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (“Johnson”) (US 2013/0340603) in view of Zagorski (US 10,584,509).
Re claim 2, Johnson discloses the ballistic shelter according to claim 1, wherein the ballistic shelter (10) further comprises a door assembly (Fig. 1A, Fig. 1B 64S, 64D, 64M), vertical beams (50) in the corners (Fig. 5A) of the ballistic shelter (10), and an operating mechanism (90A; the language makes no mention of what is being operated) inside the triangular gable end module(s) (118/120), but fails to disclose the door arrangement as a sliding door arrangement for sliding doors, the arrangement comprising a channel rail in its bottom part, a support structure in its top part.
However, Zagorski discloses the door arrangement (Fig. 3) as a sliding door arrangement for sliding doors (308; Col 6 lines 29-31), the arrangement (Fig. 3) comprising a channel rail (301) in its bottom part (Fig. 3), a support structure (303) in its top part (Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ballistic shelter of Johnson with the door arrangement as a sliding door arrangement for sliding doors, the arrangement comprising a channel rail in its bottom part, a support structure in its top part as disclosed by Zagorski in order to provide a wide opening (Col 5 lines 4-5), and to provide a simple to use mechanism for providing entry/exit.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (“Johnson”) (US 2013/0340603) in view of Peters (US 2014/0174284) and De Jaham (US 2009/0277103).
Re claim 3 as best understood in view of the rejection under 35 USC 112 above, Johnson discloses the ballistic shelter according to claim 1, wherein the bottom chord (bottom chord of 82) is a beam (Fig. 5B), which comprises one or two parts (Fig. 5B), whereby the parts are connected to each other with a mechanical joint, and the ends (ends of the bottom chord of 82) of the bottom chord (bottom chord of 82) to be fastened to the honeycomb board element (per the above) correspond to the pitch (Fig. 5A) of the honeycomb board elements ([0080]) of the ballistic shelter (10),
but fails to disclose the bottom chord as an I-beam, and the ends of the bottom chord as at least partly beveled.
However, Peters discloses the bottom chord (Johnson: bottom chord of 82) as an I-beam (Peters: Fig. 1E; 14D).
It would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ballistic shelter of Johnson with the bottom chord as an I-beam as disclosed by Peters in order to maximize structural strength and load bearing capacity while minimizing material and weight, as these are very well-known benefits of I-beam constructions. In general, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
In addition, De Jaham discloses the ends (Johnson: ends of the bottom chord of 82) of the bottom chord (Johnson: bottom chord of 82) as at least partly beveled (De Jaham: [0027]).
It would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ballistic shelter of Johnson with the ends of the bottom chord at least partly beveled as disclosed by De Jaham in order to fit the structural members flatly / flush against one another. In general, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (“Johnson”) (US 2013/0340603) in view of Peterson (US 2018/0340310).
Re claim 5, Johnson discloses the ballistic shelter according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the flanges of the ridge of the roof module are lifting holes for lifting the roof module.
However, Peterson discloses wherein the flanges (208) of the ridge (Fig. 6) of the roof module (516) are lifting holes ([0033]) for lifting ([0033]) the roof module (516).
It would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ballistic shelter of Johnson wherein the flanges of the ridge of the roof module are lifting holes for lifting the roof module as disclosed by Peterson in order to provide simple hoisting for precise alignment, and to provide securing points for safety lines as needed ([0033]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (“Johnson”) (US 2013/0340603) in view of Peterson (US 2018/0340310).
Re claim 6, Johnson discloses the ballistic shelter according to claim 1, wherein the center support (84) is fastened at one of its sides (left/right sides of 84) to the ridge (at 84) of the roof module (102) and fastened at its tip (ends of 84) opposite the aforementioned side (sides of 84) to the bottom chord (bottom chord of 82) with a fixing flange (98/86) and with a mechanical joint (98/86),
but fails to disclose wherein the center support is triangular in shape.
However, it would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ballistic shelter of Johnson wherein the center support is triangular in shape in order to provide a simple, less difficult to manufacture shape.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (“Johnson”) (US 2013/0340603) in view of Slater (US 5,755,062).
Re claim 8, Johnson discloses the ballistic shelter according to claim 1, wherein the ballistic shelter (10) is erected on foundations (12), but fails to disclose the foundations as concrete or steel.
However, Slater discloses the foundations (14) as concrete or steel (Col 9 lines 7-8).
It would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ballistic shelter of Johnson with the foundations as concrete or steel as disclosed by Slater in order to utilize a readily available, inexpensive, durable, high-strength material.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (“Johnson”) (US 2013/0340603) in view of Kostka (US 7,600,348).
Re claim 9, Johnson discloses the ballistic shelter according to claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the ballistic shelter is erected to rest on the ground.
However, Kostka discloses wherein the ballistic shelter (20) is erected to rest on the ground (Col 2 lines 59-63).
It would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ballistic shelter of Johnson wherein the ballistic shelter is erected to rest on the ground as disclosed by Kostka in order to reduce costs by eliminating the need for constructing any decking or foundation beneath the ballistic shelter.
Claim(s) 10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (“Johnson”) (US 2013/0340603) in view of Nolte et al (“Nolte”) (US 7,661,228).
Re claim 10, Johnson discloses a method ([0086]) for fabricating a ballistic shelter (10; [0079]), the method comprising the following phases:
a wall structure (14) of the ballistic shelter wall (10) is produced (Fig. 1 showing 14 having already been produced),
a roof structure (16) of the ballistic shelter wall (10) is produced (Fig. 1 showing 16 having already been produced),
gable end triangles (118/120) of the ballistic shelter wall (10) are produced (Fig. 1 showing 118/120 having already been produced),
the aforementioned structures (14, 16, 118/120) are connected with mechanical joints (94, 95, 98) into a ballistic shelter (10),
wherein
the wall structure (14), roof structure (16) and gable end triangles (118/120) are formed into modular structures ([0001]),
a wall module (64) is produced from a self-supporting honeycomb board element ([0080]) providing ballistic protection ([0082]),
a roof module (102; [0079]) is produced from a self-supporting honeycomb board element (102; 206; [0079]-[0080]) providing ballistic protection ([0082]), a center support (84) and a bottom chord (bottom chord of 82),
the wall modules (64) and roof modules (1022) are connected to each other with vertical support means (50) in the case of the side walls (64) of the ballistic shelter (10), and
the wall modules (64) are connected to each other with horizontal support means (88) at the corners (of 10, see Fig. 6D for example) of the ballistic shelter (10),
but fails to disclose the triangular gable end modules produced from an armor steel structure providing ballistic protection.
However, Nolte discloses the triangular gable end modules (Johnson: 118/120) produced from an armor steel structure providing ballistic protection Col 6 lines 1-5).
It would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Johnson with the triangular gable end modules produced from an armor steel structure providing ballistic protection as disclosed by Nolte in order to further increase bullet proofness / ballistic protection, as Johnson already recognizes armored plate on walls and roofs.
Re claim 12, Johnson discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein the honeycomb board elements (102; [0080]) of the roof module (16) are connected to each other (Fig. 1A) with flanges (98) and a mechanical joint (Fig. 5I).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (“Johnson”) (US 2013/0340603) in view of Nolte et al (“Nolte”) (US 7,661,228) and Zagorski (US 10,584,509).
Re claim 11, Johnson discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein the ballistic shelter (10) is provided with a door arrangement (Fig. 1A, Fig. 1B 64S, 64D, 64M), vertical beams (50), but fails to disclose the door arrangement as a sliding door arrangement comprising sliding doors, a channel rail, an overhead support structure.
However, Zagorski discloses the door arrangement (Fig. 3) as a sliding door arrangement comprising sliding doors (308; Col 6 lines 29-31: Johnson 64S, 64D, 64M), a channel rail (301), an overhead support structure (303).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Johnson with the door arrangement as a sliding door arrangement comprising sliding doors, a channel rail, an overhead support structure as disclosed by Zagorski in order to provide a wide opening (Col 5 lines 4-5), and to provide a simple to use mechanism for providing entry/exit.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (“Johnson”) (US 2013/0340603) in view of Nolte et al (“Nolte”) (US 7,661,228) and Peterson (US 2018/0340310).
Re claim 13, Johnson discloses the method according to claim 10, but fails to disclose wherein the roof module is lifted into its position on top of the wall modules and the triangular gable end modules from the lifting holes of the flanges.
However, Peterson discloses wherein the roof module (516) is lifted into its position ([0033]) on top of the wall modules (308, 508) and the triangular gable end modules (Johnson: 118/120) from the lifting holes ([0033]) of the flanges (208).
It would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Johnson wherein the roof module is lifted into its position on top of the wall modules and the triangular gable end modules from the lifting holes of the flanges as disclosed by Peterson in order to provide simple hoisting for precise alignment, and to provide securing points for safety lines as needed ([0033]).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (“Johnson”) (US 2013/0340603) in view of Nolte et al (“Nolte”) (US 7,661,228), Peterson (US 2018/0340310) and Heselden (US 2013/0047829).
Re claim 14, Johnson discloses the method according to claim 13, but fails to disclose the roof module is pre-assembled on a jig and lifted as a finished roof module onto the top of the wall modules and the triangular gable end modules.
However, Heselden discloses the roof module (4) is pre-assembled on a jig ([0027], any surface or tool being a jig) and lifted as a finished roof module ([0027]) onto the top of the wall modules (Johson: 14) and the triangular gable end modules (Johnson: 118/120).
It would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Johnson the roof module is pre-assembled on a jig and lifted as a finished roof module onto the top of the wall modules and the triangular gable end modules as disclosed by Heselden in order to enable construction of the roof module at a remote location away from incoming fire or other hostile activity, or simply away from a place of exposure ([0027]).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al (“Johnson”) (US 2013/0340603) in view of Nolte et al (“Nolte”) (US 7,661,228) and Slater (US 5,755,062).
Re claim 15, Johnson discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein modular foundations (12) are produced (Fig. 1 showing 12 produced) for the ballistic shelter (10), but fails to disclose the modular foundations as concrete or steel.
However, Slater discloses the modular foundations (14) as concrete or steel (Col 9 lines 7-8).
It would have been obvious as a matter of choice to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Johnson with the modular foundations as concrete or steel as disclosed by Slater in order to utilize a readily available, inexpensive, durable, high-strength material
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571)270-3238. 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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Prosecution Insights