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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/remarks filed on 06/26/2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to the claim objection(s), Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s) has/have overcome the objection(s) to claim 6. However, Applicant’s reply fails to address the warnings. Thus, the claim objection warning is maintained.
With respect to the drawing objection(s), Applicant’s amendment(s) to the drawings/specification/claim(s) has/have overcome the objection(s).
With respect to the specification objection(s), Applicant’s amendment(s) to the claim(s) has/have overcome the objection(s).
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), Applicant's amendment(s) to the claim(s) has/have overcome the claim rejection(s) except for claim 12. Claim 12 still recites insufficient structure to be capable of performing temperature control. Thus, corresponding portion of the previous 112b rejection is maintained.
With respect to the double patenting claim rejection(s), the terminal disclaimer approved on 06/26/2026 has overcome the claim rejection(s).
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of amended claims 1 and 13, Applicant argues that Heugel and Kim do not teach or suggest a processor grouping the plurality of 3D objects being printed into one or more groups, each group including a subset of the plurality of 3D objects.
Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive. Heugel teaches/suggests that a processor groups the plurality of 3D objects being printed into at least one group (control device groups the plurality of 3D objects being printed into at least one active group by activating at least two corresponding process chambers concurrently from a group of at least four processing chambers: P0016, 0031, Fig. 4, claims 16-17, claims 19-20) while Kim further teaches/suggests that processor groups the plurality of 3D objects being printed into at least one group (control unit groups the plurality of 3D products being printed into at least one active/N group by activating N modeling beams in N modeling planes: P0023, 0059-0061), each group including a subset of the plurality of 3D objects (the active/N group of 3D products being printed have different shapes: P0026-0027, 0062, claims 4-5; wherein each shape reads on the clamed subset; and/or the active/N group of 3D products being printed with different wavelengths: P0027, 0062, claim 5; where wavelength reads on the clamed subset). Thus, the 103 rejections based on these references are maintained.
Claim Objections Warning
Claim(s) 13-15 will be objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant is advised that should claims 1 and 16-17 be found allowable, claims 13-15 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). The term “system” in claims 113-15 has been interpreted below as an apparatus in view of identical scope to claim 1 and Figs. 4 and 10 of Applicant’s published application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“optical-mechanical assemblies” in at least claim 1 with corresponding structure/scope disclosed at least in [0145] of Applicant’s published application.
“image relay” in at least claim 2 with corresponding structure/scope disclosed at least in [0051], [0064] and [0071] of Applicant’s published application.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Other claim interpretations:
The term “system” in claim 13 has been interpreted below as an apparatus in view of identical scope to claim 1 and Figs. 4 and 10 of Applicant’s published application.
Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that claim(s) 1-17 is/are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under the following conditions. The process/manner of using the apparatus and/or the material worked upon by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is/are given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (See MPEP 2114 II and 2115 for further details). For apparatuses, the claim limitations will define structural limitations (See MPEP 2114-2115) or functional limitations properly recited (See MPEP 2173.05 (g)).
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.
Claim 12 is 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “in controlling the build chambers, the processor is configured to control a temperature of the respective powder bed inside each of the build chambers” which is indefinite. The language states controlling functions without setting forth well-defined boundaries of the invention. It is unclear how the processor by itself controls a temperature of the respective powder bed inside each of the build chambers when no thermal/heating/cooling regulation means is recited. The claimed language does not provide a clear cut indication of the scope of the subject matter covered by the claim, and one of ordinary skill in the art would know from the language what structure is encompassed by the claim. See MPEP §§ 2173.03, 2161.01 I, and 2173.05 (g). Claim 12 cannot be evaluated with respect to prior art at this time as the examiner cannot reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention and cannot make a proper comparison between the claims and the prior art due to the 112 (b) issues explained above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9-11, and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heugel (US 20050263932) in view of Kim (US 20170330370). All references of record.
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Heugel teaches an apparatus/system (Abstract), comprising:
a print head comprising an energy source configured to provide one or two-dimensional patterned incident beams of sufficient energy to process powdered material (housing 21 comprising an energy source capable of providing at least one laser incident beam inherently having a two-dimensional/cross-sectional area of sufficient energy to process/sinter a plurality of powder materials located in separate process chambers: P0015-0016, 0029, Fig. 1);
a plurality of build chambers, each build chamber of the plurality of build chambers comprising (i) a powder dispensing unit (7) and (ii) a build platform (4) holding a powder bed formed by powdered material (P0013-0014, Fig 1; wherein Fig. 1 only shows two chambers, but the number of chamber can be more than four chamber: P0023, 0031, Fig. 4);
a plurality of optical-mechanical assemblies (10) receiving and directing the one or more incident beams into a respective build chamber in the plurality of build chambers (P0014, 0016, 0023, Figs. 1 and 4),
a processor (control device) configured to control the print head, the optical-mechanical assemblies, and the plurality of build chambers for concurrent printing of a plurality of 3D objects (control device controls/activates 21, 10, and at least two process chambers for concurrent printing of a plurality of 3D objects: P0016, 0023, 0031, claims 16-17, claims 19-20, Figs. 1 and 4), wherein the processor is configured to group the plurality of 3D objects into one group (the control device groups the plurality of 3D objects being printed into at least one active group by activating the at least two corresponding process chambers concurrently from a group of at least four processing chambers: P0016, 0031, Fig. 4, claims 16-17, claims 19-20).
Heugel fails to teach/suggest the limitation each group including a subset of the plurality of 3D objects.
In the same field of endeavor, three-dimensional printing apparatuses, Kim discloses the technique of providing a processor (40) configured to control a print head (15) providing patterned/modeling incident beams, optical-mechanical assemblies (20) receiving and directing the patterned/modelling beams, and modeling planes (10) for concurrent printing of a plurality of 3D objects (P0091-0102, Fig. 10), wherein the processor (10) is configured to group the plurality of 3D objects into one group (the control unit groups the plurality of 3D products being printed into at least one active/N group by activating N modeling beams in N modeling planes 10: P0023, 0059-0061, 0091, Fig. 10), each group including a subset of the plurality of 3D objects (the active/N group of 3D products being printed have different shapes: P0026-0027, 0062, claims 4-5; wherein each shape reads on the clamed subset; and/or the active/N group of 3D products being printed with different wavelengths: P0027, 0062, claim 5; wherein each wavelength reads on or yields the clamed subset) for the benefit(s) of improving automation, productivity, and/or synchronization (P0002, 0006).
Since Heugel further teaches/suggests controlling the print head and the plurality of optical-mechanical assemblies to provide the incident beams into the plurality of build chambers concurrently (P0016), controlling process parameters such as laser power in the builds chambers (P0031), and controlling movement of the dispensing unit(s) and build platform(s) in the build chambers to control successive application of powder layers in the powder chambers for concurrent printing of the plurality of objects (Abstract, P0003, 0013-0014), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Heugel in view of Kim by incorporating a processor configured to control the print head, the optical-mechanical assemblies, and the plurality of build chambers for concurrent printing of a plurality 3D objects, wherein the processor is configured to group the plurality of 3D objects into at least one group, each group including a subset of the plurality of3D objects for yielding the predictable result(s) of improving automation, productivity, and/or synchronization of the three-dimensional printing apparatus as suggested by Kim. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, MPEP 2144.04 III, and/or 2144 II.
Regarding claim 7, Heugel further teaches wherein the build platform (4) of each build chamber is capable of vertical motion via vertical drives (P0013, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Heugel further teaches wherein the powder dispensing unit (7) of each build chamber dispenses a layer of the respective powdered material on a top surface of the powder bed inside the build chamber (P0014, 0003, Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Kim further discloses wherein, in controlling the print head (15), the processor (40) is configured to control an intensity, a direction, and a duration of the incident beams generated by the energy source during a print process (P0035, 0060-0061, 0082, 0086-0087, 0096, Fig. 10). Thus, the combination, as applied to claim 1 above, further discloses/suggests the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claim 11, Heugel further teaches/suggests wherein, in controlling the optical-mechanical assemblies, the processor (control device) is configured to control an intensity (laser power) and a timed duration of at least one or more incident beams on a top surface of the respective powder bed inside each of the build chambers during a print process (P0014, 0016, 0031, claims 19-20, Figs. 1 and 4). Additionally, Kim further discloses wherein, in controlling the optical-mechanical assemblies (60a-c), the processor (40) is configured to control an intensity and a timed duration of at least one or more incident beams N on a top surface of the respective powder bed inside each of the model planes during a print process (P0038, 0045, 0060-0061, 0068, 0081-0082, and Fig. 10 ). Thus, the combination, as applied to claim 1 above, further discloses/suggests the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claims 14 and 16, Kim further discloses/suggests wherein each group of 3D objects (N group of 3D products) is defined based on a summation of corresponding minimum intensity of energy that is less than or equal to a maximum output intensity of the energy source (P0061-0063, Fig. 10; furthermore, Figs. 3 and 10 and the engineering principle of conservation of energy further implicitly disclose/suggest this limitation to a person of ordinary skill in the art as the summation of N modeling beams needs to be less than or equal to a maximum output intensity/energy of the energy source 15). Thus, the combination, as applied to claim 1 above, further discloses/suggests the claimed subject matter.
Regarding claims 15 and 17, Kim further discloses/suggests wherein the processor (40) is further configured to arrange an order of one or more print jobs of the at least one group (P0045-0046, 0068). Thus, the combination, as applied to claim 1 above, further discloses/suggests the claimed subject matter.
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heugel (US 2005/0263932) in view of Kim (US 20170330370) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Diekmann (US 20110252618). All references of record.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Heugel further teaches wherein each build chamber further comprises a heating or cooling element (claim 9 which depends from claim 2), but the combination does not explicitly teach a temperature sensor as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, three-dimensional printing apparatuses, Diekmann teaches the technique of embedding heating/cooling elements as well as temperature sensors in at least one wall of a build chamber for the benefit(s) of enhancing control of the thermal environment of build chamber and/or maintaining the thermal environment of the build chambers at targeted temperature (P0023-0025 & Fig. 4).
Since Heugel further teaches/suggests to maintain the build chambers at different temperatures (P0031), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify the apparatus of the combination in view of Diekmann by embedding heating/cooling elements as well as temperature sensors in at least one wall of the build chambers for yielding the predictable benefit(s) of enhancing control of the thermal environment of build chambers and/or maintaining the thermal environment of the build chambers at the different temperatures as suggested by Diekmann. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heugel in view of Kim and Diekmann as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Wang (US 20020090313). All references of record.
Regarding claim 5, the combination, as applied to claim 4 above, fails to disclose wherein the walls of the build chambers further comprise insulating or low thermal-conductivity material.
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing apparatuses, Wang teaches the technique of incorporating an insulating material (45) to the walls of a build chamber (3) for the benefit(s) of providing good thermal insulation effect which prevents heat losses and/or enhances temperature control within the build chamber (P0038, 0056-0058, Fig. 4a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify the apparatus of the combination in view of Wang by adding an insulating or low thermal-conductivity material into the walls of the build chambers for yielding the predictable benefit(s) of providing good thermal insulation effect which prevents heat losses and/or enhances temperature control within the build chambers. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heugel (US 2005/0263932) in view of Kim (US 20170330370) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Stonesmith (US 20070077323). All references of record.
Regarding claim 6, the combination fails to teach wherein each build chamber is configured to accommodate a side removal of a printed object formed on its build platform.
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing apparatuses, Stonesmith teaches to provide a lateral door (16, 17) to each build chamber (12, 13) to accommodate a side removal of a printed/completed object formed on its build platform for the benefit(s) of automating/facilitating removal of printed objects from the build chambers (P0050 & Fig. 1). Stonesmith further teaches to use multiple chambers and a single energy source to manufacture multiple 3D objects (P0011 and P0049). Stonesmith further teaches to include appropriate beam splitters and scanners to provide multiple beams to different locations from the single energy source (P0023). Thus, Stonesmith can also be used as a primary reference if needed in future art rejections.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify the apparatus of the combination in view of Stonesmith by configuring each build chamber to accommodate a side removal of a printed object formed on its build platform for the benefit(s) of automating/facilitating removal of printed objects from the build chambers as suggested by Stonesmith. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heugel (US 2005/0263932) in view of Kim (US 20170330370) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abe (US 20100006228) and/or Higashi (US 20100233012). All references of record.
Regarding claim 8, Heugel further discloses/suggests wherein at least one of the build chambers is maintained at a fixed height (build chambers 11 and/or 12 are not disclosed/suggested as being vertically movable), however, the combination, as applied to claim 1 above, does not disclose that the corresponding set of optics in the optical-mechanical assemblies is vertically movable.
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing apparatuses, Abe ‘228 discloses the technique of maintaining a build chamber (1) and a build platform (11) at a fixed height and configuring the corresponding optical-mechanical assembly (22) to be vertically movable for the benefit(s) of enabling/facilitating fabrication of an object of relatively large volume (P0063, 0068-0069, 0103, Figs. 1 and 18).
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing apparatuses, Higashi teaches the technique of configuring an optical-mechanical assembly (37) comprising optical movable components (mirrors and lens) to be vertically movable to focus and direct an incident beam onto a top surface of a powder bed (12) inside a build chamber (not shown) for the benefit(s) of enhancing beam scanning, controlling the diameter of the incident beam at the build surface and/or reducing machining time (P0024, P0031-0033 & F9A-10C).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to further modify the apparatus of the combination in view of Abe ‘228 and/or Higashi by configuring/enabling movement of at least one optical-mechanical assembly in the vertical direction for yielding the predictable benefit(s) of enabling/facilitating fabrication of an object of relatively large volume and/or enhancing beam scanning, controlling the diameter of the incident beam at the build surface and/or reducing machining time as suggested by Abe ‘228 and/or Higashi. See MPEP §§ 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Additional prior art made of record and not relied upon that is pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure:
Partanen (US 5840239) discloses a relevant print head (10) coupled with a relevant optical-mechanical assembly (52 + 60: Fig. 6 and accompanying text).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0625. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00-10:00 PM PT.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights