DETAILED ACTION
National Stage Application
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed on 27 April 2026 does not fully comply with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.98 because: it lacks a legible copy of each foreign patent and each publication (e.g., Applied Physics Express 13, 115501) or that portion which caused it to be listed. Since the submission appears to be bona fide, applicant is given ONE (1) MONTH from the date of this notice to supply the above mentioned omissions or corrections in the information disclosure statement. NO EXTENSION OF THIS TIME LIMIT MAY BE GRANTED UNDER EITHER 37 CFR 1.136(a) OR (b). Failure to timely comply with this notice will result in the above mentioned information disclosure statement being placed in the application file with the noncomplying information not being considered. See 37 CFR 1.97(i).
The listing of references in the specification (e.g., paragraphs 7 and 8) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, “the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper”. Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.437 and PCT Rule 11.13(l) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 10. 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. 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 Interpretation
MPEP § 2111.01 states that “… Under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), words of the claim must be given their plain meaning, unless such meaning is inconsistent with the specification. The plain meaning of a term means the ordinary and customary meaning given to the term by those of ordinary skill in the art at the relevant time. The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, including the words of the claims themselves, the specification, drawings, and prior art. However, the best source for determining the meaning of a claim term is the specification - the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification serves as a glossary for the claim terms …”. Thus under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the greatest clarity is obtained when the specification (e.g., see “… cut surface becomes graphitized and conductive due to the heat of the laser. Therefore, the side surfaces were polished to insulate them …” in paragraph 23) serves as a glossary for the claim term “insulated side surfaces”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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 at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed 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 at the time a later invention was effectively filed 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.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kaneko et al. (Growth and evaluation of self-standing CVD diamond single crystals on off-axis (001) surface of HP/HT type IIa substrates, Diamond & Related Materials Vol. 26 (Available online March 2012), pp. 45-49).
In regard to claim 7, Kaneko et al. disclose a method for fabricating a diamond radiation detector comprising a diamond detector in which diamond is used for a detector, the method comprising:
(a) producing a diamond crystal used for the diamond detector (e.g., “… Synthetic diamond radiation detectors are sought for use in several fields such as nuclear engineering, radiotherapy, high-energy physics, and space science …” in section 1) by a heteroepitaxial growth method (e.g., “… Homoepitaxial growth was conducted using a microwave-assisted plasma CVD device (AX5250; Seki Technotron Corp.) …” in section 2.2) with a small tilt angle from a (001) plane orientation in a [110] direction (e.g., “… To suppress abnormal growth, off-axis surface treatment on a substrate is a well known technique. For diamonds, a (001) surface with an off angle of several degrees for the <110> direction is often used …” in section 2.1);
(b) detaching the diamond crystal from a substrate (e.g., “… After crystal growth, the homoepitaxial layer was removed by electrolytic etching …” in section 2.2) and cutting into a planar, free-standing diamond crystal (e.g., “… remaining substrate, 1.6 μm thick, at the bottom of the epitaxial layer was removed using ion beam etching …” in section 2.2);
(c) insulating side surfaces of the free-standing diamond crystal (e.g., “… self-standing homoepitaxial layer, CVD diamond single crystal, was oxygen-terminated using dichromic acid …” in section 3);
(d) providing electrodes on both upper and lower surfaces of the free-standing diamond crystal to fabricate the diamond detector (e.g., “… aluminum Schottky contact and a Ti/Au ohmic contact … contacts were connected to a receptacle and were grounded by gold wire and silver paste … polarity of bias voltage to the detector was fixed … leakage current of each detector was less than 10 pA at measurement bias voltages …” in sections 3 and 4.3); and
(e) connecting the diamond detector to a signal processing unit configured to digitally process an input signal (e.g., “… multi-channel analyzer (WE7000; Yokogawa Meters & Instruments Corp.) …” in section 3), which is charges generated in the diamond crystal upon radiation incidence (e.g., “… the induced current flow in a circuit opposes charge carriers created by alpha particles. By observing this current, charge carrier behavior in diamond crystal can be ascertained …” in section 4.3).
Alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide electrodes on both upper and lower surfaces of the free-standing diamond crystal in order to achieve “leakage current of each detector was less than 10 pA at measurement bias voltages”.
In regard to claim 8 which is dependent on claim 7, Kaneko et al. also disclose that an off-angle being the small tilt angle of the plane orientation of the diamond crystal is from 7° to 10° (e.g., “… To suppress abnormal growth, off-axis surface treatment on a substrate is a well known technique. For diamonds, a (001) surface with an off angle of several degrees for the <110> direction is often used …” in section 2.1). Alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that an off-angle being the small tilt angle of the plane orientation of the diamond crystal is “several degrees” (e.g., 7°) in order to “suppress abnormal growth”.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al. (Growth and evaluation of self-standing CVD diamond single crystals on off-axis (001) surface of HP/HT type IIa substrates, Diamond & Related Materials Vol. 26 (Available online March 2012), pp. 45-49) in view of Aida et al. (US 2016/0237592).
In regard to claim 1, Kaneko et al. disclose a radiation detector in which diamond is used for a detector, the radiation detector comprising:
(a) a diamond detector (e.g., “… Synthetic diamond radiation detectors are sought for use in several fields such as nuclear engineering, radiotherapy, high-energy physics, and space science …” in section 1) that includes a diamond in a planer shape (e.g., “… self-standing CVD diamond single crystal, i.e. a homoepitaxial layer …” in section 2.2) having insulated side surfaces (e.g., “… self-standing homoepitaxial layer, CVD diamond single crystal, was oxygen-terminated using dichromic acid …” in section 3), and electrodes on both upper and lower surfaces (e.g., “… aluminum Schottky contact and a Ti/Au ohmic contact … charge carriers move to each electrode according to an electric field in the detector because of bias voltage. As the same principle of capacitor charge …” in sections 3 and 4.3), and that generates charges upon radiation incidence (e.g., “… the induced current flow in a circuit opposes charge carriers created by alpha particles. By observing this current, charge carrier behavior in diamond crystal can be ascertained …” in section 4.3); and
(b) a signal processing unit that digitally processes the charges as an input signal (e.g., “… multi-channel analyzer (WE7000; Yokogawa Meters & Instruments Corp.) …” in section 3), and
wherein the diamond is a diamond crystal of a heteroepitaxially grown layer (e.g., “… Homoepitaxial growth was conducted using a microwave-assisted plasma CVD device (AX5250; Seki Technotron Corp.) …” in section 2.2), and has crystallinity such that a full width half maximum of a diffraction peak of a (004) plane in X-ray diffractometry represents a value (e.g., “… characterized by the X-ray diffraction. The off angle is defined as the angle between <004> vector and the normal vector of the sample surface plane. The off axis is defined as the direction of <004> vector projected on the sample surface plane. The off angle and the off axis of (001) single crystal substrate are determined by the following steps. Firstly, (004) ω rocking curves of every 60 degree rotation of ϕ (0, 60, 120, 180, 240 and 300, respectively) were obtained. Then, the fitting of ω peak positions of the six rocking curves were carried out with an equation as follows: ω=Δω·cos(ϕ-ϕ0)+ω0 where Δω, ϕ0 and ω0 are the off angle, the off axis and the Bragg angle of (004) plane, respectively …” in section 2.1).
The detector of Kaneko et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… rocking curves …” such as the value is ≤200 seconds. However, “… rocking curves …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… When the diamond substrate 1 is formed from a single diamond single crystal, a coupling boundary at which plural diamond single crystals are coupled is not present on the surface 2 and thus deterioration in crystal quality at a boundary is prevented. Accordingly, when the diamond substrate 1 is formed from a single diamond single crystal, the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of an X-ray rocking curve on the surface 2 (particularly, (100)) can be 300 seconds or less over the entire surface 2 …” in paragraph 46 of Aida et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional rocking curve (e.g., comprising details such as “a coupling boundary at which plural diamond single crystals are coupled is not present on the surface 2” results in “full width at half maximum (FWHM) of an X-ray rocking curve on the surface 2 (particularly, (100)) can be 300 seconds or less over the entire surface 2”) for the unspecified rocking curve of Kaneko et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional rocking curve (e.g., comprising details such as a single crystal diamond has a value smaller than or equal to 200 seconds) as the unspecified rocking curve of Kaneko et al.
In regard to claim 2 which is dependent on claim 1, Kaneko et al. also disclose that the diamond crystal is a heteroepitaxially grown layer on a substrate (e.g., “… Homoepitaxial growth was conducted using a microwave-assisted plasma CVD device (AX5250; Seki Technotron Corp.) …” in section 2.2) with an off-angle (e.g., “… To suppress abnormal growth, off-axis surface treatment on a substrate is a well known technique. For diamonds, a (001) surface with an off angle of several degrees for the <110> direction is often used …” in section 2.1), and is detached from the substrate (e.g., “… After crystal growth, the homoepitaxial layer was removed by electrolytic etching …” in section 2.2) and cut into a planar, free-standing diamond crystal (e.g., “… remaining substrate, 1.6 μm thick, at the bottom of the epitaxial layer was removed using ion beam etching …” in section 2.2). The detector of Kaneko et al. lacks that the substrate is non-diamond material. However, Aida et al. teach (paragraph 48) that “… material of the base substrate 4 is, for example, magnesium oxide (MgO), aluminum oxide (a-Al2O3: sapphire), Si, quartz, platinum, iridium, or strontium titanate (SrTiO3). Among these materials, particularly, since an MgO single crystal substrate and an aluminum oxide (sapphire) single crystal substrate are very thermally stable and the substrates with a diameter of eight inches (about 203.2 mm) are provided, the MgO single crystal substrate and the aluminum oxide single crystal substrate can be preferably used as a base substrate for growth of a diamond single crystal for the reason of easy availableness …”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide non-diamond material for the substrate of Kaneko et al. “for the reason of easy availableness” “for growth of a diamond single crystal”.
In regard to claim 3 which is dependent on claim 2, Kaneko et al. also disclose that the diamond crystal has a small tilt angle from a (001) plane orientation in a direction (e.g., “… To suppress abnormal growth, off-axis surface treatment on a substrate is a well known technique. For diamonds, a (001) surface with an off angle of several degrees for the <110> direction is often used …” in section 2.1).
In regard to claim 4 which is dependent on claim 3, Kaneko et al. also disclose that an off-angle being the small tilt angle of the plane orientation of the diamond crystal is from 7° to 10° (e.g., “… To suppress abnormal growth, off-axis surface treatment on a substrate is a well known technique. For diamonds, a (001) surface with an off angle of several degrees for the <110> direction is often used …” in section 2.1). Alternatively it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that an off-angle being the small tilt angle of the plane orientation of the diamond crystal is “several degrees” (e.g., 7°) in order to “suppress abnormal growth”.
In regard to claim 6 which is dependent on claim 1, Kaneko et al. also disclose that the signal processing unit includes a charge-sensitive preamplifier for amplifying the charge (e.g., “… charge-sensitive preamplifier (142A; Ortec) …” in section 3), a digitizer for capturing an output voltage signal (e.g., “… multi-channel analyzer (WE7000; Yokogawa Meters & Instruments Corp.) …” in section 3), and a computer for obtaining an energy spectrum of the radiation (e.g., “… Examples of induced charge distribution spectra of samples #2 and #3 are presented in Fig. 4 … High-energy resolution of 0.6% was obtained using sample #2 with long drift distance of holes …” in section 4.3).
In regard to claim 9 which is dependent on claim 8, Kaneko et al. also disclose that the diamond crystal has crystallinity such that a full width half maximum of a diffraction peak of a (004) plane in X-ray diffractometry represents a value (e.g., “… characterized by the X-ray diffraction. The off angle is defined as the angle between <004> vector and the normal vector of the sample surface plane. The off axis is defined as the direction of <004> vector projected on the sample surface plane. The off angle and the off axis of (001) single crystal substrate are determined by the following steps. Firstly, (004) ω rocking curves of every 60 degree rotation of ϕ (0, 60, 120, 180, 240 and 300, respectively) were obtained. Then, the fitting of ω peak positions of the six rocking curves were carried out with an equation as follows: ω=Δω·cos(ϕ-ϕ0)+ω0 where Δω, ϕ0 and ω0 are the off angle, the off axis and the Bragg angle of (004) plane, respectively …” in section 2.1). The method of Kaneko et al. lacks an explicit description of details of the “… rocking curves …” such as the value is ≤200 seconds. However, “… rocking curves …” details are known to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g., see “… When the diamond substrate 1 is formed from a single diamond single crystal, a coupling boundary at which plural diamond single crystals are coupled is not present on the surface 2 and thus deterioration in crystal quality at a boundary is prevented. Accordingly, when the diamond substrate 1 is formed from a single diamond single crystal, the full width at half maximum (FWHM) of an X-ray rocking curve on the surface 2 (particularly, (100)) can be 300 seconds or less over the entire surface 2 …” in paragraph 46 of Aida et al.). It should be noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable results”. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 at 416, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) at 1395 (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 40 [148 USPQ 479] (1966)). See MPEP § 2143. In this case, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a known conventional rocking curve (e.g., comprising details such as “a coupling boundary at which plural diamond single crystals are coupled is not present on the surface 2” results in “full width at half maximum (FWHM) of an X-ray rocking curve on the surface 2 (particularly, (100)) can be 300 seconds or less over the entire surface 2”) for the unspecified rocking curve of Kaneko et al. and the results of the substitution would have been predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a known conventional rocking curve (e.g., comprising details such as a single crystal diamond has a value smaller than or equal to 200 seconds) as the unspecified rocking curve of Kaneko et al.
In regard to claim 10 which is dependent on claim 9, Kaneko et al. also disclose that the heteroepitaxial growth method is a plasma chemical vapor deposition method using methane (CH4) as a source (e.g., “… Homoepitaxial growth was conducted using a microwave-assisted plasma CVD device (AX5250; Seki Technotron Corp.) with the growth conditions in Table 1 …” in section 2.2 and “CH4/(H2+CH4)” in Table 1).
Claim(s) 5 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al. in view of Aida et al. as applied to claim(s) 4, 9, and 10 above, and further in view of Miyake et al. (Diamond radiation detector with built-in boron-doped neutron converter layer, Physica Status Solidi A Vol. 219, no. 3 (First published: October 2021), 2100315, 5 pages).
In regard to claim 5 which is dependent on claim 4, the detector of Kaneko et al. lacks a boron (B)-doped diamond layer is further provided on a surface of the diamond crystal on a side where the radiation is incident. However, Miyake et al. teach (section 2) that “… heavily B-doped diamond layer served as both an electrical contact and neutron-α converter … B-doped polycrystalline diamond layer was grown on the undoped diamond film to serve as a neutron converter …”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a boron (B)-doped diamond layer on a surface of the diamond crystal of Kaneko et al. on a side where the radiation is incident to serve “both an electrical contact and neutron-α converter”.
In regard to claim 13 which is dependent on claim 9, the method of Kaneko et al. lacks a boron (B)-doped diamond layer is further provided on a surface of the diamond crystal on a side where the radiation is incident. However, Miyake et al. teach (section 2) that “… heavily B-doped diamond layer served as both an electrical contact and neutron-α converter … B-doped polycrystalline diamond layer was grown on the undoped diamond film to serve as a neutron converter …”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a boron (B)-doped diamond layer on a surface of the diamond crystal of Kaneko et al. on a side where the radiation is incident to serve “both an electrical contact and neutron-α converter”.
In regard to claim 14 which is dependent on claim 10, the method of Kaneko et al. lacks a boron (B)-doped diamond layer is further provided on a surface of the diamond crystal on a side where the radiation is incident. However, Miyake et al. teach (section 2) that “… heavily B-doped diamond layer served as both an electrical contact and neutron-α converter … B-doped polycrystalline diamond layer was grown on the undoped diamond film to serve as a neutron converter …”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a boron (B)-doped diamond layer on a surface of the diamond crystal of Kaneko et al. on a side where the radiation is incident to serve “both an electrical contact and neutron-α converter”.
In regard to claim 15 which is dependent on claim 5, Kaneko et al. also disclose that the signal processing unit includes a charge-sensitive preamplifier for amplifying the charge (e.g., “… charge-sensitive preamplifier (142A; Ortec) …” in section 3), a digitizer for capturing an output voltage signal (e.g., “… multi-channel analyzer (WE7000; Yokogawa Meters & Instruments Corp.) …” in section 3), and a computer for obtaining an energy spectrum of the radiation (e.g., “… Examples of induced charge distribution spectra of samples #2 and #3 are presented in Fig. 4 … High-energy resolution of 0.6% was obtained using sample #2 with long drift distance of holes …” in section 4.3).
Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneko et al. (Growth and evaluation of self-standing CVD diamond single crystals on off-axis (001) surface of HP/HT type IIa substrates, Diamond & Related Materials Vol. 26 (Available online March 2012), pp. 45-49) in view of Miyake et al. (Diamond radiation detector with built-in boron-doped neutron converter layer, Physica Status Solidi A Vol. 219, no. 3 (First published: October 2021), 2100315, 5 pages).
In regard to claim 11 which is dependent on claim 7, the method of Kaneko et al. lacks a boron (B)-doped diamond layer is further provided on a surface of the diamond crystal on a side where the radiation is incident. However, Miyake et al. teach (section 2) that “… heavily B-doped diamond layer served as both an electrical contact and neutron-α converter … B-doped polycrystalline diamond layer was grown on the undoped diamond film to serve as a neutron converter …”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a boron (B)-doped diamond layer on a surface of the diamond crystal of Kaneko et al. on a side where the radiation is incident to serve “both an electrical contact and neutron-α converter”.
In regard to claim 12 which is dependent on claim 8, the method of Kaneko et al. lacks a boron (B)-doped diamond layer is further provided on a surface of the diamond crystal on a side where the radiation is incident. However, Miyake et al. teach (section 2) that “… heavily B-doped diamond layer served as both an electrical contact and neutron-α converter … B-doped polycrystalline diamond layer was grown on the undoped diamond film to serve as a neutron converter …”. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a boron (B)-doped diamond layer on a surface of the diamond crystal of Kaneko et al. on a side where the radiation is incident to serve “both an electrical contact and neutron-α converter”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 5,216,249 teaches a detector.
US 2008/0061235 teaches a detector.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Shun Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571)272-3995. 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.
/SL/
Examiner, Art Unit 2884
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2884
Prosecution Insights