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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/02/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
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: “scan ultrasound unit”, “target generation unit”, “treatment ultrasound unit” in claim 1, “interval adjustment unit” in claim 2, “point generation unit” in claim 3, “driving unit” in claim 4, “line generation unit” in claim 6, “first line generation unit”, “second line generation unit” in claim 7, “selection unit” in claim 8, and “position determination unit” in claim 9.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 8, the examiner assumes “the selected on” should be “the selected one” for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 6-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
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 limitations “scan ultrasound unit”, “target generation unit”, “treatment ultrasound unit” in claim 1, “interval adjustment unit” in claim 2, “point generation unit” in claim 3, “driving unit” in claim 4, “line generation unit” in claim 6, “first line generation unit”, “second line generation unit” in claim 7, “selection unit” in claim 8, and “position determination unit” in claim 9 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 10 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.
For claim 10, the limitation “if an inclination of the connection target line is greater than 0” is indefinite. It is unclear when an inclination (slope) of the connection target line would be greater than 0 vs equal to 0 vs less than 0, and the reason for having the inclination of the connection target line as greater than 0 or less than 0, when the user can have the connection target line with an inclination of 0 by selecting target points adjacent to each other for each scan line. For the purpose of advancing prosecution, the examiner assumes the limitation refers to adjusting the position of the treatment ultrasound transmission signal.
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 (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 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Son et al. (EP 2962642 A1, published January 6, 2016), hereinafter referred to as Son.
Regarding claim 1, Son teaches an ultrasound treatment device (Fig. 1, ultrasound medical apparatus 100) comprising:
a scan ultrasound unit (Fig. 1, imaging transducer 110) configured to transmit a scan ultrasound transmission signal to scan an inside of a human body and receive a scan ultrasound reception signal reflected from the human body (see para. 0016 – “The imaging transducer 110 includes an imaging transducer array, transmits an imaging ultrasound to a target object, and receives a first echo signal reflected at the target object.”);
a target generation unit (Fig. 1, image processing unit 130) configured to generate a target line based on the scan ultrasound reception signal (Fig. 3; see para. 0050 – “The ultrasound medical apparatus 100 sets the region of interest [target line] within the diagnostic image [based on scan ultrasound reception signal] through an operation or input from a user (Step S312)…”); and
a treatment ultrasound unit (Fig. 1, treatment transducer 120) configured to transmit a treatment ultrasound transmission signal along the target line (see para. 0017 – “…the treatment transducer 120 transmits a high-intensity ultrasound [treatment ultrasound transmission signal] to a focal-point spot (a spot corresponding to focal-point information within a region of interest set on the target object) [target line] of the region of interest (ROI)…”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 2, Son further teaches an interval adjustment unit configured to adjust a transmission interval corresponding to a time interval for transmitting the scan ultrasound transmission signal (see para. 0016 – “The imaging transducer 110 transmits a focused ultrasound beam to the target object along a scanline by appropriately delaying an input time of a pulse [transmit time interval] that is inputted to each transducer.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 3, Son further wherein the target generation unit further includes a point generation unit configured to generate a plurality of target points based on the scan ultrasound reception signals corresponding to the scan ultrasound transmission signals transmitted for each transmission interval (“generate target points” as determine points in image as ROI; Fig. 3; see para. 0050 – “The ultrasound medical apparatus 100 sets the region of interest [generate target points] within the diagnostic image [based on scan ultrasound reception signal] through an operation or input from a user (Step S312)…”).
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.
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.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son in view of Watkins et al. (US 5769790 A, published June 23, 1998), hereinafter referred to as Watkins.
Regarding claim 4, Son teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 3 above.
Son teaches a scan ultrasound unit, and it is inherent to move a probe (scan ultrasound unit) along the skin of the body, but does not explicitly teach a driving unit configured to move the probe.
Whereas, Watkins, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches a driving unit (Fig. 3, positioning system 38) configured to move the scan ultrasound unit along a skin of the human body (see col. 6, lines 34-38 – “In response to any difference between the detected location of the therapy transducer focal point and the detected location of the tissue to be treated, the position of the probe [scan ultrasound unit] is adjusted using positioning system 38 which is mechanically coupled to the probe.” inherent and known in the art for the user to move a probe along the skin of human body).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ultrasound scan unit, as disclosed in Son, by having a driving unit configured to move the ultrasound scan unit, as disclosed in Watkins. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to automatically adjust the position of the transducers, as taught in Watkins (see col. 6, lines 38-40).
Furthermore, regarding claim 5, Son further teaches wherein each of the plurality of target points is determined according to a magnitude of each of the scan ultrasound reception signals according to a depth from the skin of the human body (see para. 0061 – “…the ultrasound medical apparatus 100 acquires data corresponding to the first scanline 410, and divides the data for the first scanline 410 by depths of the target object with regular intervals, i.e., at predetermined regular times, thus generating the result data for detecting the location of the cavitation.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 6, Son further teaches wherein the target generation unit further includes a line generation unit configured to generate the target line based on the plurality of target points (see para. 0060 – “The ultrasound medical apparatus 100 divides the region of interest [target points] into a first scanline 410, a second scanline 420, ..., and an nth scanline, [target lines] to detect the cavitation.”).
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son in view of Watkins, as applied to claim 6 above, and in further view of Zhang et al. (US 20140316269 A1, published October 23, 2014), hereinafter referred to as Zhang.
Regarding claim 7, Son in view of Watkins teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 6 above.
Son in view of Watkins teaches generating a plurality of target points (region of interest), but does not explicitly teach determining an average depth based on the generated plurality of target points.
Whereas, Zhang, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the line generation unit further includes: a first line generation unit configured to generate a connection target line by sequentially connecting the plurality of target points (“connection target line” can be pixels adjacent to each other); and a second line generation unit configured to generate an average target line determined as an average value of depths from the skin of the human body corresponding to the plurality of target points (see para. 0686 – “(C) The system determines an average Z depth (i.e., the Z direction depth from the treatment array to the target tissue) by averaging at of readings. For example, averaging reading over a 15 seconds period.” it is inherent and known in the art to average the pixel depths of a region in order to determine a center (average depth) of the region).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified generating a plurality of target points (region of interest), as disclosed in Son in view of Watkins, by also determining an average depth based on the generated plurality of target points, as disclosed in Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve treatment process and outcome of focused energy therapy, as taught in Zhang (see para. 0006).
Furthermore, regarding claim 8, Son further teaches wherein the target generation unit further includes a selection unit (Fig. 1, user input unit 150) configured to select one of the connection target line and the average target line and provide the selected on as a target line (Fig. 4; see para. 0031 – “Further, the user input unit 150 receives focal-point information for setting a focal-point spot [on a target line] to transmit the high-intensity ultrasound into the region of interest [includes scan lines 410, 420].”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 9, Son further teaches a position determination unit (Fig. 1, user input unit 150) configured to determine a transmission position corresponding to a position at which the treatment ultrasound transmission signal is transmitted (Fig. 4; see para. 0031 – “Further, the user input unit 150 receives focal-point information [transmission position] for setting a focal-point spot to transmit the high-intensity ultrasound into the region of interest.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 10, Son further teaches wherein when the target line is the average target line, if an inclination of the connection target line is greater than 0, the ultrasound treatment device is configured to transmit the treatment ultrasound transmission signal to a position separated from the average target line by a predetermined distance in a first direction (see 112(b) rejection above, limitation as adjusting the position of the treatment ultrasound transmission signal; Fig. 4; see para. 0030 – “The user input unit 150 receives instructions from an operation or an input by a user. The user instructions include a setting instruction for controlling the imaging ultrasound and the high-intensity ultrasound of the ultrasound medical apparatus 100, a setting instruction for setting coordinate values of the region of interest or the focal-point spot, and the like.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 11, Son further teaches wherein the first line generation unit is configured to move the connection target line up and down according to a first input value of a user and provide the moved connection target line (Fig. 4; see para. 0030 – “The user input unit 150 receives instructions from an operation or an input by a user. The user instructions include a setting instruction for controlling the imaging ultrasound and the high-intensity ultrasound of the ultrasound medical apparatus 100, a setting instruction for setting coordinate values of the region of interest or the focal-point spot, and the like.” adjusting connection target line as adjusting coordinate values of region of interest or focal point spot).
Furthermore, regarding claim 12, Son further teaches wherein the second line generation unit is configured to move the average target line up and down according to a second input value of a user and provide the moved average target line (Fig. 4; see para. 0030 – “The user input unit 150 receives instructions from an operation or an input by a user. The user instructions include a setting instruction for controlling the imaging ultrasound and the high-intensity ultrasound of the ultrasound medical apparatus 100, a setting instruction for setting coordinate values of the region of interest or the focal-point spot, and the like.” adjusting average target line as adjusting coordinate values of focal point spot).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son in view of Watkins and Zhang, as applied to claim 8 above, and in further view of Iger (US 20110218464 A1, published September 8, 2011), hereinafter referred to as Iger.
Regarding claim 13, Son in view of Watkins and Zhang teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 8 above.
Son in view of Watkins and Zhang generating a treatment ultrasound transmission signal, but does not explicitly teach adjusting the treatment signal based on the depth of the target points.
Whereas, Iger, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the ultrasound treatment device is configured to adjust an intensity and interval of the treatment ultrasound transmission signal, or a movement speed of the treatment ultrasound unit based on depths of the plurality of target points and a treatment intensity according to a previously input type of a treatment skin layer (see para. 0048 – “…reference to FIG. 1, the system 20 further includes an ultrasound energy source including a signal generator 26 operatively coupled to a signal amplifier 27 and a power supply 28, and being configured to produce signals and to deliver electrical current at given frequencies and power to ultrasound emitting devices, e.g., ultrasound transducers, disposed within the treatment applicator 40 to administer ultrasound energy to target tissue…ultrasound emitting devices, which are configured and arranged for targeting ultrasound energy to a selected skin or soft tissue layer and/or a selected location or depth within the layer.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified generating a treatment ultrasound transmission signal, as disclosed in Son in view of Watkins and Zhang, by also adjusting the treatment signal based on the depth of the target points, as disclosed in Iger. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide different types of treatment and may produce different desired or required treatment impacts that are specific to a particular skin or soft tissue layer and/or a particular location or depth within the layer, as taught in Iger (see para. 0048).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Rem-Bronneberg et al. (US 20180264291 A1, published September 20, 2018) discloses activating transducers in the groups of different patterns and increasing the frequency of the activated group with an increasing average distance from the group to the region of interest gives a control over the penetration depth of the transmitted ultrasound wave.
Harks et al. (US 20130204134 A1, published August 8, 2013) discloses determine a depth influence value being indicative of a depth to which the object has been influenced by the applied energy. The depth influence value is, for example, a lesion depth or a degree of transmurality with respect to a wall of a heart or of another organ. The energy application element can be adapted to be controlled depending on the depth influence value, in particular, depending on the development of a lesion, which is defined by the lesion depth and caused by the respective energy application element.
Tanaka et al. (US 20220409185 A1, published December 29, 2022) discloses dividing the received signals into a plurality of depth segments, and to extract the received signals in the plurality of depth segments.
Jolesz et al. (US 20110208095 A1, published August 25, 2011) discloses time delays determine the depth of focus which can be changed during scanning.
Hsu et al. (US 20130225994 A1, published August 29, 2013) discloses by using multiple transmissions, a plurality of locations of the transmissions from the HIFU transducer are determined within the imaging system coordinates.
Son et al. (US 20160007960 A1, published January 14, 2016) discloses when the focal point does not match the target location in the ultrasound image, the focal point can be compensated, and when the focal point is correct, the high-intensity ultrasound treatment is continued.
Hananel et al. (US 20180236270 A1, published August 23, 2018) discloses adjusting, during the procedure, the depth of the focus ultrasound beam to match the depth of treatment location, and thereby improve the efficacy of the treatment.
Jun (EP 2698183 A2, published February 19, 2014) discloses the scanline information processor acquires z-axis data from diagnosis information of a patient and processes information related to the z-axis data which represents a depth of a treatment position on a scanline image selected for treating the patient.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nyrobi Celestine whose telephone number is 571-272-0129. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:00AM - 5:00PM EST.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached on 571-272-2714. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights