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 .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to an amendment received on 7/29/06 for patent application 19/405,587.
2. Claim 9 is amended.
3. Claims 1-20 are pending.
RESPONSE TO ARUGMENTS
Applicant argues#1
Claim Interpretation
At pages 2-4 of the Action, the Examiner discusses the Examiner's proposed claim interpretation. This section of the Action does not contain any rejections or objections that require a response under 37 CFR §1.111. Accordingly, while Applicant declines to respond to the Examiner's claim interpretation at this time.
Applicant does not concede that the Examiner's claim interpretation is correct.
Examiner Response
Examiner maintains the Claim Interpretation and therefore the Claim Interpretation section is repeated below.
Applicant argues#2
II. Rejection of Claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112(pre-AIA second
paragraph)
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112(pre-AIA second paragraph), as allegedly 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. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection as follows.
Applicant does not agree that the term "enhancing" renders the claim indefinite, but to speed prosecution, Applicant has amended the claim to replace "enhancing" with "altering." This term is not indefinite, as a person of ordinary skill would only need to determine whether the claimed "altering" occurred.
Examiner Response
Based on the amendment to the claim, the 35 U.S.C 112 rejection is hereby withdrawn.
Applicant argues#3
Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112 be withdrawn.
III. Rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is allegedly directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection as follows.
The Examiner characterizes representative claim 1 as directed to "Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity," specifically a commercial interaction involving "steps for initiating a transaction based on the results of previous transactions." That characterization is incomplete. It removes the transaction-related language from the distributed computing architecture expressly recited in the claim, and it does not evaluate the claim as an ordered combination.
Claim 1 (which the Examiner treated as representative) is not limited to a transaction rule performed on an unspecified computer; it recites a defined sequence of database-recording and network-distribution operations within a distributed database framework. Claim 1 recites a computing device having a memory and a logical connection to a communication network, where the memory stores a database "that has been distributed across a plurality of remote nodes of a parallel computational framework." The claim further requires that the database was received by the computing device via the logical connection to the communication network. The recited instructions then examine results of a first transaction to confirm that a second transaction is permitted, record results of the second transaction in the database, distribute those results using the logical connection to at least one of the plurality of remote nodes of the parallel computational framework, and automatically initiate a third transaction upon determining that a particular result of the second transaction occurred.
The Office Action does not give adequate weight to these limitations. Instead, it treats the distributed database, remote nodes, parallel computational framework, network-based distribution of transaction-result data, and conditional automatic initiation as generic computer implementation. That analysis is legally insufficient because it does not address what the claims actually require as a whole.
The rejection overgeneralizes the claims. However, the eligibility analysis must be based on the claims as a whole, not on a simplified abstraction that omits material claim limitations. Here, the Examiner reduces claim 1 to "initiating a transaction based on the results of previous transactions." Action p. 7. That formulation omits the distributed database, the plurality of remote nodes, the parallel computational framework, the receipt of the distributed database through the communication network, the recording of second-transaction results in that database, and the distribution of those results to at least one remote node.
Those limitations are not incidental context because the results of the second transaction are not merely observed or used as a business condition; they are recorded in the distributed database and distributed via the communication network to at least one remote node of the parallel computational framework. They define the claimed operating environment and the data- flow architecture through which the claimed processing occurs. The claim requires transaction- result state to be maintained and propagated within a distributed database architecture, not merely evaluated as a mental or business rule. By omitting those limitations from the "directed to" characterization, the Examiner improperly broadens the claims beyond their actual language.
Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the rejection has not established that the claims are directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A.
Examiner Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The section 101 rejection did consider the combination of elements when determining under step 2a prong 2 that there was no integration into a practical application (see page 8 of the Non-Final rejection mailed on 4/30/26; “Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea”.
Therefore, the claims were evaluated as a whole (the way that the additional elements interact with the identified abstract idea) under step 2a prong 2.
Examiner disagrees that the claims are not reciting a judicial exception under step 2a prong 1.
Applicant is directed to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II (B):
Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings. [AltContent: rect]
Claim 1 of the instant invention recites “a plurality of past transactions between a plurality of nodes (a node under BRI is a computer) of a transaction network.. examine the results to confirm that the second transaction occurred.. record results of the second transaction… upon determining that the particular result of the transaction required, automatically initiate the third transaction).
Therefore the claims fall squarely into the abstract idea of a Commercial interaction (the identified abstract idea).
The argument pertaining to the additional elements, outside of the abstract idea (the database, computing device, parallel computational framework, nodes) is addressed below, see the Response to Applicant argues#4 below.
The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues#4
Even assuming, solely for purposes of response, that claim 1 includes transaction-related logic, the claim integrates that logic into a practical application. The claim does not simply say to perform a transaction rule on a computer. It requires: a database distributed across a plurality of remote nodes of a parallel computational framework; receipt of that distributed database by the computing device via a communication-network connection; recording of second-transaction results in the database; distribution of the second-transaction results, using the communication- network connection, to at least one remote node of the parallel computational framework; and automatic initiation of a third transaction upon determining that a particular result of the second transaction occurred.
This ordered combination imposes meaningful technological limits on any alleged transaction-related idea. The claimed processing is tied to a specific distributed data architecture and to specific inter-node data-flow operations. The transaction-result data is not merely displayed, stored generically, or used as post-solution activity. It is recorded in the distributed database and distributed to remote nodes of the parallel computational framework as part of the mechanism by which the claimed system operates.
Under MPEP § 2106.04(d), an alleged judicial exception is integrated into a practical application when the claim applies the exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the exception. MPEP § 2106.05 further recognizes that technological implementation, use of a particular machine integral to the claim, and limitations that are not merely insignificant extra- solution activity may support eligibility. Here, the distributed database and remote-node operations are integral to the claim. They are not recited as generic instructions to "apply it" on a computer.
The Examiner does not explain why the recited distributed database, remote-node framework, and network-based distribution of transaction-result data are insignificant, nominal, or merely conventional computer use. The Examiner does not explain why the recited recording of second-transaction results in the distributed database and distribution of those results to a remote node of the parallel computational framework are merely insignificant extra-solution activity or nominal computer use. Nor does the Examiner analyze the practical effect of the ordered combination. The rejection therefore does not satisfy the required Step 2A Prong 2 analysis.
The Examiner states that the additional elements amount to a computing device, memory, network connection, database, and instructions used in their ordinary capacities. Action p. 8. But that description again separates the claim into isolated components and ignores the claimed relationship among those components.
The claim is not directed to the mere presence of a computer, memory, network, and database. It is directed to a system in which a database has been distributed across remote nodes of a parallel computational framework, is received via a communication network, is updated with second-transaction results, and is used in connection with distribution of those results to remote nodes and conditional initiation of a subsequent transaction.
A conclusion that each component may be known or generic in isolation does not answer whether the ordered combination integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical application. The Examiner does not provide that analysis. For that reason, the rejection is incomplete and should be withdrawn.
Examiner Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant is pointed to MPEP 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field [R-07.2022]:
If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement.
During examination, the examiner should analyze the "improvements" consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement.
Paras 36, 42, 43 of the instant specification are reproduced below:
[0036] Systems and methods for determining the connectivity between nodes in a network community are provided. As defined herein, a "node" may include any user terminal, network device, computer, mobile device, access point, robot, or any other electronic device capable of being uniquely identified within a network community. For example, nodes may include robots (or other machines) assigned unique serial numbers or network devices assigned unique network addresses. In some embodiments, a node may also represent an individual human being, entity (e.g., a legal entity, such as a public or private company, corporation, limited liability company (LLC), partnership, sole proprietorship, or charitable organization), concept (e.g., a social networking group), service, animal, city/town/village, parcel of land (which may be identified by land descriptions), or inanimate object (e.g., a car, aircraft, or tool). As also defined herein, a "network community" may include a collection of nodes and may represent any group of devices, individuals, or entities.
[0042] Application server 106 may be in communication with one or more of data store 110, key-value store 112, and parallel computational framework 114. Data store 110, which may include any relational database management system (RDBMS), file server, or storage system, may store information relating to one or more network communities. For example, one or more of data tables 500 (FIG. 5A) may be stored on data store 110. Data store 110 may store identity 20 information about users and entities in the network community, an identification of the nodes in the network community, user link and path weights, user configuration settings, system configuration settings, and/or any other suitable information. There may be one instance of data store 110 per network community, or data store 110 may store information relating to a plural number of network communities. For example, data store 110 may include one database per
25 network community, or one database may store information about all available network communities (e.g., information about one network community per database table). In some embodiments, the parallel computational framework 114 may include a distributed storage/computation network, described below in relation to FIG. 3
[0043] Parallel computational framework 114, which may include any parallel or distributed 30 computational framework or cluster, may be configured to divide computational jobs into smaller jobs to be performed simultaneously, in a distributed fashion, or both. For example, parallel computational framework 114 may support data-intensive distributed applications by implementing a map/reduce computational paradigm where the applications may be divided into a plurality of small fragments of work, each of which may be executed or re-executed on any core processor in a cluster of cores. A suitable example of parallel computational framework 114 includes an Apache Hadoop cluster.
It can be seen from the instant specification that there is no technical explanation of an asserted improvement (it appears that applicant is arguing that distributed database and remote-node operations are part of an “particular machine”) and are integral to the claim.
The cited portions of the spec disclose that the computing device, database, nodes (under BRI a node is a independent computer or a processor) are operating in their ordinary capacity and recited at a high level of generality and are being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea.
Examiner further submits that the additional element of the “parallel computational framework”, is a commonly understood computer network that links multiple processors or computers together via communication networks to execute large computational tasks simultaneously.
Applicant’s claims do not improve technology; the underlying technology remains unaffected by the claims. Applicant is addressing a business problem (steps for initiating a transaction based on results of previous transactions) with a business solution. Applicant is merely using existing technology (for its intended purpose) to implement the business solution. Any improvements lie in the abstract idea itself, not in underlying technology
Therefore, there are no additional elements in the claims that are indicative of integration into a practical application.
The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues#5
Even if the claims were deemed directed to an abstract idea, the Office Action still does not establish that the claims lack an inventive concept. Step 2B requires consideration of the additional elements individually and as an ordered combination.
The ordered combination here includes at least the distributed database across remote nodes of a parallel computational framework, receipt of the distributed database through a communication-network connection, recording of second-transaction results in the database, distribution of those results to at least one remote node of the parallel computational framework, and conditional automatic initiation of a third transaction based on a particular result of the second transaction.
The Examiner does not provide a supported factual basis for treating that ordered combination as well-understood, routine, and conventional. The Examiner instead relies on a generalized assertion that the additional elements are generic computer components. That is not enough. See Berkheimer V. HP Inc., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018); MPEP §2106.05(d)(f). Applicant does not contend that eligibility turns on novelty or nonobviousness. Rather, Applicant submits that the Examiner must provide an adequate factual basis before dismissing the claimed ordered combination as conventional. The Examiner has not done SO.
For the foregoing reasons, claims 1, 7, and 15 are eligible for patenting.
Claims 2-6, 8-14, and 16-20 depend directly or indirectly from independent claims 1, 7, and 15. The Office Action does not separately establish that the additional limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application or fail to add significantly more. Applicant respectfully submits that the dependent claims are patent eligible for at least the same reasons as the independent claims.
Examiner Response
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner is not required under current Examination policy to evaluate under Step 2B, whether additional elements constitute “well-understood, routine, and conventional activities,” [“WURC activities”] unless an additional element(s) were found to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, Prong 2. MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I). Here, the condition precedent was not met and the Non-Final Office Action determined the additional elements were no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea exception using a computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f).
The rejection is maintained.
Claim Interpretation
In determining patentability of an invention over the prior art, all claim limitations have been considered and interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. See MPEP § 2111.
Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant always has the opportunity to amend the claims during prosecution, and broad interpretation by the examiner reduces the possibility that the claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re Pruter, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541,550- 51 (CCPA 1969). See MPEP § 2111.
All claim limitations have been considered. Additionally, all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claims against the prior art. The following language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2103 I C and MPEP 2111.04. Claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as "if, may, might, can, could', are considered as optional language. As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted.
Specifically claims 1,7 recite the word “may” with regards to, “such that the at least one of the plurality of remote nodes may store the results of the second transaction in a second memory” in the claims.
Examiner notes that claims 1,7 encompass optional elements and therefore do not limit the claims, since they can always be omitted.
Regarding claim 15:
Applicant is referred to MPEP section below:
MPEP 2111.05 states:
. "ADAPTED TO," "ADAPTED FOR," "WHEREIN," and "WHEREBY"
Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure. However, examples of claim language, although not exhaustive, that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim are:
(A) "adapted to" or "adapted for" clauses;
(B) "wherein" clauses; and
(C) "whereby" clauses.
The determination of whether each of these clauses is a limitation in a claim depends on the specific facts of the case. See, e.g., Griffin v. Bertina, 285 F.3d 1029, 1034, 62 USPQ2d 1431 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that a "wherein" clause limited a process claim where the clause gave "meaning and purpose to the manipulative steps"). In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the court found that an "adapted to" clause limited a machine claim where "the written description makes clear that 'adapted to,' as used in the [patent] application, has a narrower meaning, viz., that the claimed machine is designed or constructed to be used as a rowing machine whereby a pulling force is exerted on the handles." In Hoffer v. Microsoft Corp., 405 F.3d 1326, 1329, 74 USPQ2d 1481, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2005), the court held that when a "‘whereby’ clause states a condition that is material to patentability, it cannot be ignored in order to change the substance of the invention." Id. However, the court noted that a "‘whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited.’" Id. (quoting Minton v. Nat’l Ass’n of Securities Dealers, Inc., 336 F.3d 1373, 1381, 67 USPQ2d 1614, 1620 (Fed. Cir. 2003)).
Regarding claim 15, the limitation, “receiving, with a computing device that is logically connected to a communication network, a database that has been distributed across a plurality of remote nodes of a parallel computational framework for efficiency in processing and latency reduction” is an intended result.
Therefore this limitation is not being given patentable weight.
Claim Rejections- 35 U.S.C § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine,
manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement
thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements
of this title.
2. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is
directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 7, 15 are directed to a system and method, which are statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Representative claim 1 recites the limitations of:
A system comprising: a computing device having a memory and a logical connection to a communication network; the memory storing a database that has been distributed across a plurality of remote nodes of a parallel computational framework, wherein the database comprises:
a plurality of results of past transactions between a plurality of nodes of a transaction network, and computer readable instructions configured for automatic initiation of a third transaction based upon a particular result of a second transaction;
wherein the database was received by the computing device via the logical connection to the communication network; the memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed:
examine the results of a first transaction to confirm that the second transaction is permitted;
record, in the database, results of the second transaction;
distribute, using the logical connection to the communication network, the results of the second transaction to at least one of the plurality of remote nodes of the parallel computational framework, such that the at least one of the plurality of remote nodes may store the results of the second transaction in a second memory associated with the at least one of the plurality of remote nodes; and
upon determining that the particular result of the second transaction occurred, automatically initiate the third transaction.
These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of
the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity.
The claim recites elements that are in bold above, which covers performance of the
limitation as a commercial interaction, steps for initiating a transaction based on the results of previous transactions (e.g., a plurality of results of past transactions; automatic initiation of a third transaction based upon a particular result of a second transaction; examine the results of a first transaction to confirm that the second transaction is permitted; record, results of the second transaction; distribute, the results of the second transaction; store the results of the second transaction; upon determining that the particular result of the second transaction occurred, automatically initiate the third transaction)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of
the limitation as a Commercial Interaction, then it falls within the "Certain Methods of
Organizing Human Activity" grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 7, 15 are abstract for similar reasons.
(Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that
are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words
"apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement
an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an
abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra solution activity to the
judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial
exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
Claims 1, 7,15 includes the following additional elements:
- A computing device having a memory and logical connection to a communication network
- A memory storing a database that is distributed across a plurality of remote nodes of a parallel computational framework
-Computer readable instructions executed by the memory
The computing device having a memory and logical connection to a communication network, memory storing a database that is distributed across a plurality of remote nodes of a parallel computational framework and computer readable instructions executed by the memory are recited at a high level of generality and are being used in their ordinary capacity and are being used as a tool for implementing the steps of the identified abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), where applying a computer or using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea is not indicative of a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered
combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they
do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea
Therefore claims 1, 7, 15 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical
application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not
integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and
as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an
"inventive concept") to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of
the abstract idea into a practical application, there are no additional elements recited
in the claim beyond the judicial exception.
Mere instructions to implement an abstract idea, on or with the use of generic computer
components, or even without any computer components, cannot provide an inventive
concept - rendering the claim patent ineligible. Thus claims 1,7,15 are not patent
eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-14, 16-20 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1,7, 15 and thus correspond to Certain Methods
of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above.
Claims 3, 8 further defines the identified abstract idea as recited in corresponding claims 1,7. The additional element of a network connectivity value for one of the plurality of nodes, is recited a high level of generality, operating in its ordinary capacity, and are being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Claim 4,11,18 further defines the identified abstract idea recited in corresponding claims 1, 7,15.
The additional elements of a virtual element selected from a group consisting of points, markers, units, tokens, and cryptographic hash is recited a high level of generality, operating in its ordinary capacity, and are being used as a tool to implement the steps of the identified abstract idea.
Therefore, the dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate
the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered
combination. Therefore, the dependent claims (2-6, 8-14, 16-20) are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 1-20 are not patent-eligible.
CONCLUSION
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD Z SHAIKH whose telephone number is (571)270-3444. The examiner can normally be reached M-T, 9-600; Fri, 8-11, 3-5.
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, BENNETT SIGMOND can be reached at 303-297-4411. 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.
/MOHAMMAD Z SHAIKH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694 8/17/2026
Prosecution Insights