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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on February 23, 2026 has been entered.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim of priority from National Stage Application No. PCT/JP2020/046960, filed December 16, 2020 and Foreign Application No. JP2020-039151, filed March 6, 2020.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-12, 16-18, and 21-25 are pending. Claims 2, 5-6, 13-15 and 19-20 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see p. 12-15, filed February 23, 2026, with respect to the 35 USC 103 rejections have been fully considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection presented in the sections below. Applicant argues that none of the previously cited prior art references teach the newly added limitations. However, as described in the 35 USC 103 rejections below, the newly presented Berajawala reference teaches determining an affinity score (i.e., similarity) based on one or more contact points based on matched questions and categories (i.e., frequency of occurrence of terms and frequency of returning answers to the same or similar questions) (see Berajawala, Para. [0068] and [0077]). Although Berajawala’s affinity score involves matching user questions to a documentation answering the questions, the affinity score could be used in a system comparing questions between two users as taught by Eubanks. Therefore, the 35 USC 103 rejection of the claims is upheld.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-12, 16-18 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a system, method, and non-transitory storage medium for matching questions and answers provided by users. Consider method claim 17:
Step 1:
With regard to Step 1, the instant claim is directed to a method or a process; and therefore, the claim is directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One:
With regard to 2A, Prong One, the limitations “presenting one or more questions included in a question set including a plurality of questions to a user and acquiring one or more answers to the presented questions from the user, the question set having a hierarchical structure”, “executing first matching processing based on one or more questions answered by the user”, “executing second matching processing based on content of one or more answers included in the one or more answers from the user when a result of the first matching processing satisfies a first determination condition”, “wherein the executing the first matching processing comprises performing logical inferencing, using the hierarchical structure, to determine one or more categories of the one or more questions answered by the user and one or more categories of one or more questions answered by the another user”, “determine a similarity between the one or more questions answered by the user and the one or more questions answered by the another user based on one or more contact points, the one or more contact points including a number of matched questions between the one or more questions answered by the user and the one or more questions answered by the another user, and a number of matched categories between the one or more categories of the one or more questions answered by the user and the one or more categories of the one or more questions answered by the another user” and “the second matching processing is configured to evaluate a similarity between the content of one or more answers from the user and the content of one or more answers from the another user, with regard to one or more questions answered by both the user and the another user in the first matching processing” as drafted, recite an abstract idea, such as a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of limitations manually and in the mind of a person. That is, a user or person skilled in the art could present a list of questions to a user, receive an answer if the user chooses to answer, evaluate similarity between the questions answered between two users, evaluate similarity between the answers given by the two users, assign weights to questions and answers, and calculate a match rate based on the number of matched questions and the total number of questions. This is the concept that falls under the grouping of abstract ideas mental processes, i.e., a concept performed in the human mind, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion of the user.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The 2019 PEG defines the phrase “integration into a practical application” to require an additional step or a combination of additional steps in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception. In the instant case, with respect to the system and non-transitory storage medium claims of claims 1 and 18 the mere recitation of a generic module or storage to perform/store programming instructions or data of the recited/identified abstract idea does not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the above-mentioned additional elements/limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; and therefore, the independent claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
Because the claims fail under Step 2A, the claims are further evaluated under Step 2B. The claims herein do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements/limitations to perform the recited steps, amount to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, independent claims 1, 17, and 18 are not patent eligible. In addition, claims 3-4, 7-12, 16 and 21-25 of the instant application provide limitations that both individually or in combination do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application or provide significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
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.
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 as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) 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 as of the effective filing date of the later invention 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, 11 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeremiah Eubanks (US 2015/0293988 A1) in view of Berajawala et al. (US 2016/0098737 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Eubanks teaches a matching system comprising:
a storage that stores a question set including a plurality of questions, the question set having a hierarchical structure (Eubanks, Para. [0036], lines 6-7, a question and answer database comprising the user question, topic specification, and user responses. Para. [0042], the topics database includes words as topics that are a limited, defined list of words, which are hierarchically organized to create a taxonomy for questions);
and a memory storing one or more programs (Eubanks, Para. [0029], database storage of system information); and
at least one processor configured to access the memory and execute the one or more programs to cause the at least one processor to implement at least (Eubanks, Para. [0032], the processor executes a compatibility-matching algorithm):
an acquisition module configured to present a subset of questions included in the question set to a user, the subset including one or more questions, and to acquire one or more answers to the presented questions from the user (Eubanks, Para. [0067], the system presents a list of pertinent questions discovered in the question and response database. The user can then select a question of interest from the list and agree or disagree with an existing response, or elect to enter a response);
a first matching processing module configured to execute first matching processing based on only one or more questions answered by the user (Eubanks, Para. [0130], the system sees user A responded to question #1 and determines if user B also responded to question #1); and
a second matching processing module configured to execute second matching processing based on content of one or more answers included in the one or more answers from the user when a result of the first matching processing satisfies a first determination condition (Eubanks, Para. [0130], the system attempts to match short responses to the question and plus one the agree/disagree calculation),
wherein the first matching processing is configured to perform logical inferencing, using the hierarchical structure, to determine one or more categories of the one or more questions answered by the user and one or more categories of one or more questions answered by another user (Eubanks, Para. [0120], when a user inputs a question, all of the words used are compared to the thesaurus and the list of topics to find the closest matching topic (i.e., to determine one or more categories of the question)).
the second matching processing is configured to evaluate a similarity between the content of one or more answers from the user and the content of one or more answers from the another user, with regard to one or more questions answered by both the user and the another user in the first matching processing (Eubanks, Para. [0127], determining the agreement/disagreement on a topic if user B answers the same question. Para. [0129], if two questions are evaluated as similar, if the short response to each were “Yes”, this could be evaluated as one agree).
Although Eubanks teaches calculating a compatibility factor between two users (Eubanks, Para. [0130]), Eubanks does not explicitly teach “determine a similarity between the one or more questions answered by the user and the one or more questions answered by the another user based on one or more contact points, the one or more contact points including a number of matched questions between the one or more questions answered by the user and the one or more questions answered by the another user, and a number of matched categories between the one or more categories of the one or more questions answered by the user and the one or more categories of the one or more questions answered by the another user”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Berajawala teaches if a large number of questions have the term “soccer” in them and the document has the term “soccer’ in it frequently, then questions about soccer will have a higher affinity score with this document (Berajawala, Para. [0068]). The factors already discussed above, e.g., topic cluster affinity, term co-reference scoring, cosine similarity, frequency of occurrence of terms in the question in the evidence passage(s) (i.e., a number of matched categories), frequency of returning candidate answers to the same or similar question from the same evidence passage(s) (i.e., a number of matched questions), and the like, may all be considered and included in the calculation of the affinity score (Berajawala, Para. [0077]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Eubanks with the teachings of Berajawala by including determining an affinity score (i.e., similarity) based on one or more contact points based on matched questions and categories (i.e., frequency of occurrence of terms and frequency of returning answers to the same or similar questions). Although Berajawala’s affinity score involves matching user questions to a documentation answering the questions, the affinity score could be used in a system comparing questions between two users as taught by Eubanks. One having ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for performing question analysis using an automated mechanism, as recognized by Berajawala. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 3, Eubanks in view of Berajawala teaches the matching system according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first matching processing module is configured to extract the another user in which the result of the first matching processing satisfies the first determination condition from among a plurality of users (Eubanks, Para. [0092], the requesting user may specify filters to limit the types of matching users that may be discovered, such as users who are geographically close, who share specific interests, or that shar specific opinions. Para. [0130], Eubanks teaches the compatibility factor calculation process is calculated in reference to the requesting user, if user A requested to be matched, the system would see user A responded to question #1. If user B also responded to question #1, a value of plus one is calculated toward the agree/disagree values for the topic of the question).
Regarding claim 4, Eubanks in view of Berajawala teaches the matching system according to claim 3, and further teaches wherein the second matching processing module is configured to calculate a matching score for the extracted user by the first matching processing (Eubanks, Para. [0107]; Equation 2, compatibility calculations are made using a comparison of facts, interests, and opinions shared between the requestion user and another candidate user).
Regarding claim 7, Eubanks in view of Berajawala the matching system according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the second matching processing module is configured to perform logical inference from a question from which an answer is acquired, based on the hierarchical structure of the question set (Eubanks, Para. [0130], if user B did not respond to question #1, the system attempts to find a similar question based on the topic and words in the question. When question #2 is found to be similar, then the system attempts to match short responses and plus one the agree/disagree calculation. Para. [0128]-[0129], user B does not answer the same question but a similar one, and the two questions are considered similar by the system because they both contain a negative connotative word prior to a word synonymous with “North Korea”. Since the two questions are evaluated as similar, if the short response to each were “Yes”, this could be evaluated as one agree).
Regarding claim 8, Eubanks in view of Berajawala teaches the matching system according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to access the memory and execute the one or more programs to cause the at least one processor to implement an update module configured to receive the question produced by the user and to update the question set with the added question (Eubanks, Para. [0062], lines 2-3, a user of the system enters the text of a question),
wherein the added question included in the question set is categorized by a category (Eubanks, Para. [0065], the system beings the topic determination process by parsing the user’s question into individual words, the system searches the topics database for matching topics, and selects a most probable topic from the topics list. The question, the user specified criteria, and the topic are stored in the question and response database).
Regarding claim 9, Eubanks in view of Berajawala teaches the matching system according to claim 8, wherein the update module is configured to determine the category to which the added question belongs (Eubanks, Para. [0065], the system beings the topic determination process by parsing the user’s question into individual words, the system searches the topics database for matching topics, and selects a most probable topic from the topics list).
Regarding claim 11, Eubanks in view of Berajawala teaches the matching system according to claim 8, and further teaches wherein the acquisition module is configured to distribute the question set only to the user in which the category of the question matches a range of interest previously registered by the user or an estimated range of interest (Eubanks, Para. [0067], the user inputting a keyword, such as “golf” and the system searches the question and response database using “golf” as the keyword, and presents a list of the most pertinent questions discovered to the user).
Regarding claim 16, Eubanks in view of Berajawala teaches the matching system according to claim 1, and further teaches the system comprising a notification module configured to notify another user in which the result of the second matching processing satisfies a second determination condition as a matching result (Eubanks, Para. [0091], lines 17-24, the system displays the results of the compatibility process to the requesting user. The user has the option to select one of the matched users for an introduction and meeting, where the system sends a message to the selected matching user).
Claim 17 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in Claim 1. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Eubanks and Berajawala references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim.
Claim 18 recites a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program with instructions corresponding to the steps recited in Claim 17. Therefore, the recited programming instructions of this claim is mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding steps in its corresponding method claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Eubanks and Berajawala references, presented in rejection of Claim 1, apply to this claim. Finally, the combination of the Eubanks and Berajawala references discloses a computer readable storage medium (Berajawala, Para. [0005], a computer useable or readable medium having a computer readable program is provided).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeremiah Eubanks (US 2015/0293988 A1) in view of Berajawala et al. (US 2016/0098737 A1), as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, 11 and 16-18 above, and further in view of William Overstreet (US 8060390 B1).
Regarding claim 10, Eubanks in view of Berajawala teaches the matching system according to claim 8, as described above.
Although Eubanks in view of Berajawala teaches determining the topic of a user’s question (Eubanks, Para. [0065]), they do not explicitly teach “wherein the update module is configured to execute at least one of processing for updating the question set by collecting the added question and a question similar to the added question and processing for updating the question set with a representative question corresponding to the added question based on the similarity between the added question and another question”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Overstreet teaches questions are placed in groups by comparing with other questions (Overstreet, Col. 4, line 55 - Col. 5, line 15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the matching system of Eubanks in view of Berajawala with the teachings of Overstreet by grouping the added question based on comparison with another question. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references, because doing so would allow for a computer assisted system and method for combining, analyzing, and presenting questions from a group of questions, as recognized by Overstreet. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeremiah Eubanks (US 2015/0293988 A1) in view of Berajawala et al. (US 2016/0098737 A1), as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, 11 and 16-18 above, and further in view of William Smith et al. (US 2015/0178742 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Eubanks in view of Berajawala teaches the matching system according to claim 11, as described above.
Although Eubanks in view of Berajawala teaches presenting questions to the user from a category of interest (Eubanks, Para. [0067]), they do not explicitly teach “wherein the at least one processor is configured to access the memory and execute to one or more programs to cause the at least one processor to implement a learned model configured to determine the user to which the question is distributed or to determine the question delivered to the user so as to maximize an answer rate from the user”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Smith teaches improving the answer rate by receiving responses related to the initial question set and order, identifying questions which customers are most likely to respond to, identifying an improvement target such as improving the answer rate, and altering the questions and/or order in which they are presented based on the improvement target (Smith, Para. [0134]-[0137]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the matching system of Eubanks in view of Berajawala with the teachings of Smith by including a learning system to improve the answer rate of a user by altering the questions and/or order in which they are presented. One having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for analytical depth in real-time on-location feedback systems, as recognized by Smith. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeremiah Eubanks (US 2015/0293988 A1) in view of Berajawala et al. (US 2016/0098737 A1), as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, 11 and 16-18 above, and further in view of Afshin Ganjoo (US 2018/0247214 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Eubanks in view of Berajawala teaches the matching system according to claim 1, and further teaches wherein:
the user only answers a first subset of questions of the question set that the user wants to answer, and the another user only answers a second subset of the questions of the question set that the another user wants to answer (Eubanks, Para. [0067], Eubanks teaches the system presents a list of pertinent questions discovered in the question and response database. The user may opt out of actually responding to a question or the user can then select a question of interest from the list and agree or disagree with an existing response, or elect to enter a response).
Although Eubanks in view of Berajawala teaches the system determining if user A and user B both responded to question #1 (Eubanks, Para. [0130]), they do not explicitly teach “the at least one processor is configured to access the memory and execute the one or more programs to cause the at least one processor to: determine a number of questions in the first subset that match with questions in the second subset and calculate a matching score by dividing the number of questions that are determined by a total number of questions in the first subset answered by the user”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Ganjoo teaches determining a similarity score by dividing a number of matching keywords among two entity profiles (i.e., number of questions in the first subset that match with questions in the second subset) by a total number of keywords identified for the subject entity profile (i.e., total number of questions in the first subset) (Ganjoo, Para. [0070])
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Eubanks in view of Berajawala with the teachings of Ganjoo by including determining a number of matching questions between the subsets and calculating a matching score by dividing the number of matching questions by the total number of questions in the first subset. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references, because doing so would for determining a profile similarity score between two user profiles, as recognized by Ganjoo. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Claim 22 recites a method with steps corresponding to the elements of the system recited in Claims 21. Therefore, the recited steps of this claim are mapped to the proposed combination in the same manner as the corresponding elements in its corresponding system claim. Additionally, the rationale and motivation to combine the Eubanks, Berajawala and Ganjoo references, presented in rejection of Claim 21, apply to this claim.
Claims 23 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeremiah Eubanks (US 2015/0293988 A1) in view of Berajawala et al. (US 2016/0098737 A1), as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, 11 and 16-18 above, and further in view of Shi et al. (US 2020/0311751, filed April 1, 2019).
Regarding claim 23, Eubanks in view of Berajawala teaches the matching system according to claim 1, as described above.
Although Eubanks in view of Berajawala teaches weighting answers based on whether they provide opinion, interest, or fact (Eubanks, Para. [0107]), they do not explicitly teach “wherein at least one of the first matching processing module and the second matching processing module is configured to give a weight related to matching processing to the question included in the question set”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Shi teaches the system may assign a lower weight to a subset of questions that have previously been asked to one or more consumers and for which answers have been obtained. The more times a subset of questions have been asked and answered, the lower the weight is assigned to the subset (Shi, Para. [0017]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the matching system of Eubanks in view of Berajawala with the teachings of Shi by including assigning weights to questions. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for the use of machine learning to dynamically probe for information in real-time during an electronic interaction, as recognized by Shi. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Regarding claim 25, Eubanks in view of Berajawala further in view of Shi teaches the matching system according to claim 23, wherein the weight related to the matching processing is determined depending on a time of a target question or a time of a target answer (Shi, Para. [0017], the system may assign a lower weight to the subset of questions that have previously been asked to one or more consumers and for which answers have been obtained. The more times a subset of questions have been asked and answered, the lower the weight is assigned to the subset).
The proposed combination as well as the motivation for combining the Eubanks, Berajawala and Shi references presented in the rejection of Claim 23, apply to Claim 25 and are incorporated herein by reference. Thus, the system recited in Claim 25 is met by Eubanks in view of Berajawala further in view of Shi.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jeremiah Eubanks (US 2015/0293988 A1) in view of Berajawala et al. (US 2016/0098737 A1), as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, 11 and 16-18 above, and further in view of Farrar et al. (US 2016/0110740 A1).
Regarding claim 24, Eubanks in view of Berajawala teaches the matching system according to claim 1, as described above.
Although Eubanks in view of Berajawala teaches weighting answers based on whether they provide opinion, interest, or fact (Eubanks, Para. [0107]), they do not explicitly teach “wherein at least one of the first matching processing module and the second matching processing module is configured to give a weight related to matching processing to the answer acquired from the user”. However, in an analogous field of endeavor, Farrar teaches the server may weight the aggregated selected answer data based on its age, giving a higher weighting to more recent data (e.g., within the past 2 weeks) and a lower weighting to older data (e.g., more than 2 weeks old) (Farrar, Para. [0067]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Eubanks in view of Berajawala with the teachings of Farrar by including assigning a weight to one or more answers from the user according to a time of the answer (i.e., based on its age). One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine these references because doing so would allow for excluding or reducing reliance on older data, as recognized by Farrar. Thus, the claimed invention would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emma Rose Goebel whose telephone number is (703)756-5582. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30-5.
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, Amandeep Saini can be reached at (571) 272-3382. 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.
/Emma Rose Goebel/Examiner, Art Unit 2662
/AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662
Prosecution Insights