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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/03/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 7-11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, steps D and E are unclear and redundant. In step D, the last sentence “ to separate the connected portions into individual paper container blanks” and in step E, it appears to repeat “forming the individual paper container blanks” (it is unclear why the language “container” is deleted).
Claim 1, step D “performing a second cutting operation on the second machine by cutting the small-format paper roll in front and rear directions to separate the connected portion into individual paper container blanks” is unclear. First, it is unclear because the second machine cuts the continuous blank, not the small-format paper roll. Second, the front and rear directions are unclear what these directions refer to. Third, the connected portion lacks antecedent basis for the limitation in the claim. This recitation is indefinite because it is unclear whether the connected portion refers to.
Is Applicant trying to recite the step D --performing a second cutting operation on the second machine by cutting the continuous blank of the small-format paper roll in into individual paper container blanks such that a rear edge of a leading blank is at a front edge of a following adjacent blank or a following intermediate blank to reduce material waste--, right? See Applicant’s Figure 7, the cutting roll 22 is rotated to cut the continuous blank into individual paper container blanks 23
Claim 1, the last phrase “…small blanks such that a front edge of a blank is a rear edge of an adjacent blank to deduce material waste” is unclear whether the small blanks refer to the individual paper container blanks or additional small blanks.
For examination purposes, as best understood, Examiner is interpreting the “issues above” as below and all claims dependent from claim 1 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being dependent from the rejected parent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability should not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (KR920004500 B1 and Translation) in view of Nishimura (US 2014/0014761).
Regarding claim 1, Moon teaches a forming process (Figures 2-8) of a paper container blank (individual blanks, Figure 5), comprising steps:
A: putting a
B: performing, by a first machine (see a cutting roller in Figure 5) a first cutting operation by cutting left and right side edges of the rolled large-format paper along a conveying direction to form a longitudinal zigzag shape of a continuous blank remain connected at front and rear ends (see the longitudinal zigzag cutting edges in Figure 5 for cutting or slitting at least three zigzag blanks);
C: rolling the continuous blank into a small-format paper roll (see the small format paper being rolled in Figure 8) and transferring the small-format paper roll to a second machine (see cutting roll in Figure 8);
D: performing a second cutting operation on the second machine by cutting the continuous blank of the small-format paper roll into individual paper container blanks such that a rear edge of a leading blank is at a front edge of a following adjacent blank or a following intermediate blank to reduce material waste; and
E: “forming” the paper container blanks (see individual pieces or blanks in Figure 8).
Here is what Moon discusses to support the steps above:
Moon’s figure 5 having a long, large format paper is clearly zigzag slitted by zigzag edgers of the first cutting roller into at least three small-format paper or cardboard;
Figure 6 shows the small-format continuous paper blank after slitting by the first cutting roller;
Figure 7 shows a printer printing on container blanks of the small-format paper; and
Figure 8 shows the small-format continuous paper blank (be rolled) to be crossly cut by edges of the second cutting rollers into individual container blanks as discussed by Moon’s 2nd paragraph of page 7 states that “… as shown in Figure 5, as shown in Figure 6 by cutting an elongated disc as a roller-shaped cutaway with a plurality of saw-tooth cutting It is possible to effectively obtain a tape-shaped cardboard for making the same paper cup, which is printed on the tape-shaped cardboard by a rotary printing method as shown in FIG. As shown in FIG. 8, the upper and thin blades and the lower blade have the same shape as the cutting roller, and the unit boards are cut one by one.”
However, Moon fails to show the large-format paper being rolled on a feeding rack.
Nishimura shows a cutting process (Figure 2A) having a large-format sheet being rolled on a feeding rack (rack 40-42 and supply roll R, Figure 4A) and the sheet is slitted into small-format sheet being rolled to rolls (24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have had the large-format paper of Moon to be rolled on a feeding rack for slitting into small-format sheet being rolled to rolls, as taught by Nishimura, in order to allow a continuous large-format carboard (blank) in a roll for easily handling and transporting the small-format sheet by wounding the sheet into small rolls.
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Moon shows a manufacturing device (see the modification device in claim 1 above) of a paper container blank for implementing the forming process of the paper container blank according to claim 1, the first cutting machine comprising:
the feeding rack (42, Nishimura’s Figure 7), and
the first cutting tool (Moon’s Figure 5 and Nishimura’s Figure 2A) for cutting the large-format paper roll into a small-unit paper roll in the conveying direction (see the modification above), wherein a small-unit paper roll receiving rack (Nishimura’s Figure 4A, 4B and Paras. 48-49) is arranged at a rear end of the first cutting tool (see Nishimura’s Figure 4A, 4B).
Regarding claim 9, the modified device of Moon shows that at least two rolling shafts are arranged on the small-unit paper roll receiving rack and distributed up and down (see Nishimura’s Figure 4A, 4B), and adjacent units of the small-unit paper roll after being cut are collected on the at least two rolling shafts respectively (as it is written, it is unclear what the units are; see Nishimura’s Figure 4A, 4B, there are many units are adjacent, for examples, motors 22).
Claims 8, 10-11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moon (KR920004500 B1 and Translation) in view of Nishimura (US 2014/0014761) and Endo (US 2013/0192439).
Regarding claim 8, the modified device of Moon teaches all of the limitations as stated above including the small-unit paper roll feeding rack (see the discussion in claim 9 above), the second cutting tool for cutting the small unit paper roll in the front and rear directions (see the discussion in claim 9 above and Moon’s Figure 8), however, Moon fails to discuss a blank collection bin.
Endo shows a collection bin (dust box 4, Figure 1) opening for collecting waste (Paras. 55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have had a dust box, as taught by Endo to the device of Moon, in order to collect waste (waste material or dust) and the waste can be easily dumped (Para. 55 of Endo).
With regards to “the second cutting machine comprising a small-unit paper roll feeding rack”, Examiner notes that in Moon’s Figure 8 shows a pool or roll of a continuous blank without any rack for supporting the pool or roll.
A roll on a rack in a cutting machine is well known in the art; Examiner takes Official Notice that it has long been known to have the rack supporting a sheet roll in the cutting machine. Examples can be provided if challenged, as they are numerous. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) to have the rack supporting a sheet roll in the cutting machine, in order to support the roll and easily unwound the sheet from the roll.
Regarding claims 10-11, the modified device of Moon shows that the blank collection bin (box) is a blank paper feeding bin of a paper cup machine or a blank paper feeding bin of a paper bow machine (box 4, Endo’s Figure 1) and the mechanism for cutting the small-unit paper roll in the front and rear directions further comprises a small-area waste removal device (Para. 55 of Endo).
Regarding claim 13, the modified device of Moon shows that the small-area waste removal device is a die preset with a same size as a waste edge (see the discussion above for Moon’s edges removal, Moon’s Figure 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 07/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive of the reason below:
In the 2nd last paragraph of the remarks, Applicant states that “Moon does not teach that the first cutting operation forms a continuous blank in which the continuous blanks remain connected at front and rear ends”, this argument is not persuasive. Seeing Moon’s Figure 5 shows a cutting roller having 3 cutters (no cross cutter). Figure 8 clearly shows a zigzag paper continuous blank and rolled into a roll which must be cut by a first cutting machine and Figure 8 also shows the continuous blank having front and rear ends of individual blanks connected and a cross cutter of an upper roller for cutting into the individual blanks as discussed in the Moon’s translation, page 7, the 2nd paragraph “As shown in FIG. 8, the upper and thin blades and the lower blade have the same shape as the cutting roller, and the unit boards are cut one by one”.
Applicant also states that “Moon also fails …”rolling the continuous blank into a small-format paper roll and transferring the small-format paper roll to a second machine, it appear applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references (see the rejection above, Moon shows all of the limitations as stated above except that a large format paper in a roller cutting into continuous blanks and rolled into three rolls as seen in Nishimura’s Figure 4A, where the individual roll is transferred to the second machine of Moon, Figure 8, for cutting individual small blanks). See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant states that “claim 1 requires a specific two-machine, two-stage forming process in which a first machine performs a first cutting operation along a conveying direction to form a continuous blank having at least one zigzag side while the continuous blank remains connected at front and rear ends; the continuous blank is then rolled into a small-format paper roll and transferred to a second machine; and the second machine performs a second cutting operation in front and rear directions to separate the connected portions into individual paper container blanks”, this argument is acknowledged but it is persuasive because the modified method Moon in view of Nishimura teaches it.
Applicant again argues that “Moon, as relied upon by the Office Action, allegedly teaches a first cutting operation using a saw-tooth cutting roller and a second cutting operation using a later cross-cutting arrangement. However, Moon does not teach that the first cutting operation forms a continuous blank in which the continuous blank remains connected at front and rear ends. The claimed connected front and rear ends are not incidental; they define the intermediate workpiece produced after the first cutting operation and before the second cutting operation. The second cutting operation then separates those connected portions into individual paper container blanks. A general saw-tooth or zigzag slitting operation does not teach this claimed intermediate continuous blank structure, nor does it teach that the second cutting operation separates portions that were specifically left connected at front and rear ends after the first cutting operation”, this argument is not persuasive. Moon shows two different cutting devices (one is for slitting the large sheet into small sheets or small-format continuous blanks, as seen in figure 5), which are rolled and transferred to the 2nd cutting device (cross-cut, as seen in Figure 8).
Also, Nishimura shows a cutter for slitting a large sheet into small sheets or small-format continuous blanks, as seen in figure 4) which are rolled.
Therefore, it is unclear what Applicant argues about.
With regards to “MPEP 2141.02 and 2143.03”, Examiner is well understood obviousness requirements and considerations. With regards to “the proposed combination of Moon and Nishmura is improper because it is based in hindsight and lacks a sufficient technical rationale grounded in the reference themselves” this argument appears there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, a splitter (cutters) and rolling features in the splitting machine of Nishmura for rolling a large format sheet of Moon to be cut or split into individual continuous small-format blanks which are rolled into small rolls for easy handling. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill would find it obvious to use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way, since they are known for the same purpose, as per MPEP 2143, and the KSR decision, exemplary rationale C.
Applicant states that “the proposed combination of Moon and Endo…”. Examiner agrees that Endo does not have some features of claim 1, however, Applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references (see the modification above, a combination of Moon, Nishimura and Endo teaches the claimed collection bin. See the rejections above). See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Please note that every cutting device generates cutting dust, debris, or waste; instead of letting the dust, waste or debris fly anywhere, Endo suggests having a collection box for collecting dust, waste or debris. It is obviously an improvement.
With regards to “Combination must Not destroy functionality of original art”, this argument is unclear how Moon in view of Nishimura destroys the Moon’s art. See the rejection above.
Moon’s figure 5 having a long, large format paper is clearly zigzag slitted by zigzag edgers of the first cutting roller into at least three small-format paper or cardboard.
Figure 6 shows the small-format continuous paper blank after slitting by the first cutting roller.
Figure 7 shows a printer printing on container blanks of the small-format paper; and
Figure 8 shows the small-format continuous paper blank (be rolled) to be crossly cut by edges of the second cutting rollers into individual container blanks as discussed by Moon’s 2nd paragraph of page 7 states that “… as shown in Figure 5, as shown in Figure 6 by cutting an elongated disc as a roller-shaped cutaway with a plurality of saw-tooth cutting It is possible to effectively obtain a tape-shaped cardboard for making the same paper cup, which is printed on the tape-shaped cardboard by a rotary printing method as shown in FIG. As shown in FIG. 8, the upper and thin blades and the lower blade have the same shape as the cutting roller, and the unit boards are cut one by one.”
However, Moon fails to show the large-format paper being rolled on a feeding rack.
Nishimura shows a cutting process (Figure 2A) having a large-format sheet being rolled on a feeding rack (rack 40-42 and supply roll R, Figure 4A) and the sheet is slitted into small-format sheet being rolled to rolls (24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have had the large-format paper of Moon to be rolled on a feeding rack for slitting into small-format sheet being rolled to rolls, as taught by Nishimura, in order to allow a continuous large-format carboard (blank) in a roll for easily handling and transporting the small-format sheet by wounding the sheet into small rolls. Doing so, this is an improvement, and it is NOT destroying functionality of original art.
Also, it is unclear how Applicant concludes that Moon and Endo would destroy the intentionality of Moon or an unsatisfactory modification by adding dust box 4 of Endo.
Applicant states that “Incorporating Endo's collection box into Moon's device would alter the spatial arrangement and operation of Moon's material path by introducing an additional structure that interferes with the movement and handling of the paper material, particularly in a process where material continuity and alignment are critical” that is unclear how adding the dust box below the splitters (Endo’s Figure 1) interferes with the movement and handling of the paper material. This argument is not persuasive.
With regards to “there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification over Moon, Nishimura, and Endo per In re Gordon.” This is not persuasive because adding the dust box is an improvement and obvious.
With regards to “Combination Must Not Change the Principle of Operation or Require Substantial Reconstruction” and Applicant recites MPEP 2143.01(VI). Examiner is well understood MPEP 2143.01(VI) and 2143.01.
Applicant states that “The proposed combination of Moon and Nishimura would change the principle of operation of Moon and would require substantial reconstruction and therefore is improper…. Incorporating Nishimura's roll-based handling into Moon would fundamentally alter how the material is processed between cutting stages, replacing Moon's continuous, process- driven material flow with an intermediate roll-handling paradigm that requires re-feeding, …”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument above because Applicant has not provided any detail on why rolled the large format sheet of Moon into a roll and rolled the small-format sheet of Moon into rolls as suggested by Nishimura would change the principle of operation of Moon and would require substantial reconstruction.
Examiner carefully review Moon’s art; see Page 7, Para. 2 “Paper cup manufacturing cardboard produced by the method of the present invention, as shown in Figure 5, as shown in Figure 6 by cutting an elongated disc as a roller-shaped cutaway with a plurality of saw-tooth cutting It is possible to effectively obtain a tape-shaped cardboard for making the same paper cup, which is printed on the tape-shaped cardboard by a rotary printing method as shown in FIG. As shown in FIG. 8, the upper and thin blades and the lower blade have the same shape as the cutting roller, and the unit boards are cut one by one”.
See Moon’s figure 5 having a long large format paper is clearly zigzag slitted by zigzag edgers of the first cutting roller into at least three small-format paper or cardboard; Figure 6 shows the small-format continuous paper blank after slitting by the first cutting roller; Figure 7 shows a printer printing on container blanks of the small-format paper; and Figure 8 shows the small-format continuous paper blank (be rolled) to be crossly cut by edges of the second cutting rollers into individual container blanks.
There is no evidence that the large-format sheet can NOT be rolled or the small-format sheet can NOT be rolled or the process in which material sheet is processed through sequential cutting stages while maintaining a specific relationship of the material as it advances through the system or there is no discussion that Moon is a continuous, process- driven material flow with an intermediate roll-handling paradigm that requires re-feeding, realignment, and re-registration of the material. Therefore, the argument is invalid.
Again, Applicant states that “the proposed combination of Moon and Endo would change the principle of operation of Moon and would require substantial reconstruction, and therefore is improper”, this argument is not persuasive because adding a dust bin or box of Endo to below and on a side of Moon’s device that does not interfere the cutting process of Moon (see the discussion above), thus, the combination of Moon and Endo would Not change the principle of operation of Moon and would not require substantial reconstruction, and therefore is proper.
With regards to “Hindsight… The Examiner's proposed combination of Moon, Nishimura, and Endo is based on impermissible hindsight reconstruction, as it relies on Applicant's disclosure as a blueprint to selectively extract and combine disparate features from unrelated references without any teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art itself”.
Examiner disagrees and notes, in response to the argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In this case, Moon’s figure 5 having a long large format paper is clearly zigzag slitted by zigzag edgers of the first cutting roller into at least three small-format paper or cardboard; Figure 6 shows the small-format continuous paper blank after slitting by the first cutting roller; Figure 7 shows a printer printing on container blanks of the small-format paper; and Figure 8 shows the small-format continuous paper blank (be rolled) to be crossly cut by edges of the second cutting rollers into individual container blanks as discussed by Moon’s 2nd paragraph of page 7 states that “… as shown in Figure 5, as shown in Figure 6 by cutting an elongated disc as a roller-shaped cutaway with a plurality of saw-tooth cutting It is possible to effectively obtain a tape-shaped cardboard for making the same paper cup, which is printed on the tape-shaped cardboard by a rotary printing method as shown in FIG. As shown in FIG. 8, the upper and thin blades and the lower blade have the same shape as the cutting roller, and the unit boards are cut one by one.”
However, Moon fails to show the large-format paper being rolled on a feeding rack.
Nishimura shows a cutting process (Figure 2A) having a large-format sheet being rolled on a feeding rack (rack 40-42 and supply roll R, Figure 4A) and the sheet is slitted into small-format sheet being rolled to rolls (24).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have had the large-format paper of Moon to be rolled on a feeding rack for slitting into small-format sheet being rolled to rolls, as taught by Nishimura, in order to allow a continuous large-format carboard (blank) in a roll for easily handling and transporting the small-format sheet by wounding the sheet into rolls. Doing so, this is an improvement.
With regards to “Inventor Identified a Problem Others Did not…None of these references recognized the underlying problem… and thereby reduce material waste”. Examiner disagrees with this argument. Moon has recognized the waste problem and Moon’s manufacturing can be greatly REDUCE the amount of waste discarded when the cardboard is cut from the original paper (see the Translation, the last page, the 3rd paragraph).
With regards to “a continues blanks having at least one zigzag…”, see the discussion in claim 1 above.
With regards to “the arrangement of the second cutting mechanism downstream…”, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the second cutting mechanism downstream…) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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).
Please note that the modification above would have involved only routine skill in the art to accommodate the aforementioned requirements and one of ordinary skill in the art would be a person of ordinary creativity (not an automation) or a mechanical engineer with at least a 4-year degree and several years of work experience (See MPEP. 2141.03 “Level of Ordinary Skill in the art”), and would clearly understand how to improve Moon’s device and how to modify Moon’s device based on the strongly suggestion of Nishimura and or Endo that can be improved the Moon’s device; therefore, based on the Moon’s device, modifying to add feed racks for rolling sheet into rolls and add a dust box or bin to Moon’s device are simple and easily modification without affecting any Moon’s device performance and would be benefit for users for improving process during operation. The results are highly predictable and reasonable expectation of success.
However, if Applicant still believes that the claimed invention’s apparatus/method different from the prior art’s apparatus/method or needs to discuss the rejections above or suggestion amendments that can be overcome the current rejections, Applicant should feel free to call the Examiner to schedule an interview.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NHAT CHIEU Q DO whose telephone number is (571)270-1522. The examiner can normally be reached 8AM-5PM 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, Boyer Ashley can be reached at (571) 272-4502. 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.
/NHAT CHIEU Q DO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724 8/24/2026
Prosecution Insights