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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 18, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 10, 11, 18, and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
(i) With regard to claim 10 (line 18), the term "and side bias shields" should be changed to the term --and the side bias shields--.
(ii) With regard to claim 11 (lines 16-17), the term "a media facing surface" should be changed to the term --the media facing surface--.
(iii) With regard to claim 11 (line 20), the term "and side bias shields" should be changed to the term --and the side bias shields--.
(iv) With regard to claim 18 (line 15), the term "the DFL read head" should be changed to the term --the means for reading data----.
(v) With regard to claim 18 (line 19), the term "the DFL read head" should be changed to the term --the means for reading data----.
(vi) With regard to claim 18 (line 20), the term "the DFL read head" should be changed to the term --the means for reading data----.
(vii) With regard to claim 18 (line 22), the term "the DFL read head" should be changed to the term --the means for reading data----.
(viii) With regard to claim 18 (line 22), the term "and side bias shields" should be changed to the term --and the side bias shields--.
(ix) With regard to claim 23 (line 18), the term "and side bias shields" should be changed to the term --and the side bias shields--.
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 23-29 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.
The following phrase(s) lack clear antecedent basis within the claim(s), i.e., either the particularly recited passage fails to be properly introduced prior to its appearance at that point in the claim or the structure recited in the passage is not an inherent part of or component of the previously recited structure:
(i) Claim 23 (line 8), "the second insulating layer".
(ii) Claim 23 (line 9), "the . . . side bias shields".
(iii) Claim 23 (line 12), "the RB capping layer".
(iv) Additionally, since claims 24-29 depend directly from claim 23, they too are thus rejected under the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
Examiner Comments
The Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers, paragraphs, or figures in the reference(s) as applied to the claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant, in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
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 shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 10-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Keener et al. (US 9,076,468 B1) in view of Mao et al (US 11,087,785 B1) and Mao et al. (US 2024/0071413 A1).
Note: the following rejection of claim 23, is being made based upon the best interpretation of the claim, given the rejection of claim 23 under 35 SC 112 paragraph (b), supra.
As per claim 10, the product-by-process limitations of product claim 10, are disclosed by Keener et al. (US 9,076,468 B1) as follows:
Keener et al. (US 9,076,468 B1) discloses a dual free layer (DFL) read head (300a, "scissor type magnetoresistive sensor" e.g., see, inter alia, Fig. 3a, 4a, etc. - see col. 4, ll. 18-32), comprising: forming a DFL sensor (e.g., 312a, 304a, 308a, 306a), the DFL sensor (e.g., 312a, 304a, 308a, 306a) being disposed at a media facing surface (e.g., see, inter alia, col. 2, ll. 57-58); disposing a stitch layer (e.g., portion of layer (702) directly over capping layer (310a) - see Fig. 7; see, inter alia, col. 7, ll. 37-41) over the DFL sensor (e.g., 312a, 304a, 308a, 306a); forming a rear bias (RB) (e.g., including 506 - see Figs. 5, 7) adjacent to the DFL sensor (e.g., 312a, 304a, 308a, 306a), the RB (including 506) being recessed from the media facing surface (e.g., "ABS" -see Figs. 5, 7) wherein the RB (including 506) comprises a RB capping layer (e.g., portion of 702 directly over and contacting layer (506) - see Fig. 7) recessed from the media facing surface, and wherein a surface of the RB capping layer (e.g., portion 702 directly over and contacting layer (506) - see Fig. 7) is substantially planar to a surface of the stitch laver (e.g., portion of layer (702) directly over capping layer (310a) - see Fig. 7; see, inter alia, col. 7, ll. 37-41); portions (sidewalls) of the stitch layer, the DFL sensor, and the RB are defined by sides, providing a track width of each respective layer; an etch rate of the stitch layer (comprising a material of Ru and/or Ta and/or Ti, Rh) being equal to or greater than an etch rate of the RB (which comprises NiFe) - see, inter alia, col. 6, ll. 54-62. Note that claimed invention fails to specify what type of etching is performed (and thus the resultant "etch rate"), or even if the etching (and hence, the resulting "etch rate") are even performed using the same etching techniques for the RB and the stitch layer.
Thus, given that the claimed invention fails to specify such an "etch rate" with regard to the process of performing the etch, Keener et al. (US 9,076,468 B1) is seen to anticipate this limitation.
Additionally, Shao et al. (US 2013/0059444 A1) is cited to show (e.g., see Fig. 4) that the materials of the RB (e.g., NiFe) and the stitch layer (e.g., Ru and/or Ta, one of the layer (702)) has an inherent etch rate associated with such materials under differing etching processes, such that an etch rate of the stitch layer (comprising a material of Ru and/or Ta) being equal to or greater than an etch rate of the RB (which comprises NiFe) (depending upon the specific type of relative etching process (which is not specified by the claimed invention).
Additionally still, Keener et al. (US 9,076,468 B1) further discloses depositing an insulating layer (e.g. non-magnetic electrically insulating fill layer (e.g., 2602, undepicted designator (512); see, inter alia, col. 6, ll. 53-54; col. 12, ll. 39-49; Fig. 29) in contact with the RB (see Fig. 29), wherein the RB (506, which corresponds to designator (1604) in Fig. 29) is disposed between the insulating layer (1602) and the DFL sensor (which corresponds to designator (1204) in Fig. 29), and wherein the insulating layer (2602 - the non-magnetic electrically insulating fill layer) has a greater track width than the RB and the DFL sensor, since it is depicted and disposed such that it can fill the layer outside of the bias structure 506 and side shields 318a - see, inter alia, col. 6, ll. 53-54; col. 12, ll. 39-49; Fig. 29).
Thus, as per claim 10, Keener et al. (US 9,076,468 B1) is seen to meet the product-by-process features of claim 10, as noted supra.. Moreover, Keener et al. (US 9,076,468 B1) discloses a magnetic recording device comprising the DFL read head (see Fig. 1 showing a magnetic recording device).
The product by process limitations (of claim 10) are directed to the product per se, no matter how actually made, In re Hirao, 190 USPQ 15 at 17(footnote 3). See also In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685; In re Luck, 177 USPQ 523; In re Fessman, 180 USPQ 324; In re Avery, 186 USPQ 161; In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90 (209 USPQ 554 does not deal with this issue); In re Marosi et al, 218 USPQ 289; and particularly In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, all of which make it clear that it is the patentability of the final structure of the product "gleaned" from the process limitations or steps, which must be determined in a "product by process" claim limitation, and not the patentability of the process limitations. Moreover, an old or obvious product produced by a new method is not a patentable product, whether claimed in "product-by-process" claim limitation or not. Note that the applicant has the burden of proof in such cases, as the above case law makes clear.
The final product limitation derived from the claimed "process limitations" of claim 10 fails to result in a structural difference between the disclosure of Keener et al. (US 9,076,468 B1) and the claimed product, at least at it applies to the product limitation(s) "gleaned" from the process limitation(s). As such, Keener et al. (US 9,076,468 B1) is seen to meet the above noted limitations as it applies to the patentability of the final structure of product claim 10.
As per claim 11 (and analogously, as per claims 18 and 23 and 30), Keener et al. (US 9,076,468 B1) discloses a dual free layer (DFL) read head (300a, - "scissor type magnetoresistive sensor" e.g., see, inter alia, Fig. 3a, 4a, etc. - see col. 4, ll. 18-32), comprising: forming a DFL sensor (e.g., 312a, 304a, 308a, 306a), the DFL sensor (e.g., 312a, 304a, 308a, 306a) being disposed at a media facing surface (e.g., see, inter alia, col. 2, ll. 57-58), the DFL sensor comprising a first shield (e.g., 314), two free layers (e.g., 304a, 306a) disposed over the first shield (314), and a second shield (e.g., 316) disposed over the two free layers (e.g., 304a, 306a); a stitch layer (e.g., 702 as per above) disposed over the two free layers (304a, 306a) adjacent to the second shield (316) (Fig. 7), the stitch layer having an etch rate that is lower than that of other layers (e.g., such as the free layer(s) 304a, 306a made of, e.g., CoFe - see, inter alia, col. 4, ll. 33-43) in the DFL sensor (as per claim 30, as well); and a rear bias (RB) (e.g., 506 - see Fig. 5) adjacent to the DFL sensor, the RB being recessed from the media facing surface (ABS) - see Fig. 5.
As noted above, an etch rate of the stitch layer (comprising a material of Ru and/or Ta)
has an etch rate that is lower than that of other layers (e.g., such as the free layer(s) 304a, 306a made of, e.g., CoFe - see, inter alia, col. 4, ll. 33-43). Note that claimed invention fails to specify what type of etching is performed (and thus the resultant "etch rate"), or even if the etching (and hence, the resulting "etch rate") are even performed using the same etching techniques for the RB and the stitch layer.
Additionally, Shao et al. (US 2013/0059444 A1) is cited to show (e.g., see Fig. 4) that the materials of the RB (e.g., CoFe) and the stitch layer (e.g., Ru and/or Ta, one of the layers of layer (702)) has an inherent etch rate associated with such materials under differing etching processes, such that an etch rate of the stitch layer (comprising a material of Ru and/or Ta) has an etch rate that is lower than that of other layers (e.g., such as the free layer(s) 304a, 306a made of, e.g., CoFe - see, inter alia, col. 4, ll. 33-43), depending upon the etching process used for the materials. The claimed invention is indeed broad enough to encompass the etching process used in Fig. 4 of Shao et al. (US 2013/0059444 A1).
Note that Shao et al. (US 2013/0059444 A1) is merely cited to show the inherent material, etch rates of the materials disclosed by Keener et al. (US 9,076,468 B1).
Moreover, the RB capping layer (702 as per above) is disposed on the RB (506) adjacent to the second shield (316) recessed from the media facing surface, wherein a surface of the stitch layer (702 as per above) is disposed in contact with the second shield (316) is substantially planar with a surface of the RB capping layer (702 as per above) disposed in contact with the second shield (316 (see Fig. 7); an insulating layer (e.g. non-magnetic electrically insulating fill layer (e.g., 2602, undepicted designator (512); see, inter alia, col. 6, ll. 53-54; col. 12, ll. 39-49; Fig. 29) in contact with the RB (see Fig. 29), wherein the RB (506, which corresponds to designator (1604) in Fig. 29) is disposed between the insulating layer (1602) and the DFL sensor (which corresponds to designator (1204) in Fig. 29), and wherein the insulating layer (2602 - the non-magnetic electrically insulating fill layer) has a greater track width than the RB and the DFL sensor, since it is depicted and disposed such that it can fill the layer outside of the bias structure 506 and side shields 318a - see, inter alia, col. 6, ll. 53-54; col. 12, ll. 39-49; Fig. 29).
As per claim 12 (and analogously, as per claim 24), wherein the stitch layer (e.g., 702 as per above) comprises NiFe, Ta, Ru, W, or combinations thereof (e.g., see, inter alia, col. 7, ll. 39-41).
As per claim 13 (and analogously, as per claims 19, 25), wherein a removal rate of the stitch layer is equal to or greater than a removal rate of the RB.
That is, an etch rate of the stitch layer (comprising a material of Ru and/or Ta) being equal to or greater than an etch rate of the RB (which comprises NiFe) - see, inter alia, col. 6, ll. 54-62. Note that claimed invention fails to specify what type of etching is performed (and thus the resultant "etch rate"), or even if the etching (and hence, the resulting "etch rate") are even performed using the same etching techniques for the RB and the stitch layer.
Thus, given that the claimed invention fails to specify such an "etch rate," Keener et al. (US 9,076,468 B1) is seen to anticipate this limitation.
Additionally, Shao et al. (US 2013/0059444 A1) is cited to show (e.g., see Fig. 4) that the materials of the RB (e.g., NiFe) and the stitch layer (e.g., Ru and/or Ta, one of layer (702) - see, inter alia, col. 7, ll. 39-41) has an inherent etch rate associated with such materials under differing etching processes, such that an etch rate of the stitch layer (comprising a material of Ru and/or Ta) being equal to or greater than an etch rate of the RB (which comprises NiFe) (depending upon the specific type of relative etching process (which is not specified by the claimed invention).
As per claim 14 (and analogously, as per claim 26), wherein the second shield (316) is stitched to the stitch layer (e.g. 702) - see Fig. 7.
As per claim 15 (and analogously, as per claim 27), wherein the stitch layer (being comprise of Ru, Ta) has an etch rate of between 1.5 Å/s and 2.5 Å/s. This is considered inherent based upon the identical materials disclosed in the instant specification for the stitcher layer material disclosed by Keener et al. (US 9,076,468 B1). Moreover, the claimed invention is silent (as is the disclosure) as to what type of etching process is used, and the conditions/environment, provided for such a process, leaving the etch rate to be broadly, yet reasonably, interpreted.
As per claim 16 (and analogously, as per claim 28), further comprising disposing a capping layer (e.g., a lowermost layer of the multilayer (310a)) between the DFL sensor (e.g., 312a, 304a, 308a, 306a) and the stitch layer (e.g., 702 as per above).
As per claim 17, a magnetic recording device (e.g., 101 - se Fig. 1) comprising the DFL read head of claim 11.
Additionally, as per claim 18, Keener et al. (US 9,076,468 B1) further discloses the DFL sensor as being a means for reading data (e.g., a DFL sensor (e.g., 312a, 304a, 308a, 306a)) comprising: the first shield (314); a seed layer (e.g., 312a) disposed over the first shield (314); the first free layer (e.g., 304a) disposed over the seed layer (312a); a barrier layer (308a) (see col. 4, ll. 23-25) disposed over the first free layer (304a); the second free layer (e.g., 306a) disposed over the barrier layer (308a); the second shield (e.g., 316) disposed over the second free layer (306a); and the stitch layer (e.g., 702 as per above).
As per claim 19, wherein: the stitch layer is configured to decrease a removal rate of the means for reading data, so that it is greater than or equal to a removal rate of the RB. See the discussion of the removal or etch rates above (as explained with regard to the rejection of claims 10 and 11, supra.
As per claim 20, further comprising a capping layer (e.g., a lowermost layer of the multilayer (310a)) between the stitch layer (e.g., 702 as per above) and the second free layer (306a).
As per claim 21, wherein the second shield (316) is stitched to the stitch layer (e.g. 702), and wherein the RB capping layer (e.g., 702) is between the RB (506) and the second shield (316).
As per claim 22 (and analogously, as per claim 29), a magnetic recording device (e.g., 101 - se Fig. 1) comprising the DFL read head of claim 18.
Additionally, as per claim 23, see the discussion of claims 10, 11, 18, supra.
As per claim 10, 11, 18, and 23, the Examiner has given the broadest reasonable interpretation to the limitation of the stitch layer (e.g., as being that specific portion of (702) directly over and isolating the DFL sensor from the second shield), and the RB capping layer (e.g. that portion of (702) that is directly over the RB (layer (506)) and isolating that RB from the second shields), as the respectively claimed "stitch layer" and RB capping layer, such that the RB capping layer is recessed from the media facing surface.
Nothing in the claimed invention (or specification) precludes such an interpretation, and nothing requires the stitch layer and the RB capping layer to be two separate and distinct layers.
However, assuming arguendo the Applicant is still not convinced that such an interpretation is a reasonable one, the Examiner notes that providing two separate and distinct corresponding stitch and RB capping layers is well-known, established and appreciated in the art.
As just one example, Mao et al (US 11,087,785 B1) disclose an analogous DFL read head sensor, in the same field of endeavor as Keener et al. (US 9,076,468 B1), wherein the corresponding "stitch layer" (312) is formed of the identical material (e.g., see col. 6, ll. 6-9)
as the stitch layer of Keener et al. (US 9,076,468 B1), and stitched to the corresponding second shield (e.g., 322), being in direct contact therewith, and wherein the corresponding "RB capping layer" (360) is formed of the identical material (e.g., see col. 7, ll. 30-33) as the RB capping layer of Keener et al. (US 9,076,468 B1), and stitched to the corresponding second shield (e.g., 322), being in direct contact therewith, are formed of two separate and distinct layers, such that the RB capping layer (360) is recessed from a media facing surface (MFS) - e.g. see, inter alia, Fig. 3B of Mao et al (US 11,087,785 B1).
Given the well-known and established fact that DFL sensors, in which the RB capping layer and the stitch layer are formed from two, separate and distinct layers, as evidenced by Mao et al (US 11,087,785 B1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to simply provide the layer (702) of Keener et al. (US 9,076,468 B1) as two separate and distinct layers (i.e., one a stitch layer and the other an RB capping layer), as per claims 10, 11, 18, and 23, in order to effectively control the placement and optionally provide the two layers as distinct, such that the layers cane be formed of different materials and/or thicknesses, to meet the requisite protection for each respective DFL sensor and RB layer, as evidenced by Mao et al (US 11,087,785 B1).
As per amended claims 10, 11, 18, and 23, assuming that Keener et al. (US 9,076,468 B1) in view of Mao et al (US 11,087,785 B1), do not fairly disclose providing the side bias shields disposed adjacent to the DFL sensor and the RB; a first insulating layer (disposed between the stitch layer and the RB capping layer), the RB capping layer being spaced from the stitch layer by the first insulating layer; and a second insulating layer disposed in contact with the RB recessed from a media facing surface, the RB being disposed between the second insulating layer and the DFL sensor, wherein the second insulating layer has a greater track width than the RB and the DFL sensor, and wherein the second insulating layer has a track width equal to a collective width of the DFL sensor and side bias shields, such features are known in the art.
Mao et al. (US 2024/0071413 A1) discloses an analogous DFL read head, in the same field of endeavor as Keener et al. (US 9,076,468 B1) and Mao et al (US 11,087,785 B1), wherein, as per amended claims 10, 11, 18, and 23, Mao et al. (US 2024/0071413 A1) discloses providing side bias shields (e.g., 515a, 515b) disposed adjacent to the corresponding DFL sensor (e.g., 501) and the corresponding RB (e.g., 546); a first insulating layer (e.g., 342) (that when combined with Keener et al. (US 9,076,468 B1) in view of Mao et al (US 11,087,785 B1), would be disposed between the stitch layer and the corresponding RB capping layer [cap layer], such that the RB capping layer would be spaced from the stitch layer by the first insulating layer of Mao et al. (US 2024/0071413 A1)); and a second insulating layer (e.g., 552) disposed in contact with the RB (546) recessed from a media facing surface (e.g., 590), the RB (546) being disposed between the second insulating layer (552) and the DFL sensor (501), wherein the second insulating layer (552) has a greater track width than the RB (546) and the DFL sensor (501), and wherein the second insulating layer (552) has a track width equal to a collective width of the DFL sensor (501) and side bias shields (515a, 515b).
Given the well-known and established fact that DFL sensors, are provided with the features as set forth in amended claims 10, 11, 18, 23, as shown by Mao et al. (US 2024/0071413 A1), as discussed immediately above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to simply provide the combined DFL read head of Keener et al. (US 9,076,468 B1) in view of Mao et al (US 11,087,785 B1), with such features (of amended claims 10, 11, 18, and 23) as taught by Mao et al. (US 2024/0071413 A1), in order to advantageously enhance the transversal bias field of the RB while also providing for smaller track widths for higher areal recording density. See paragraphs [0003-0004] of Mao et al. (US 2024/0071413 A1).
In an obviousness analysis, it is not necessary to find precise disclosure directed to the specific subject matter claimed because inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ can be taken into account. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In this regard, "[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, obviousness requires an "expansive and flexible" approach that asks whether the claimed improvement is more than a "predictable variation" of "prior art elements according to their established functions." KSR, 550 U.S. at 415, 417.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejected claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection includes the application of a new reference (i.e., Mao et al. (US 2024/0071413 A1)), which has been applied in the rejection, as articulated in detail, supra, meeting the newly added claim limitations with a supporting rationale, which has been combined with the previously applied art of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William J Klimowicz whose telephone number is (571)272-7577. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday, 8:00AM-6PM, ET.
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, Steven Lim can be reached at (571)270-1210. 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.
/WILLIAM J KLIMOWICZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights