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 .
Status of Claims
This is the first Office Action on the merits. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/08/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 line 1, "one or more sensor" should read "one or more sensors".
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brubaker (US20080289308A1), hereinafter Brubaker.
Regarding claim 10, Brubaker discloses an agricultural steering system ("system for automatically providing a steering correction to a steering command of an agricultural harvesting machine auto guidance system in response to a misalignment between a row of crops and a header row", [0010]), comprising: (a) a harvester head comprising one or more row units, the one or more row units divided by snoots ("FIG. 2 shows a partial top view of header 14 including row dividers 18 and row sensors 20. A pair of row dividers creates a row unit 22 defining an aperture 24", [0021]); (b) a steering system ("Auto guidance system 30 provides steering commands to steering system 34 which provides commands to actuate steerable wheels 35 of combine 10", [0026], "a steering command is determined by auto guidance system 30 and executed by steering system 34", [0027]); (c) a control unit in communication with the steering system ("Auto guidance system 30 provides steering commands to steering system 34 which provides commands to actuate steerable wheels 35 of combine 10", [0026]); and (d) at least one snoot sensor on the snoots in communication with the control unit configured to detect row alignment ("The specialized headers used for harvesting corn, and the like, include sensors on the row separators extending into the opening through which the crops pass, which sensors are sensitive to physical contact with the crops. When the sensors detect the presence of crops that are not centered between the row separators, misalignment between the header and the crop row may exist", [0007]), wherein feedback from the at least one snoot sensor is processed by the control unit to command the steering system to navigate a harvester along a row ("auto guidance system 30 integrates alignment information from row sensors 20 to correct or adjust the steering command to steering system 34 as shown in FIGS. 3 and 4", [0026], "If row sensor 20 indicates misalignment of crops relative to centerline 23 of row unit 22 at decision block 50, control is directed to block 52 where auto guidance system 30 determines a steering correction and steering system 34 executes that steering correction", [0027]).
Regarding claim 11, Brubaker discloses further comprising at least one snoot sensor on each of the snoots ("FIG. 2 shows a partial top view of header 14 including row dividers 18 and row sensors 20. A pair of row dividers creates a row unit 22 defining an aperture 24", [0021]).
Claim 16-17 and 19-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Schutten et al. (US4967362A), hereinafter Schutten.
Regarding claim 16, Schutten discloses an automatic steering system for a row crop harvester (Col. 1 line 8) comprising: (a) a snoot configured for translational movement about a point ("The plant sensors in this particular embodiment utilize spring-loaded potentiometers 41, 43, 44, 46 mounted on the left and right forward tips of the V-guides 17, 18. A contact arm 35, 37, 38, 40 two feet long extends from each potentiometer toward and past the centerline 49, 50 of its V-guide. The contact arms are slightly curved and pointed backward so that a pair of them forms a shallow X shape. When they encounter corn plants they are deflected backward, rotating the potentiometer shafts to which they are connected.", Col. 3 line 33); (b) a rotation sensor on the snoot configured to measure the translational movement of the snoot from stalks impacting the snoot ("When a plant 11 deflects the contact-sensor arm 35, a change in resistance of the energized potentiometer 41 provides a signal indicating the presence and approximate relative lateral position of the plant 11", Col. 3 line 44); and (c) a processor in communication with the rotation sensor configured to command an automatic steering system in response to inputs from the rotation sensor ("The data are then processed and interpreted by the microcontroller 66. The microcontroller converts the error signals to commands for the vehicle 2 to steer left or right as necessary to keep the V-guides 17, 18 centered laterally on the two rows 7a, 7b of corn", Col. 4 line 1).
Regarding claim 17, Schutten discloses wherein a degree of rotation detected by the rotation sensor causes a proportional degree of correction by the automatic steering system ("When a plant 11 deflects the contact-sensor arm 35, a change in resistance of the energized potentiometer 41 provides a signal indicating the presence and approximate relative lateral position of the plant 11", Col. 3 line 44, "The peak amount or level of each deflection of a sensor is converted to a digital signal in an analog-to-digital converter such as ADC 101 and transmitted from circuits 59, 61, 62, 64 to microcontroller 66 on lines 151, 153, 154, and 156 respectively. The transmitted level data are referred to as L.sub.L -level, L.sub.R -level, R.sub.L -level, and R.sub.R -level", Col. 3 line 62, "The difference between magnitudes of the L.sub.L and L.sub.R signal levels is taken at a subtractor 90…The two differences are averaged by adding them at 93 and dividing by two at 94", Col. 4 line 41).
Regarding claim 19, Schutten discloses wherein the automatic steering system mechanically steers the row crop harvester via one or more devices ("The microcontroller 66 outputs control commands to a circuit 68, which processes and amplifies them, and provides them to the steering cylinder 56 and its associated control equipment as in the prior art. In response, the steering cylinder 56 steers the wheel 53 in such a direction as to center the crop rows in the V-guides, thereby reducing the error signals, as is ordinarily done in negative-feedback closed-loop servomechanisms", Col. 4 line 18, "The crop vehicle 2 has a steerable rear wheel 53 that is controlled by a hydraulic steering cylinder 56 (shown elsewhere)", Col. 1 line 16).
Regarding claim 20, Schutten discloses wherein a corrective commands to the automatic steering system are sent in response to a threshold degree of rotation detected by the rotation sensor ("Within circuit 59, the deflection signal due to each plant is converted to a pulse of standardized amplitude and duration by a conventional threshold device 100 that ignores low-level noise, and a pulse train L.sub.L is output from circuit 59 to the microcontroller 66", Col. 3 line 55, "In FIGS. 3 and 4 the occurrence of any level of deflection signal above a noise threshold is interpreted as a plant-contact event by the threshold device 100", Col. 5 line 36).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 8-9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brubaker in view of Schutten.
Regarding claim 1, Brubaker teaches of a system for automatic or assisted steering of an agricultural harvester ("system for automatically providing a steering correction to a steering command of an agricultural harvesting machine auto guidance system in response to a misalignment between a row of crops and a header row", [0010]), comprising: (a) one or more snoot sensors configured to sense alignment of the harvester with a harvest row ("The specialized headers used for harvesting corn, and the like, include sensors on the row separators extending into the opening through which the crops pass, which sensors are sensitive to physical contact with the crops", [0007], "Row sensors 20 may be equipped with fingers 21 which physically detect crops within aperture 24 and provide an indication of crop position or alignment with a centerline 23 of row unit 22", [0021]); an automatic guidance system in communication with the one or more snoot sensors ("combine 10 is equipped with an automatic guidance system 30 that determines and provides steering commands for a steering system 34 of combine 10 when harvesting crops", [0022], "auto guidance system 30 integrates alignment information from row sensors 20 to correct or adjust the steering command to steering system 34 as shown in FIGS. 3 and 4", [0026]); (c) a control system in communication with the sensor and automatic steering system ("Auto guidance system 30 provides steering commands to steering system 34 which provides commands to actuate steerable wheels 35 of combine 10", [0026]); and (d) an automatic steering system in communication with the control system ("Auto guidance system 30 provides steering commands to steering system 34 which provides commands to actuate steerable wheels 35 of combine 10", [0026], "a steering command is determined by auto guidance system 30 and executed by steering system 34", [0027]), wherein the control system is configured to command the automatic steering system to drive the harvester along the row in response to feedback from the one or more snoot sensors ("If row sensor 20 indicates misalignment of crops relative to centerline 23 of row unit 22 at decision block 50, control is directed to block 52 where auto guidance system 30 determines a steering correction and steering system 34 executes that steering correction", [0027], "if the row sensors indicate the rows of crops are too far to the left within the row units, and the steering command steers the harvesting machine straight or to the right, the steering command is corrected to steer the harvesting machine to the left to realign the row units and the rows of crops", [0010]).
However, Brubaker does not teach of (b) at least one processor in communication with the one or more snoot sensors; and (c) a control system in communication with the at least one processor.
Schutten, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of (b) at least one processor in communication with the one or more snoot sensors ("The data are then processed and interpreted by the microcontroller 66. The microcontroller converts the error signals to commands for the vehicle 2 to steer left or right as necessary to keep the V-guides 17, 18 centered laterally on the two rows 7a, 7b of corn", Col. 4 line 1); and (c) a control system in communication with the at least one processor (“The microcontroller 66 outputs control commands to a circuit 68, which processes and amplifies them, and provides them to the steering cylinder 56 and its associated control equipment”, Col. 4 line 18).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teaching of Brubaker with the teaching of Schutten to use a processor in communication with the snoot sensors and control system with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve the steering accuracy by processing sensor signals digitally before issuing steering commands (Schutten, Col. 4 line 2).
Regarding claim 2, modified Brubaker teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above, additionally, of the one or more snoot sensors ("Row sensors 20 may be equipped with fingers 21 which physically detect crops within aperture 24 and provide an indication of crop position or alignment with a centerline 23 of row unit 22", [0021]).
However, modified Brubaker does not teach of wherein the one or more snoot sensors are selected from a pivotable snoot sensor, a load cell, a thin film pressure sensor, a magnetic sensor, a proximity sensor, and a capacitive sensor.
Schutten, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of wherein the one or more snoot sensors are selected from a pivotable snoot sensor, a load cell, a thin film pressure sensor, a magnetic sensor, a proximity sensor, and a capacitive sensor ("The plant sensors in this particular embodiment utilize spring-loaded potentiometers 41, 43, 44, 46 mounted on the left and right forward tips of the V-guides 17, 18. A contact arm 35, 37, 38, 40 two feet long extends from each potentiometer toward and past the centerline 49, 50 of its V-guide. The contact arms are slightly curved and pointed backward so that a pair of them forms a shallow X shape. When they encounter corn plants they are deflected backward, rotating the potentiometer shafts to which they are connected.", Col. 3 line 33).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teaching of modified Brubaker with the teaching of Schutten to use a rotation sensor with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the precision of steering corrections with a continuous input of later movement (Schutten, Col. 3 line 33).
Regarding claim 3, modified Brubaker teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above, additionally, of the one or more snoot sensors ("Row sensors 20 may be equipped with fingers 21 which physically detect crops within aperture 24 and provide an indication of crop position or alignment with a centerline 23 of row unit 22", [0021]).
However, modified Brubaker does not teach of a pivotable sensor comprising: (a) a snoot configured for translational movement about a point; and (b) a rotation sensor on the snoot configured to measure the translational movement of the snoot from stalks impacting the snoot.
Schutten, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a pivotable sensor ("The plant sensors in this particular embodiment utilize spring-loaded potentiometers 41, 43, 44, 46…When they encounter corn plants they are deflected backward, rotating the potentiometer shafts to which they are connected.", Col. 3 line 33) comprising: (a) a snoot configured for translational movement about a point ("The plant sensors in this particular embodiment utilize spring-loaded potentiometers 41, 43, 44, 46 mounted on the left and right forward tips of the V-guides 17, 18. A contact arm 35, 37, 38, 40 two feet long extends from each potentiometer toward and past the centerline 49, 50 of its V-guide. The contact arms are slightly curved and pointed backward so that a pair of them forms a shallow X shape. When they encounter corn plants they are deflected backward, rotating the potentiometer shafts to which they are connected.", Col. 3 line 33); and (b) a rotation sensor on the snoot configured to measure the translational movement of the snoot from stalks impacting the snoot ("When a plant 11 deflects the contact-sensor arm 35, a change in resistance of the energized potentiometer 41 provides a signal indicating the presence and approximate relative lateral position of the plant 11", Col. 3 line 44).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teaching of modified Brubaker with the teaching of Schutten to use translational movement for a snoot with a rotation sensor to measure translational movement with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the precision of steering corrections with a continuous input of later movement (Schutten, Col. 3 line 33).
Regarding claim 8, modified Brubaker teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above, additionally, wherein at least one of the one or more snoot sensors is located on each snoot of a header ("FIG. 2 shows a partial top view of header 14 including row dividers 18 and row sensors 20. A pair of row dividers creates a row unit 22 defining an aperture 24", [0021]).
Regarding claim 9, modified Brubaker teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above, additionally, wherein the one or more snoot sensor are located on a single row unit of a header ("A pair of row dividers creates a row unit 22 defining an aperture 24… Row sensors 20 may be equipped with fingers 21 which physically detect crops within aperture 24 and provide an indication of crop position or alignment with a centerline 23 of row unit 22", [0021]).
Regarding claim 12, modified Brubaker teaches of all limitations of claim 10 as stated above, additionally, of the one or more snoot sensors ("Row sensors 20 may be equipped with fingers 21 which physically detect crops within aperture 24 and provide an indication of crop position or alignment with a centerline 23 of row unit 22", [0021]).
However, modified Brubaker does not teach of a pivotable sensor comprising: (a) a snoot configured for translational movement about a point; and (b) a rotation sensor on the snoot configured to measure the translational movement of the snoot from stalks impacting the snoot.
Schutten, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a pivotable sensor ("The plant sensors in this particular embodiment utilize spring-loaded potentiometers 41, 43, 44, 46…When they encounter corn plants they are deflected backward, rotating the potentiometer shafts to which they are connected.", Col. 3 line 33) comprising: (a) a snoot configured for translational movement about a point ("The plant sensors in this particular embodiment utilize spring-loaded potentiometers 41, 43, 44, 46 mounted on the left and right forward tips of the V-guides 17, 18. A contact arm 35, 37, 38, 40 two feet long extends from each potentiometer toward and past the centerline 49, 50 of its V-guide. The contact arms are slightly curved and pointed backward so that a pair of them forms a shallow X shape. When they encounter corn plants they are deflected backward, rotating the potentiometer shafts to which they are connected.", Col. 3 line 33); and (b) a rotation sensor on the snoot configured to measure the translational movement of the snoot from stalks impacting the snoot ("When a plant 11 deflects the contact-sensor arm 35, a change in resistance of the energized potentiometer 41 provides a signal indicating the presence and approximate relative lateral position of the plant 11", Col. 3 line 44).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teaching of modified Brubaker with the teaching of Schutten to use translational movement for a snoot with a rotation sensor to measure translational movement with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the precision of steering corrections with a continuous input of later movement (Schutten, Col. 3 line 33).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brubaker in view of Schutten as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Steele et al. (WO2023288249A), hereinafter Steele.
Regarding claim 4, modified Brubaker teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above, additionally, of the one or more snoot sensors ("Row sensors 20 may be equipped with fingers 21 which physically detect crops within aperture 24 and provide an indication of crop position or alignment with a centerline 23 of row unit 22", [0021]).
However, modified Brubaker does not teach of a load cell sensor comprising: (a) a snoot configured for translational movement about a gauged pin; and (b) a load cell in communication with the gauged pin configured to measure strain on the pin in response to force on the snoot from impacting stalks.
Steele, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a load cell sensor ("the force sensor includes a load cell configured to provide an electrical signal indicating the amount of force applied", [0008]) comprising: (a) a snoot configured for translational movement about a gauged pin ("the proximal end 434p of the cantilever beam can be affixed to the alignment mechanism 432 via a torsional load cell, and/or is operatively coupled with a torsional load cell", [0063]); and (b) a load cell in communication with the gauged pin configured to measure strain on the pin in response to force on the snoot from impacting stalks ("and a force sensor configured to determine an amount of force applied to move the plant stalk from the known position to the deflected position", [0006]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teaching of modified Brubaker with the teaching of Steele to use a gauged pin and a loading cell to measure the pin strain with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the precision of steering corrections by having a continuous measure of the crop stalks (Steele, [0052]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brubaker in view of Schutten as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zielke et al. (US20210329838A1), hereinafter Zielke.
Regarding claim 7, modified Brubaker teaches of all limitations of claim 1 as stated above, additionally, of the one or more snoot sensors ("Row sensors 20 may be equipped with fingers 21 which physically detect crops within aperture 24 and provide an indication of crop position or alignment with a centerline 23 of row unit 22", [0021]).
However, modified Brubaker does not teach of a magnetic sensor comprising: (a) at least one magnet disposed on an underside of a snoot; and (b) a magnetic field sensor configured to detect changes to a magnetic field of the at least one magnet from rotation of the snoot from impacting stalks.
Zielke, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a magnetic sensor ([0022]) comprising: (a) at least one magnet disposed on an underside of a snoot ([0020] -[0021]); and (b) a magnetic field sensor configured to detect changes to a magnetic field of the at least one magnet from rotation of the snoot from impacting stalks ("the distance sensor is constructed and arrange to measure the deflection of the sensor target as the resilient sensing member flexes in response to harvest operations", [0013], [0022]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teaching of modified Brubaker with the teaching of Zielke to use a magnet on the snoot and a magnetic field sensor for detecting changes to a magnetic field with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to achieve a method of detecting stalks without the wear-down issues of traditional mechanical contact sensors (Zielke, [0140]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brubaker in view of Steele.
Regarding claim 13, Brubaker teaches of all limitations of claim 10 as stated above, additionally, of the one or more snoot sensors ("Row sensors 20 may be equipped with fingers 21 which physically detect crops within aperture 24 and provide an indication of crop position or alignment with a centerline 23 of row unit 22", [0021]).
However, Brubaker does not teach of a load cell sensor comprising: (a) a snoot configured for translational movement about a gauged pin; and (b) a load cell in communication with the gauged pin configured to measure strain on the pin in response to force on the snoot from impacting stalks.
Steele, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a load cell sensor ("the force sensor includes a load cell configured to provide an electrical signal indicating the amount of force applied", [0008]) comprising: (a) a snoot configured for translational movement about a gauged pin ("the proximal end 434p of the cantilever beam can be affixed to the alignment mechanism 432 via a torsional load cell, and/or is operatively coupled with a torsional load cell", [0063]); and (b) a load cell in communication with the gauged pin configured to measure strain on the pin in response to force on the snoot from impacting stalks ("and a force sensor configured to determine an amount of force applied to move the plant stalk from the known position to the deflected position", [0006]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teaching of Brubaker with the teaching of Steele to use a gauged pin and a loading cell to measure the pin strain with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the precision of steering corrections by having a continuous measure of the crop stalks (Steele, [0052]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brubaker in view of Zielke.
Regarding claim 15, Brubaker teaches of all limitations of claim 10 as stated above, additionally, of the one or more snoot sensors ("Row sensors 20 may be equipped with fingers 21 which physically detect crops within aperture 24 and provide an indication of crop position or alignment with a centerline 23 of row unit 22", [0021]).
However, Brubaker does not teach of a magnetic sensor comprising: (a) at least one magnet disposed on an underside of a snoot; and (b) a magnetic field sensor configured to detect changes to a magnetic field of the at least one magnet from rotation of the snoot from impacting stalks.
Zielke, in the same field of endeavor, teaches of a magnetic sensor ([0022]) comprising: (a) at least one magnet disposed on an underside of a snoot ([0020] -[0021]); and (b) a magnetic field sensor configured to detect changes to a magnetic field of the at least one magnet from rotation of the snoot from impacting stalks ("the distance sensor is constructed and arrange to measure the deflection of the sensor target as the resilient sensing member flexes in response to harvest operations", [0013], [0022]).
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have modified the teaching of Brubaker with the teaching of Zielke to use a magnet on the snoot and a magnetic field sensor for detecting changes to a magnetic field with reasonable expectations of success. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to achieve a method of detecting stalks without the wear-down issues of traditional mechanical contact sensors (Zielke, [0140]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 14, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL LEE ESPINOZA whose telephone number is (571)272-4889. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Adam Mott can be reached at (571) 270-5376. 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.
ABIGAIL LEE ESPINOZA
Examiner
Art Unit 3657
/ADAM R MOTT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3657
Prosecution Insights