CTNF 18/884,176 CTNF 91971 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/02/2025 and 9/13/2024 have been considered by the examiner. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto- processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1 and 8-13 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 10-15 of copending Application No. 18/884095 in view of Park (US Patent Publication Number 2021/0247549 A1). . Instant Application 18/884176 Copending Application No. 18/884095 Claim 1. An optical lens used for light in a predetermined target wavelength region , comprising: a substrate; and a plurality of microstructures provided on a surface of the substrate, wherein the plurality of microstructures is arranged at intervals shorter than a shortest wavelength in the target wavelength regio n, and the intervals vary depending on a position on the surface in accordance with a magnitude of a variation in phase profile of the optical lens (see obviousness rejection below). Claim 1. An optical lens used for light in a predetermined target wavelength region, comprising: a substrate ; and a plurality of microstructures arranged on a surface of the substrate at intervals shorter than a shortest wavelength in the target wavelength region, wherein a structure and/or the interval of each of the plurality of microstructures varies depending on a position on the surface and is determined in such way as to reduce a variation in phase and transmittance depending on an incident angle of incident light at each position in a region where the plurality of microstructures is provided. Claim 8. The optical lens according to claim 1, wherein the substrate and each of the plurality of microstructures have transparency with respect to light in the target wavelength region. Claim 10. The optical lens according to claim 1, wherein the substrate and each of the plurality of microstructures have transparency with respect to light in the target wavelength region. Claim 9. The optical lens according to claim 1, wherein a difference between a refractive index of the substrate and a refractive index of each of the plurality of microstructures is less than or equal to 10% of a refractive index being smallest of the refractive index of the substrate and the refractive index of each of the plurality of microstructures. Claim 11. The optical lens according to claim 1, wherein a difference between a refractive index of the substrate and a refractive index of each of the plurality of microstructures is less than or equal to 10% of a refractive index being smallest of the refractive index of the substrate and the refractive index of each of the plurality of microstructures. Claim 10. The optical lens according to claim 1, wherein the substrate and each of the plurality of microstructures are formed from an identical material. Claim 12. The optical lens according to claim 1, wherein the substrate and each of the plurality of microstructures are formed from an identical material. Claim 11. The optical lens according to claim 1, wherein the target wavelength region includes at least a portion of a wavelength region of infrared rays greater than or equal to 2.5 µm and less than or equal to 25 µm. Claim 13. The optical lens according to claim 1, wherein the target wavelength region includes at least a portion of a wavelength region of infrared rays greater than or equal to 2.5 pm and less than or equal to 25 pm Claim 12. The optical lens according to claim 1, wherein the substrate and each of the plurality of microstructures are formed from a material containing, as a major ingredient, at least one selected from the group consisting of silicon, germanium, chalcogenides, chalcohalides, zinc sulfide, zinc selenide, fluoride compounds, thallium halides, sodium chloride, potassium chloride, potassium bromide, cesium iodide, and plastic. Claim 14. The optical lens according to claim 1, wherein the substrate and each of the plurality of microstructures are formed from a material containing, as a major ingredient, at least one selected from the group consisting of silicon, germanium, chalcogenides, chalcohalides, zinc sulfide, zinc selenide, fluoride compounds, thallium halides, sodium chloride, potassium chloride, potassium bromide, cesium iodide, and plastic. Claim 13. The optical lens according to claim 1, wherein the optical lens is formed from a material containing silicon as a major ingredient, and a crystal plane orientation of the silicon is (100), (110), or (111). Claim 15. The optical lens according to claim 1, wherein the optical lens is formed from a material containing silicon as a major ingredient, and a crystal plane orientation of the silicon is (100), (110), or (111). Instant Application 18/884176 fails to teach the intervals vary depending on a position on the surface in accordance with a magnitude of a variation in phase profile of the optical lens. In a related art, Park teaches the intervals vary depending on a position on the surface 1 (See Fig. 8) in accordance with a magnitude of a variation in phase profile of the optical lens 2 (Fig. 10, ¶0079 “ intervals P1, P2, P3, P4, and P5 in the circumferential direction θ between the plurality of nanostructures ns1, ns2, ns3, ns4, and ns5 may decrease and then increase as the distance increases in the radial direction R” and ¶0104 “the arrangement interval of the plurality of nanostructures NS changes, a linear term coefficient φ 1 that may correspond to a rate of change of curves” ). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill of art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical lens, as taught by instant application 18/884176, with the intervals vary depending on a position on the surface in accordance with a magnitude of a variation in phase profile of the optical lens, as taught by Park for the purpose of providing a meta-lens with improved optical performance in a wide wavelength bandwidth (¶0007). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 15 is 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 15 recites the limitation "the optical modulation layer" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, the examiner interprets claim 15 depends from claim 14. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim s 1, 2, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park (US Patent Publication Number 2021/0247549 A1) . Park teaches as claimed in claim 1, an optical lens (¶0006 “ Provided are meta-lenses”). used for light in a predetermined target wavelength region (¶0023 “ The predetermined wavelength band of light may include a visible light wavelength band ”), comprising (Fig. 1, 4, 10, 12), a substrate (sub); and a plurality of microstructures (ns) provided on a surface of the substrate, wherein the plurality of microstructures is arranged at intervals (P1-P5) shorter than a shortest wavelength in the target wavelength region 3 (Fig. 12), and the intervals vary depending on a position on the surface 4 (See Fig. 8) in accordance with a magnitude of a variation in phase profile of the optical lens 5 (Fig. 10, ¶0079 “ intervals P1, P2, P3, P4, and P5 in the circumferential direction θ between the plurality of nanostructures ns1, ns2, ns3, ns4, and ns5 may decrease and then increase as the distance increases in the radial direction R” and ¶0104 “the arrangement interval of the plurality of nanostructures NS changes, a linear term coefficient φ 1 that may correspond to a rate of change of curves” ). Park teaches as claimed in claim 2, wherein the intervals vary depending on a differential value concerning a position of a phase indicated by the phase profile ( ¶0104 “ a linear term coefficient φ 1 that may correspond to a rate of change of curves ”). Park teaches as claimed in claim 7, wherein each of the plurality of microstructures is a projecting body (See Fig.14), and the projecting body is a conical a columnar body having a shape of an elliptic cylinder (Fig. 14). Park teaches as claimed in claim 8, wherein the substrate and each of the plurality of microstructures have transparency with respect to light in the target wavelength region (Fig. 1 and ¶0064 “ meta-lens 100 (refer to FIG. 4) according to an embodiment performs as a lens that shows refractive power with respect to light in a wide wavelength band of visible light ”) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 9, 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US Patent Publication Number 2021/0247549 A1) in view of Zhang (US Patent Publication Number 2021/0275294 A1) . Park fails to teach as claimed in claim 9, wherein a difference between a refractive index of the substrate and a refractive index of each of the plurality of microstructures is less than or equal to 10% of a refractive index being smallest of the refractive index of the substrate and the refractive index of each of the plurality of microstructures. In a related art, Zhang teaches wherein a difference between a refractive index of the substrate and a refractive index of each of the plurality of microstructures is less than or equal to 10% of a refractive index being smallest of the refractive index of the substrate and the refractive index of each of the plurality of microstructures 6 (¶0087 “ nanostructures and the substrate form a single monolithic piece of material ”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical device, as taught by Park, with the refractive index of the substrate and a refractive index of each of the plurality of microstructures, as taught by Zhang, for the purpose of providing a way of improving performance, and in particular, efficiency of the metasurface device (¶0088). Park fails to teach as claimed in claim 10, wherein the substrate and each of the plurality of microstructures are formed from an identical material. In a related art, Zhang teaches wherein the substrate and each of the plurality of microstructures are formed from an identical material (¶0087 “ nanostructures and the substrate form a single monolithic piece of material ”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical device, as taught by Park, with the he substrate and each of the plurality of microstructures are formed from an identical material, as taught by Zhang, for the purpose of providing a way of improving performance, and in particular, efficiency of the metasurface device (¶0088). Park fails to teach as claimed in claim 12, wherein the substrate and each of the plurality of microstructures are formed from a material containing, as a major ingredient, at least one selected from the group consisting of silicon, germanium, chalcogenides, chalcohalides, zinc sulfide, zinc selenide, fluoride compounds, thallium halides, sodium chloride, potassium chloride, potassium bromide, cesium iodide, and plastics. In a related art, Zhang teaches wherein the substrate and each of the plurality of microstructures are formed from a material containing, as a major ingredient, at least one selected from silicon (¶0133 “the master material can be SiO2, Si3N4, metals or photoresists ”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical device, as taught by Park, with the he substrate and each of the plurality of microstructures material, as taught by Zhang, for the purpose of providing a way of improving performance, and in particular, efficiency of the metasurface device (¶0088) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US Patent Publication Number 2021/0247549 A1) in view of Akashi (US Patent Publication Number 2003/0123805 A1) . Park fails to teach as claimed in claim 13, wherein the optical lens is formed from a material containing silicon as a major ingredient, and a crystal plane orientation of the silicon is (100). In a related art, Akashi teaches wherein the optical lens is formed from a material containing silicon as a major ingredient, and a crystal plane orientation of the silicon is (100) (¶0118 “ a single crystalline silicon substrate 19 of a crystalline plane azimuth (100)” ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical device, as taught by Park, with optical lens is formed from a material containing silicon as a major ingredient, and a crystal plane orientation of the silicon, as taught by Zhang, for the purpose of providing a lens and that can be highly integrated while suppressing deterioration in the high-frequency signals (¶0010) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (US Patent Publication Number 2021/0247549 A1) in view of Groever (US Patent Publication Number 2021/0149081 A1) . Park fails to teach as claimed in claim 14, further comprising an optical modulation layer having an optical modulation function and being located on an opposite side surface from the surface of the substrate. In a related art, Groever teaches an optical lens (100) a substrate (105); and a plurality of microstructures (110) provided on a surface of the substrate (105), an optical modulation layer (120) having an optical modulation function (¶0066 “ focusing meta-lens 120 ”) and being located on an opposite side surface from the surface of the substrate (105). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical device, as taught by Park, with optical lens comprising an optical modulation layer, as taught by Groever, for the purpose of providing a lens that to reduce aberrations such as coma aberrations and/or spherical aberrations (¶0010). Park fails to teach as claimed in claim 15, wherein the optical modulation layer includes another plurality of microstructures, each of the other plurality of microstructures is a projecting body or a recessed body, and the projecting body or the recessed body is a conical or pyramidal body having a shape of an elliptic cone or a polygonal pyramid or a columnar body having a shape of an elliptic cylinder or a polygonal prism. In a related art, Groever teaches wherein the optical modulation layer (120) includes another plurality of microstructures (see (Fig. 1A), each of the other plurality of microstructures is a projecting body (See Fig. 1A), and the projecting body columnar body having a shape of polygonal prism (See Fig. 1B). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical device, as taught by Park and Groever, with optical lens comprising an optical modulation layer, as taught by Groever, for the purpose of providing a lens that to reduce aberrations such as coma aberrations and/or spherical aberrations (¶0010). Park fails to teach as claimed in claim 16, wherein the optical modulation layer has an anti-reflection function against incident light. In a related art, Groever teaches wherein the optical modulation layer has an anti-reflection function against incident light 7 (¶0066 “ transmittance over the visible spectrum of at least about 40%, at least about 50%, at least about 60%, at least about 70%, at least about 80%, at least about 85%, at least about 90%, or at least about 95 ”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical device, as taught by Park and Groever, with optical lens comprising an optical modulation layer, as taught by Groever, for the purpose of providing a lens that to reduce aberrations such as coma aberrations and/or spherical aberrations (¶0010). Park fails to teach as claimed in claim 17, wherein the optical modulation layer has any of functions as a high-pass filter, a low-pass filter, and a band-pass filter which allow passage of only the light in the target wavelength region. In a related art, Groever teaches wherein the optical modulation layer has any of functions a band-pass filter which allow passage of only the light in the target wavelength region 8 (¶0070 “ light transmitted through a nano-fin of the focusing meta-lens 120 ” and ¶0071 “ a design wavelength (e.g., 532 nm) ”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical device, as taught by Park and Groever, with optical lens comprising an optical modulation layer, as taught by Groever, for the purpose of providing a lens that to reduce aberrations such as coma aberrations and/or spherical aberrations (¶0010). Park fails to teach as claimed in claim 18, wherein the optical modulation layer has a function to allow passage of only specific polarized light out of incident light. In a related art, Groever teaches wherein the optical modulation layer has a function to allow passage of only specific polarized light out of incident light ( ¶0072 “ the meta-lens doublet is polarization-sensitive ”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical device, as taught by Park and Groever, with optical lens comprising an optical modulation layer, as taught by Groever, for the purpose of providing a lens that to reduce aberrations such as coma aberrations and/or spherical aberrations (¶0010). Park fails to teach as claimed in claim 20, wherein the optical modulation layer has a function to deflect incident light at a specific angle. In a related art, Groever teaches wherein the optical modulation layer has a function to deflect incident light at a specific angle. (¶0074 “ range of the incident angles may be, e.g., up to about 25°, up to about 30°, up to about 45°, or up to about 60° ”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the optical device, as taught by Park and Groever, with optical lens comprising an optical modulation layer, as taught by Groever, for the purpose of providing a lens that to reduce aberrations such as coma aberrations and/or spherical aberrations (¶0010) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 3-6, 11 and 19 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. The prior art fails to teach all of the limitations of claim 3 which includes wherein, in a case where an absolute value of a differential value of the phase indicated by the phase profile at a first position on the surface is greater than an absolute value of a differential value at a second position on the surface, an interval of microstructures at the first position is smaller than an interval of microstructures at the second position. The prior art fails to teach all of the limitations of claim 4 which includes the conditional expression: PNG media_image1.png 76 280 media_image1.png Greyscale Regarding claims 5 and 6 has dependency on claim 4. The prior art fails to teach all of the limitations of claim 11 which includes wherein the target wavelength region includes at least a portion of a wavelength region of infrared rays greater than or equal to 2.5 µm and less than or equal to 25 µm. The prior art fails to teach all of the limitations of claim 19 which includes wherein the optical modulation layer has a function to attenuate or amplify a transmission intensity of incident light in a specific wavelength region. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Houck (US Patent Number 11,333,811 B1) teaches an optical lens used for light in a predetermined target wavelength region. Kim (KR Patent Publication Number 20200029925 A) teaches an optical lens used for light in a predetermined target wavelength region. Park (US Publication Number 2019/0369457 A1) teaches an optical lens used for light in a predetermined target wavelength region. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOURNEY F SUMLAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4pm. 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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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. JOURNEY F. SUMLAR Examiner Art Unit 2872 11 June 2026 /RICKY L MACK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/884,176 Page 2 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/884,176 Page 3 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/884,176 Page 4 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/884,176 Page 5 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/884,176 Page 6 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/884,176 Page 7 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/884,176 Page 8 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/884,176 Page 9 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/884,176 Page 10 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/884,176 Page 11 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/884,176 Page 12 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/884,176 Page 13 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/884,176 Page 15 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/884,176 Page 16 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/884,176 Page 17 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/884,176 Page 18 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/884,176 Page 19 Art Unit: 2872 Application/Control Number: 18/884,176 Page 20 Art Unit: 2872 1 Fig. 8 shows the pitches P1-P5 are different in each region of the meta lens 2 . Decreasing and then increasing the interval means the phase profile is non-linearly mapped across the radius. 3 Figure 12 shows pitches (intervals) at 50 to about 125 µm being at a wavelength of 200nm to 250 m. This interval would be considered smaller than target wavelength region (visible light a wavelength range of 380nm to 700nm). 4 Fig. 8 shows the pitches P1-P5 are different in each region of the meta lens. 5 Decreasing and then increasing the interval means the phase profile is non-linearly mapped across the radius. 6 Since the materials are the same, subtracting the two refractive index would be 0. Therefore, would inherently be less than the smallest refractive index of the substrate and the refractive index of each of the plurality of microstructures. 7 when a material or glass specifies a transmittance over the visible spectrum this inherently this means there is an anti-reflective property present in the layer. 8 Based on equation the equation, the meta lens 120 is designed to pass light at the wavelength 532nm which would function as a bandpass filter.
Prosecution Insights