CTFR 19/052,384 CTFR 94178 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. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment/Request for Reconsideration filed on 27 March 2026. Claims 1 – 4, 7 – 15, 18 – 19, and 21 – 25 are pending. Claims 5 – 6, 16 – 17, and 20 are cancelled. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim 1 – 4, 7 – 8, 22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the nonpatent literature of the Hilti Rod Setting Tool TE-S PD 22 Operating Instructions, hereinafter Hilti, and referenced by the nonpatent literature of the Ebay sale of the Hilti Rod Setting Tool TE-S PD 22), hereinafter Ebay, in view of Gray (US 5,010,710 A) . Please note, the Rod Setting Tool TE-S PD 22 Operating Instructions, dated 31 October 2018, is directed towards the operation of the Rod Setting Tool TE-S PD 22 and infers that the Rod Setting Tool TE-S PD 22 is a prior art. The nonpatent literature Ebay reference is directed towards the sale of the Rod Setting Tool TE-S PD 22 showing the internal elements of the Rod Setting Tool TE-S PD 22. While the date of the Ebay reference is after the effective filing date of the instant application, please note that the Rod Setting Tool TE-S PD 22 Operating Instructions is used to show that the Rod Setting Tool TE-S PD 22 is a prior art while the Ebay reference is used an enabling disclosure as described in MPEP 2131.01 (Multiple Reference 35 USC 102 Rejections). [AltContent: textbox (Figure 1)] PNG media_image2.png 279 228 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 279 230 media_image3.png Greyscale [AltContent: textbox (Figure 3)] [AltContent: textbox (Figure 9)] [AltContent: textbox (Hilti (Rod Setting Tool TE-S PD 22 Operating Instructions) Annotated figs 1, 3, and 9)] [AltContent: oval] [AltContent: oval] [AltContent: arrow] [AltContent: textbox (X)] [AltContent: arrow] [AltContent: textbox (Z)] PNG media_image9.png 295 468 media_image9.png Greyscale PNG media_image10.png 323 188 media_image10.png Greyscale [AltContent: connector] [AltContent: connector] [AltContent: textbox (M)] [AltContent: textbox (N)] [AltContent: connector] [AltContent: connector] [AltContent: textbox (Q)] [AltContent: textbox (P)] [AltContent: rect] [AltContent: rect] [AltContent: arrow] [AltContent: textbox (R)] [AltContent: arrow] [AltContent: textbox (O)] [AltContent: textbox (Gray (US 5,010,710 A) Annotated figs. 6 and 8)] Regarding claim 1, Hilti discloses an attachment configured for use with a powered hammer to drive a rod into the ground, the attachment comprising: a body (A, annotated fig. 9) ; an impact portion (B, annotated fig. 9) defining an impact axis (C, annotated fig. 9) , the impact portion including a bore (Figures 1 and 3 implies a driving shank D is inserted into a bore of the attachment) configured to receive a drive shank (D, annotated figs. 1, 9) that is coupled to the powered hammer (E, annotated fig. 9) , the impact portion configured to receive repeated impacts from the powered hammer; and a driving portion (F, annotated fig. 9) in which the rod (G, annotated fig. 9) is receivable, the driving portion including a side load driving portion (H, annotated fig. 9) defining a side load driving axis (I, annotated fig. 9), wherein the side load driving portion includes a one-way collet (W, annotated fig. 2 of the Ebay reference. Please note, Hilti indicates in figure 4 a one-way collet that allows movement of the attachment in the upward direction relative to a rod and does not allow movement of the attachment in the downward direction relative to the rod. In the Ebay reference, one having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that element W would be that one-way collet indicated in figure 4 of Hilti) configured to transmit a driving force generated by the repeated impacts from the powered hammer to a side of the rod (As shown in annotated fig. 9 of Hilti with the red arrow indicating a driving force of a powered hammer F) , wherein the one-way collet is configured to allow the attachment to move relative to the rod in a first direction and to prevent relative movement between the attachment and the rod in a second direction, opposite the first direction (As shown in annotated fig. 4 of Hilti with the red arrows indicating movement relative to the rod in a first upward direction and indicating a prevention of relative movement between the attachment and the rod in a second downward direction) , and wherein the one-way collet includes a frustoconical portion (As shown in annotated fig. 2 of the Ebay reference) , and wherein the body defines a frustoconical aperture in which the one-way collet is received (The Ebay reference shows an aperture X in the body of the attachment and a one-way collet W having a frustoconical portion wherein one having ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that the aperture X would have a frustoconical portion to accommodate the frustoconical portion of the one-way collet W) . Additionally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aperture to have a frustoconical shape because it has been held that changes in shape of an element is a matter of design choice. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) . In Dailey , the court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant. In the instant case, the configuration of the claimed aperture would also be a matter of design choice because there is no persuasive evidence that the frustoconical configuration is significant. Hilti does not explicitly disclose the side load driving axis being non-parallel to the impact axis. However, Gray, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a side load driving axis (axis M, annotated fig. 8) being non-parallel to an impact axis (axis N, annotated fig. 8) . Gray is evidence that having the side load driving axis being non-parallel to the impact axis was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the attachment of Hilti with the side load driving axis being non-parallel to the impact axis, as taught by Gray. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have modified the attachment of Hilti with the side load driving axis being non-parallel to the impact axis, as taught by Gray, in order to decrease the bending stress of the rod due to the lateral offset of the shank from the rod axis (Col. 4, ll. 31 – 48) . Hilti does not explicitly disclose a top load driving portion defining a top load driving axis wherein the top load driving axis being parallel to the impact axis. However, Gray, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a top load driving portion (portion O, annotated fig. 6 – specifically the portion having recess 40) defining a top load driving axis (axis P, annotated fig. 6 – specifically the axis of recess 40) wherein the top load driving axis being parallel to the impact axis (axis Q, annotated fig. 6 – specifically the axis of socket 24) of an impact portion (portion R, annotated fig. 6 – specifically the portion having socket 24) . Gray is evidence that having the top load driving portion defining the top load driving axis wherein the top load driving axis being parallel to the impact axis was known and within the skill of one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Therefore, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success modifying the attachment of Hilti with the top load driving portion defining the top load driving axis wherein the top load driving axis being parallel to the impact axis, as taught by Gray. Moreover, the one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to have modified the attachment of Hilti with the top load driving portion defining the top load driving axis wherein the top load driving axis being parallel to the impact axis, as taught by Gray, in order to have a portion that has a blind bore/recess 40 under the bore/socket 24 to receive the top end of a rod R when it is adjacent ground level so that the powered hammer/driver 10 can be used to force the top of the rod to ground level (Col. 4, ll. 55 – 58) . Regarding claim 2, Hilti, as referenced by Ebay, as modified by Gray, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1. The modified Hilti discloses the impact axis (Gray – axis N, annotated fig. 6) and the side load driving axis (Gray – axis M, annotated fig. 6) are orientated at an acute angle relative to one another (Gray – As shown in annotated fig. 6) . Regarding claim 3, Hilti, as referenced by Ebay, as modified by Gray, discloses the invention as recited in claim 2. The modified Hilti discloses the acute angle is less than 20 degrees (Gray – Col. 4, ll. 34 – 48 describes the angle of inclination of the socket can vary depending upon the lateral offset between the socket and clamped rod and the selected starting height of the driver from the ground. When the selected height is around two to three feet and the offset is about 8 inches an angle of inclination of around 8 degrees between the axis of the shank and the rod axis is sufficient) . Regarding claim 4, Hilti, as referenced by Ebay, as modified by Gray, discloses the invention as recited in claim 3. The modified Hilti discloses the acute angle (Gray – As shown in annotated figure 7 and described in col. 4, ll. 34 – 48) . The modified Hilti does not explicitly disclose the acute angle is 4.5 degrees. However, the modified Hilti discloses the angle of inclination of the socket can vary depending upon the lateral offset between the socket and clamped rod and the selected starting height of the driver from the ground wherein this angle of inclination affects to the bending stress of the rod due to the lateral offset of the shank from the rod axis (Gray – Col. 7, ll. 14 – 20) . Thus, the acute angle is a result-effective variable that affects the bending stress of the rod due to the lateral offset of the shank from the rod axis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the acute angle to be 4.5 degrees since it has been held "where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) . Regarding claim 7, Hilti, as referenced by Ebay, as modified by Gray, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1. Hilti discloses the one-way collet (Ebay – W, annotated fig. 2 of the Ebay reference) includes a plurality of bearings (Ebay – Y, annotated fig. 2 of the Ebay reference) disposed about the frustoconical portion (One having ordinary skill in the art would find obvious that the plurality of different sized bearings would be placed in the corresponding apertures in the one-way collet W shown in annotated fig. 2 of the Ebay reference) , the plurality of bearings configured to engage the rod (One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that once the plurality of different sized bearings are placed in the corresponding apertures in the one-way collet W shown in annotated fig. 2 of the Ebay reference, when the rod is inserted in the one-way collet as shown in figure 9 of Hilti, the rod would engage the plurality of different sized bearings placed in the corresponding apertures in the one-way collet W) . Regarding claim 8, Hilti, as referenced by Ebay, as modified by Gray, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1. Hilti discloses a biasing member (Ebay – Z, annotated fig. 2) that biases the one-way collet toward a position corresponding to a minimum rod diameter. Regarding claim 22, Hilti, as referenced by Ebay, as modified by Gray, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1. The modified Hilti discloses the top load driving portion (Gray – portion O, annotated fig. 6 – specifically the portion having recess 40) is a blind bore (Gray – 40, fig. 6) on a bottom side of the body (Gray – 22, fig. 6) . Regarding claim 25, Hilti, as referenced by Ebay, as modified by Gray, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1. The modified Hilti discloses the top load driving axis (Gray – axis P, annotated fig. 6 – specifically the axis of recess 40) is coaxial with the impact axis (Gray – axis Q, annotated fig. 6 – specifically the axis of socket 24) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the nonpatent literature of the Hilti Rod Setting Tool TE-S PD 22 Operating Instructions, hereinafter Hilti, and referenced by the nonpatent literature of the Ebay sale of the Hilti Rod Setting Tool TE-S PD 22), hereinafter Ebay, in view of Gray (US 5,010,710 A), in further view of Jordan (US 11.084,156 B1) . Regarding claim 23, Hilti, as referenced by Ebay, as modified by Gray, discloses the invention as recited in claim 1. The modified Hilti does not explicitly disclose the top load driving portion is formed as a post extending below the body and having a blind bore therein. However, Jordan, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the top load driving portion (306, fig. 8) is formed as a post extending below the body (34, fig. 8) and having a blind bore (Figure 8 shows a socket portion 306 having a blind bore within the socket portion 306) therein. The top load driving portion O having the blind bore/recess 40 of Gray and the top load driving portion/socket portion 306 having the blind bore within the socket portion 306 are functionally equivalent performing the same function of receiving the top end of a rod when it is adjacent ground level so that the powered hammer can be used to force the top of the rod to ground level (Gray – Col. 4, ll. 55 – 58 and Jordan – Fig. 6) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the top load driving portion O having the blind bore/recess 40 of Gray for the top load driving portion/socket portion 306 having the blind bore within the socket portion 306 to achieve the predictable result of receiving the top end of a rod when it is adjacent ground level so that the powered hammer can be used to force the top of the rod to ground level. KSR, 550 U.S. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 - Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results . Allowable Subject matter 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim s 9 – 15, 18 – 19, and 21, are allowed. 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 24 is 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. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding independent claim 24, the subject matter of the attachment configured for use with a powered hammer to drive a rod into the ground is allowable over the prior art. Claim 24 includes the following limitation which is what make the subject matter allowable over the prior art, as the subject matter of claim 24 is neither taught or suggested by the prior art: “the side load driving portion also includes a conical compression spring to bias the one-way collet against the frustoconical aperture” The closest prior art is Hilti. Hilti discloses the compression spring being cylindrical – not conical as required by the claim. The prior art of record does not anticipate or make obvious the limitation, “the side load driving portion also includes a conical compression spring to bias the one-way collet against the frustoconical aperture.” Moreover, while various features of the claimed subject matter are found individually in the prior art, a skilled artisan would have to include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed subject matter, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971) . There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention, and thus obviousness would not be proper. 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) . Thus, it is examiner’s opinion that it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine or modify the prior art in order to arrive at applicant's invention as claimed. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Regarding independent claim 9, the subject matter of the attachment configured for use with a powered hammer to drive a rod into the ground is allowable over the prior art. Dependent claims 10 – 14 are also allowable over the prior art as they depend from allowable claim 9. Claim 9 includes the following limitation which, in combination with the other limitations of claim 9, is what make the subject matter allowable over the prior art, as the subject matter of claim 9 is neither taught or suggested by the prior art: “the retention device including…an internal sleeve including a first portion extending into the bore and a second portion extending outwardly from the body beyond the first end and positioned within the external sleeve” The closest prior art is the combination of Hilti, Gray, and Miyakawa (US 4,577,875 A). the modified Hilti discloses the invention of claim 9 except the retention device comprises an internal sleeve that does not extend into a bore of the attachment. That is, Miyakawa teaches a retention device having an external and internal sleeve; however, the entirety of the internal sleeve extends outwardly from the body beyond the first end. The prior art of record does not anticipate or make obvious the limitation, “the retention device including…an internal sleeve including a first portion extending into the bore and a second portion extending outwardly from the body beyond the first end and positioned within the external sleeve.” Thus, it is examiner’s opinion that it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine or modify the prior art in order to arrive at applicant's invention as claimed. Regarding independent claim 15, the subject matter of the attachment configured for use with a powered hammer to drive a rod into the ground is allowable over the prior art. Dependent claims 18 and 19 are also allowable over the prior art as they depend from allowable claim 15. Claim 15 includes the following limitation which, in combination with the other limitations of claim 15, is what make the subject matter allowable over the prior art, as the subject matter of claim 15 is neither taught or suggested by the prior art: “the driving portion also includes a fastener to secure the end cap within the aperture” The closest prior art is the combination of Hilti, Gray, and Stinson (US 4,641,715 A). Stinson discloses an end cap threadedly coupled to the body. However, Stinson does not disclose a fastener to secure the end cap and furthermore, Stinson does not disclose that the end cap is within the aperture. The prior art of record does not anticipate or make obvious the limitation, “the driving portion also includes a fastener to secure the end cap within the aperture.” Moreover, while various features of the claimed subject matter are found individually in the prior art, a skilled artisan would have to include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed subject matter, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention, and thus obviousness would not be proper. 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). Thus, it is examiner’s opinion that it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine or modify the prior art in order to arrive at applicant's invention as claimed. Regarding independent claim 21, the subject matter of the attachment configured for use with a powered hammer to drive a rod into the ground is allowable over the prior. Claim 21 includes the following limitation which, in combination with the other limitations of claim 21, is what make the subject matter allowable over the prior art, as the subject matter of claim 21 is neither taught or suggested by the prior art: “the aperture defines a groove and a plurality of cavities connected to the groove, and wherein the end cap includes a plate having a plurality of lobes received in the groove through the plurality of cavities” The closest prior art is the combination of Hilti, Gray, and Stinson (US 4,641,715 A). Stinson discloses an end cap threadedly coupled to the body. However, Stinson does not disclose the aperture defines a groove and a plurality of cavities connected to the groove, and wherein the end cap includes a plate having a plurality of lobes received in the groove through the plurality of cavities. The prior art of record does not anticipate or make obvious the limitation, “the aperture defines a groove and a plurality of cavities connected to the groove, and wherein the end cap includes a plate having a plurality of lobes received in the groove through the plurality of cavities.” Moreover, while various features of the claimed subject matter are found individually in the prior art, a skilled artisan would have to include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed subject matter, and thus obviousness would not be proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). There is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine or modify the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention, and thus obviousness would not be proper. 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). Thus, it is examiner’s opinion that it would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine or modify the prior art in order to arrive at applicant's invention as claimed . Response to Arguments 07-38-02 Applicant’s arguments, filed 27 March 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of independent 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hilti and Gray. Conclusion 07-40 AIA Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID G SHUTTY whose telephone number is (571)272-3626. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 5:30 pm, Monday - Friday. 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, SHELLEY SELF can be reached on 571-272-4524. 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. /DAVID G SHUTTY/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 10 June 2026 /JOSHUA G KOTIS/Examiner, Art Unit 3731 Application/Control Number: 19/052,384 Page 2 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 19/052,384 Page 4 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 19/052,384 Page 5 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 19/052,384 Page 6 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 19/052,384 Page 7 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 19/052,384 Page 8 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 19/052,384 Page 9 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 19/052,384 Page 11 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 19/052,384 Page 12 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 19/052,384 Page 13 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 19/052,384 Page 14 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 19/052,384 Page 15 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 19/052,384 Page 16 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 19/052,384 Page 17 Art Unit: 3731 Application/Control Number: 19/052,384 Page 18 Art Unit: 3731
Prosecution Insights