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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/12/26 has been entered. Currently claims 1, 2, 5-17, 19, 20, are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2, 5-17, 19, 20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims 1, 12, 16, recite a method and a system; therefore, the claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of verifying charitable causes are supported by a business by verifying donations made to charity, and offering for sale goods and services provided by the business that support the causes. This is considered to be defining a certain method of organizing human activities.
Using claim 1 as a representative example that is applicable to claims 12 and 16, the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
receiving information from a business supporting one or more causes; for different businesses, types of products, causes, and consumers;
the plurality of businesses support the one or more causes by selling goods and services with a portion of sales for the goods and services going to the one or more causes;
automatically 5verifying the one or more causes supported by the business based on a percentage or contribution paid to the one or more causes based on the sales of the goods and services;
the automatic verification is performed using 1) automatic databases searches of external databases, cross-reference with external databases to ensure accuracy and updating of proper licensing, management, and transactions for the goods and services supporting the one or more causes, 2) automatic search algorithms, 3) communications automatically sent for affirmative verification to the one or more causes, and 4) user input from the business, 5) requesting additional information from the business and/or the one or more causes in response to being unable to verify the one or more causes supported by the business;
adding the business as a verified authorized business in response to successful automated verification and maintaining an updated verification by writing a verification transaction;
communicating goods and services offered by the business in response to the one or more causes being verified,
presents at least (1) the goods and services, (2) the one or more causes supported by sales of the goods and services, and (3) verification of the one or more causes supported by sales of the goods and services to a plurality of users
displaying a[n] user specific, accurate, cause verified display enabled by 1) preforming automatic verification without user interaction of the one or more causes supported by each of the authorized businesses and the goods and services in conjunction with 2) learning and updating a user preference including at least one of user cause preferences and cause restrictions enabled by the user searches, browsing, or purchasing a good or service connected with a specific cause,
rework[s] the way the goods are displayed in accordance with the learned user preference and the automatic verification enabling the sales of the goods and services by businesses to a plurality of users
receiving selections of goods and services for purchase by the plurality of users
automatically receiving payments for the goods and services purchased by the plurality of users as the sales
distributing the goods and services offered by the business to the plurality of users in response to sales of the goods and services to a plurality of users, and
storing the information and assigning secure identifiers for securing and authenticating at least one of the sellers, goods, services, and supported causes the information regarding the plurality of businesses supporting the one or 2more causes, payments through the payment systems, and information regarding the plurality of users in a ledger
The above limitations are reciting a process by which goods and services are being offered for sale and the donations made to charity by an organization/business are being verified. This represents a fundamental economic practice in the form of a sales activity (crowd funding via sales of goods/services) and/or a marketing activity (cause-based marketing advertising businesses that are verified as contributing to charitable causes). This includes advertising the businesses that support charitable causes and verifying that the charitable giving is actually occurring. This is a concept that is an economic activity that amounts marketing/sales activities and qualifies as being a certain method of organizing human activities per the eligibility guidance of the MPEP (see MPEP 2106). Disclosed in the specification is that the invention allows consumers to find business that have had their charitable donations verified, so that goods and services can be sold to the consumers. This represents a certain method of organizing human activities. By selling goods and services to consumers, the result is that the charities are able to receive further support. One could also argue that this amounts to a form of crowd funding as the specification on page 2 admits is done when portions from sales of goods and services is given to charities.
For these reasons the claims are found to be reciting an abstract idea that is a certain method of organizing human activities.
For claim 1, the additional elements of the claim are considered to be the following limitations: the claimed distributed computing network that maintains one or more blockchain platform utilizing one or more blockchain ledgers, that use cryptographically linked blocks (this is blockchain by definition), the claimed logic, the use of one or more processors, the claimed interface that is used to perform the presenting and displaying steps (where the presenting and displaying is considered to be part of the abstract idea), the fact that the communications are electronic, the payment systems, the network for data communication, and the recitation to the ledger being a blockchain ledger. The recitation to the computing network that includes a blockchain platform that has one or more ledgers has been interpreted to be a recitation to the use of blockchain. This is because other than calling the platform a blockchain platform, the only recitation to any use of blockchain is the receipt and storage in the ledger. The claimed “blockchain” platform is defining a platform such as a computer(s) that are using blockchain to store data. The claimed platform has been interpreted to be a processing/computing device or computer that can use blockchain.
For claims 12 the additional elements are the plurality of electronic devices (wireless devices) executing a sales application, an internet connected platform accessible by the devices, payment systems, the recitation to the use of a blockchain platform that has ledgers to store the claimed information using cryptographically linked blocks, the processor(s). Also considered to be an additional element is the claimed interface.
Claim 16 recites further additional elements of a processor and memory that incudes instructions to perform the steps that define the abstract idea, in addition to referencing the blockchain ledger, the user interface, a network, etc., similar to what was addressed for claims 1 and 12.
For claims 1, 12 and 16, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amounts to a link to a particular technological environment such as the use of internet connected computing device(s) with a processor that has logic (programming), that uses blockchain platforms with ledgers to store data (blockchain by definition), having payment systems (generically recited), an interface for data display, and memory. The claimed additional elements are merely being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea and amounts to a link to using computer that employs blockchain, see MPEP 2106.05(f), 2106.05(h). The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited blockchain platform that can be accessed by electronic devices using the Internet (a network) and by payment systems, which includes in the claim scope devices such as general-purpose computers connected via the Internet. The claimed cryptographically linked blocks for the blockchain is claiming how blockchain works and is not more than a general link to blockchain as a technology. This amounts to a mere instruction to practice the invention using generic computers or other electronic computing devices to perform the steps that define the abstract idea.
The recitation to a blockchain ledger (as opposed to a manual ledger used by people for centuries) is simply a link to a particular technological environment which is the use of blockchain and distributed ledgers. The extent of the use of blockchain in the claims, and disclosed in the specification, is for storage of data, which is what blockchain does by definition. The claimed recitation to blockchain platform is using the blockchain for its ordinary use, namely the storage of data, see 2106.05(f)(2), and is recited at a high level of generality. This can also be interpreted as being a link to a particular technological environment that is the use of computers and blockchain, see MPEP 2106.05(h) in this regard. The same is found for the limitation that is reciting the communications as being electronic and the use of the interface. The claimed electronic communications is just claiming the use of a computer or other computing type of device and is akin to merely instructing one to use digital communications (such as email as opposed to paper mail). This is just linking the execution of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, namely implementation by computers. The same is noted for the recitation to the “interface”. The claimed interface is also nothing more than linking the execution of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, namely implementation by computers.
With respect to the claim language that is reciting the automatic verification by the processors is done without human intervention, this is claiming computer implementation for the abstract idea. Once a computer is given a command or instruction or prompt to do an automatic verification, it does not involve a person but is still nothing more than just using a computer to perform the step that is part of the abstract idea. Claiming “without human intervention” does not provide eligibility to the claim because the limitation is akin to reciting “apply it” with a computer. Therefore, the above reasons are indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For claims 1, 12, 16, for step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited electronic devices and a blockchain platform with an interface, or the platform that comprises a processor and memory with an interface, payment systems, use of blockchain, as addressed above for the 2nd prong, to perform steps that define the abstract idea. The claimed additional elements are merely being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea and amounts to a link to using computer that employ blockchain, see MPEP 2106.05(f), 2106.05(h). Claiming “without human intervention” does not provide eligibility to the claim because the limitation is akin to reciting “apply it” with a computer. The claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited blockchain platform that can be accessed by electronic devices using the Internet (a network) and by payment systems, which includes in the claim scope devices such as general-purpose computers connected via the Internet. This amounts to a mere instruction to practice the invention using generic computers or other electronic computing devices to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f), 2106.05(h). The rationale set forth for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test above is also applicable to step 2B in this regard, to which the applicant is referred.
For claims 2, 13, 17, determining the causes are verified and determining whether support provided by the business is accurate utilizing the automated verification of automatic databases and automatic search algorithms, are further defining the same abstract idea that was recited in claims 1, 12, 16. This is part of the process of verifying the businesses so that the goods and services can be sold. These elements are part of the abstract idea of the claim. The claimed electronic nature to the verification has been treated in the same manner as set forth for claims 1, 12, 16 and is a general link to computer implantation and the use of electronic devices. This does not provide for integration into a practical application at the 2nd prong and does not amount to significantly more at step 2B. Applicant is again referred to MPEP 2106.05(f) in this regard.
For claim 19, requesting additional information from the business and one or more causes when unable to verify the causes supported as claimed is a further recitation to the same abstract idea of claim 16. This can be accomplished by people talking to each other to request information and still amounts to being part of the method of organizing human activities of the independent claims. The blockchain ledger of claim 19 has been treated in the same manner as set forth for claim 16. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 5, 6, 19, importing information associated with the business, and tracking updates to the information associated with the business are reciting a further embellishment of the same abstract idea that was found for claims 1, 16. The claimed “platform” and the use of a blockchain ledger has been treated in the same manner as set forth for claims 1 and 16. The use of the platform is akin to an instruction for one to use a computer or computers connected via a network, and the use of blockchain is a general link to the field of blockchain technology, and does not render the claims eligible at the 2nd prong (does not provide for integration) or at step 2B (does not recite significantly more). The claims are not found to be eligible.
For claims 7, 14, 20, presenting authorized businesses, displaying causes, and enabling the sales of goods and services are elements that are considered to be part of the abstract idea of the claim. These steps are in part what defines the process by which goods and services are made available for sale and still places the claim into the category of being a certain method of organizing human activities. The platform has been treated in the same manner as set forth for claims 1, 12 and 16 and is considered to be a mere instruction for one to practice the abstract idea using generic computers. The claimed platform includes a processor with memory and is nothing more than a recitation to computer implementation of the abstract idea, with a general link to a blockchain platform (that was addressed for claim 1). Additionally, for the display of data, even if not part of the abstract idea of the claim the mere display of data is an insignificant extra solution activity that does not provide for integration at the 2nd prong. Data display is also a well understood activity that for step 2B does not amount to reciting significantly more. The Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017) indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the display step is well‐understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 8, displaying the one or more causes supported by the plurality of consumers is considered to be part of the abstract idea of the claim. Alternatively, if not part of the abstract idea it is noted that the display of the claimed data is an insignificant extra solution activity that does not provide for integration at the 2nd prong. Data display is also a well understood activity that for step 2B does not amount to reciting significantly more. The Federal Circuit in Trading Techs. Int’l v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019), and Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indemnity Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2017) indicated that the mere displaying of data is a well understood, routine, and conventional function. Accordingly, a conclusion that the display step is well‐understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claims 9, 15, communicating the one or more causes as claimed using preferences is considered to be part of the abstract idea of the claims. People can communicate using words or writing on paper so what is claimed is still considered to be placing the claims into the category of being a method of organizing human activities. The use of the interface (cl. 18) has been treated in the same manner as set forth for claim 16. The claims do not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 10, the claimed steps of associating are part of the abstract idea that was set forth for claim 1. These steps can also be performed mentally by a person who is associating data to each other in their mind. What is claimed does not represent an additional element for consideration at the 2nd prong or at step 2B. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 11, sending a receipt to each consumer as claimed is also found to be part of the abstract idea of the claims. Providing a receipt for economic transactions involving the sale of goods and services is part of the abstract idea and can be done manually by people. This does not represent an additional element for consideration at the 2nd prong or at step 2B. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims is/are not considered to be eligible.
Therefore, for the above reasons claims 1, 2, 5-17, 19, 20, are rejected as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to arguments
The traversal of the 35 USC 101 rejection is not persuasive. On pages 13-14 the applicant argues that the claims are directed to a method for compiling information for businesses supporting causes to enable purchasers to verify the causes and support of the causes by the businesses prior to purchasing goods and services from the businesses, and argues recites a specific technical solution implemented through a blockchain platform implemented as a distributed computing network utilizing one or more distinct blockchain ledgers, each ledger storing transactions as cryptographically linked blocks. As to the first portion of the argument the compiling information for businesses supporting causes to enable purchasers to verify the causes and support of the causes by the businesses prior to purchasing goods and services from the businesses that has been argued is what defines the abstract idea. The portion of the argument that relies upon blockchain technology with cryptographically linked blocks is an argument that using blockchain ledgers as a repository for immutable data storage makes the claims eligible. This is not persuasive because the applicant is using blockchain technology for what is used for and is not more than a general link to the field of blockchain. The additional elements that are the use of blockchain do not provide for integration into a practical application or significantly more.
On page 14 the applicant alleges that the claimed invention is a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities rather than human activity. In support the applicant argues the elements of:
(1) distributed blockchain ledgers partitioned by businesses, products, causes,
and consumers;
(2) cryptographically linked transaction blocks;
(3) processor-executed automatic verification performed without human
intervention;
(4) cross-referencing of external databases via automated search algorithms and
electronic communications; and
(5) secure identifier assignment and immutable storage
In reply the examiner notes that the claims do not result in an improvement to any of the technology recited in the claims, especially the use of blockchain in the claims. The use of distributed ledgers that stores data for businesses and products, etc., and that uses cryptographically linked transaction blocks is claiming by definition what blockchain is. The agued elements above as (1) and (2) are a link to the particular technological field of blockchain technology and do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or other device recited in the claims. Blockchain is not being improved by the claimed steps that define the abstract idea. The result of the claim allows consumers to find business that have had their charitable donations verified, so that goods and services can be sold to the consumers. This does not serve to improve technology in any manner. The argument is not persuasive. The claimed use of a processor executed verification process (element (3)) is a limitation directed to the use of a computer to perform the abstract idea and does not indicate that the claims are eligible. The cross-referencing of databases and use of search algorithms (element (4)) is arguing the abstract idea where the reference to the automated search and electronic communications is an argument directed to the fact that the invention is being implemented by a computer. This is not persuasive. The use of a computer to perform the abstract idea step of cross referencing databases for information is an instruction for one to use a computer to perform the step that defines the abstract idea. This does not render the claims eligible, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The argued secure identifier assignment (element (5)) is arguing the abstract idea and the immutable storage is another reference to the use of blockchain technology that does not render the claims eligible for the reasons set forth in the rejection of record.
The applicant argues that the elements (1) through (5) are improving the technological process of verification, authentication, and trust establishment in networked transaction systems, which the applicant argues is not human activity. The argument is not persuasive. The verification, authentication, and establishment of trust is broadly arguing the abstract idea. The fostering of an establishment of trust between consumers and businesses by verifying charitable donations that were made by the businesses is the managing of the relationship between people in an economic context and is not a technologic process or technological field. The verification, authentication, and trust establishment is human activity. The fact that the system uses computers and blockchain technology does not alter the finding that the claims are simply using the additional elements of technology as a tool to execute the abstract idea, which does not provide for integration into a practical application or significantly more for the reasons set forth in the rejection of record.
On page 15 the applicant argues that the claims are solving a computer centric problem of how to automatically verify and maintain trust in commercial transactions through a distributed network using blockchain based verification architecture that did not exist pre computer contexts. While computers and the use of blockchain technology did not exist before computers, verifying business information so that consumers can trust the business is not something that is computer centric and is what defines the abstract idea. As set forth previously, the claimed additional elements are simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea using computers and blockchain technology. This does not render the claims eligible.
Oh pages 15-16 the applicant again argues a USPTO example that does not exist. Arguing a made up and non-existent USPTO subject matter eligibility example is not helpful to the prosecution of the instant application because there is no such example that can be relied upon so the basis of the argument is flawed. On page 16, the applicant argues that the claims are solving a technical problem and is similar to USPTO example 40 that is verifying the authenticity of a diamond using blockchain. This is not persuasive because the claimed invention is not solving a technical problem and because there is no example 40 or any example issued by the USPTO that stands for the premise that using blockchain to verifying diamonds is eligible. Example 40 from the USPTO that is part of the eligibility guidelines is directed to Network Traffic Monitoring to optimize network performance. Example 40 has nothing to do with diamonds or use of blockchain as argued. Additionally, upon a review of the entirety of the issued USPTO examples for claim eligibility under 35 USC 101 (Examples 1-49), it is noted that there are no examples directed to diamonds at all, or the use of blockchain to verify diamonds. The argued example does not exist. However, the examiner does note for the record that the CAFC found the concept of using blockchain to track diamonds to be an ineligible abstract idea under 35 USC 101 (an abstract idea that was not reciting significantly more), see MAX A. RADY, Plaintiff-Appellant v. THE BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP, INC., DE BEERS UK LTD., Defendants-Appellees (CAFC 2022-2218, March 2024). The court noted on page 10 of the decision that:
Rady’s claimed system may be useful in preventing the counterfeiting of gemstones, but utility is not the measure of patent eligibility. See Myriad, 569 U.S. at 591 (explaining that “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant discovery does not by itself satisfy the § 101 inquiry”). Rady’s claims are directed to an abstract idea because they do not purport to solve any technological problem, but instead use existing imaging and blockchain technology in predictable ways to address the economic problem of counterfeit goods. In effect, Rady’s claims rely on existing technological tools to gather and record data but disclose no purported improvement in the tools themselves. See Elec. Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (concluding that claims were directed to an abstract idea where their “focus” was not on “an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools”); see also Trading Techs. Int’l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (concluding that claims were directed to an abstract idea because they did “not improve the functioning of the computer, make it operate more efficiently, or solve any technological problem”).
From pages 11-12 of the decision:
Nor does Rady plausibly allege that recording information about the unique imperfections of a physical object on a blockchain, rather than another type of ledger, supplies an inventive concept. As discussed previously, Rady’s patent does not purport to disclose any novel type of blockchain or other decentralized network. It does not, moreover, disclose any improved or otherwise unconventional technique for storing data on a blockchain. In this regard, the fact that the patent describes recording a particular type of information—data about the unique pattern of imperfections in a physical object—to a blockchain does not mean that it improves the underlying blockchain technology. See BSG Tech, 899 F.3d at 1288 (explaining that “an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database’s functionality”). Thus, because the claims of the ’250 patent use conventional item analysis components and existing blockchain technology to implement the abstract idea of gathering and storing information about physical objects, they fail to supply the inventive concept required at Alice step two. See Trinity Info Media, LLC v. Covalent, Inc., 72 F.4th 1355, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (explaining that this court has “found no inventive concept where claims merely recited ‘generic features’ or ‘routine functions’ to implement the underlying abstract idea” (citations omitted)).
For similar reasons articulated by the CAFC with respect to the use of blockchain to store data for gemstones, the use of blockchain to store data for charitable donations and their verification is also something that is not using blockchain in a way that is anything more than its ordinary use and does not provide an inventive concept to the claims that would render them eligible. For this reason the argument that the claims are a technical solution to a problem that uses blockchain is not persuasive to show that the 101 rejection is in error. The argued example does not exist and is the basis for all of the presented arguments. The argument is not persuasive.
The applicant argues that the claims recite significantly more on pages 16-18. The applicant argues that the claimed language and elements are not generic computer components and are non-conventional. This is not persuasive because the claimed element are conventional in nature and are nothing more than an instruction for one to use a computer and blockchain technology as a tool to execute the abstract idea. The allegation to the contrary is not persuasive. The result of the claims is a business result, not a technical solution to a technical problem as the applicant also argues.
The applicant argues that the claims are not analogous to human activity because the claims recite distributed ledger technology that uses cryptographically linked blocks for an immutable transaction verification. This is arguing the additional elements that are blockchain technology, which is not something that the examiner has equated to human activity. The argument is not persuasive for this reason. The mere presence of a computer or even a link to blockchain technology does not mean that a claimed invention cannot be found to be reciting an abstract idea at step 2A or cannot be found to be directed to an abstract idea at the 2nd prong and step 2B. The argument is not persuasive.
The arguments are not persuasive and the rejection under 35 USC 101 is being maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626