DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 8/29/25, wherein:
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, and 17-19 are currently pending; and
Claims 2, 6, 13, 16, and 20 are cancelled.
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 .
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, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a method and therefore, falls into a statutory category. Similar independent claims 8 and 15 recite a system and a computer readable storage medium, and therefore, also fall into a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?): The bolded limitations of
coupling a battery of a vehicle to a charging station communicably coupled to a server;
transferring controller area network (CAN) messages from a CAN bus of the vehicle to the server via a communication pathway within the charging cable;
determining to alter a use of at least one of the vehicle and another vehicle for a future period of time based on the CAN messages to reduce carbon emissions;
establishing a wireless network communication channel between the server and the vehicle; and
generating routing instructions based on the CAN messages, wherein processing of the CAN messages to generate the routing instructions take place at both the vehicle and the server; and
presenting the routing instructions to a display device of the vehicle
are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts and marketing or sales activities or behaviors) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). As summarized in the Specification, the invention is directed to determining an economic impact and a carbon impact based on the use of a vehicle, determining a recommendation for reducing carbon use, and providing a notification of the recommendation. Specification ¶2. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of coupling a battery of a vehicle to a charging station communicably coupled to a server, the vehicle, the server, a wireless network communication channel, controller area network (CAN), CAN bus, (claims 1, 8, and 15); a processor and a memory (claim 8); and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium and a processor (claim 15). The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions), such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Additionally, the transferring and presenting limitations may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation reciting “coupling a battery of a vehicle to a charging station communicably coupled to a server,” provides nothing more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Similar to Affinity Labs of Texas v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 120 USPQ2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the limitation regarding coupling a battery of a vehicle to a charging station which is coupled to a server merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (that of electric vehicles), and thus, fails to add an inventive concept to the claims.
The limitation reciting “establishing a wireless network communication channel between the server and the vehicle,” provides nothing more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.05(f) provides the following considerations for determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer: (1) whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished; (2) whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; and (3) the particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. Here, the computers are invoked merely as a tool to perform existing processes (“establishing a wireless network communication channel between the server and a mobile device that is located inside the vehicle”). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Further, the claims simply append well-understood, routine, and conventional (WURC) activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, in the form of the extra-solution activity. The courts have recognized that the computer functions claimed (the transferring and presenting limitations) as WURC (see 2106.05(d), identifying receiving or transmitting data over a network as WURC, as recognized by Symantec). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The limitation reciting “coupling a battery of a vehicle to a charging station via a charging cable, the charging station being communicably coupled to a server,” provides nothing more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Likewise, the establishing of a wireless network communication channel is mere instructions to apply an exception. The claim is not patent eligible, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 3-5, 7, 10-12, 14, and 17-19 merely add further details of the abstract steps/elements recited in claim 1, claim 8, or claim 15 without including a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, dependent claims 3-5, 7, 10-12, 14, and 17-19are also non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 3-5, 10-12, and 17-19 merely recite further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claim 1 as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claim 1; however, none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits.
Claims 7 and 14 further recite the additional element of a mobile device, which is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Even in combination, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
In light of the detailed explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention, when the limitations are considered individually and as whole, is directed towards an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “transferring controller area network (CAN) messages from a CAN bus of the vehicle to the server via a communication pathway within the charging cable.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for the underlined limitation in the claim. Claims 8 and 15 include similar limitations and are rejected for similar reasons. The remaining claims are rejected as dependent on claim 1, 8, or 15.
Notice
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aguilar (US 20110137763), in view of Pudar et al. (US 20090210357), and further in view of Mukhopadhyay (US 20130218427).
Referring to claim 1:
Aguilar discloses a method, comprising:
determining to alter a use of at least one of the vehicle and another vehicle for a future period of time based on the [CAN] messages to reduce carbon emissions {Aguilar [0056][0057][0065][0066][0076]; This example involves the optimization module 312 informing the consumer that their vehicle can run on flex-fuel and that alternative fuel stations exist within five miles of the household zip code and that switching to flex-fuel would reduce the vehicle carbon footprint by 14% and save $20 in monthly fuel cost [0076] where using flex-fuel is altering the use of the vehicle and where Aguilar does not disclose the CAN messages and this is addressed further below}.
Aguilar discloses a system for tracking energy data for estimating energy consumption and facilitating the reduction of energy consumption (abstract). Aguilar does not disclose coupling a battery of a vehicle to a charging station communicably coupled to a server; transferring controller area network (CAN) messages from a CAN bus of the vehicle to the server via a communication pathway within the charging cable; and establishing a wireless network communication channel between the server and the vehicle.
However, Pudar discloses a related system for power usage management for plug-in vehicles (abstract). Pudar discloses coupling a battery of a vehicle to a charging station communicably coupled to a server {Pudar [0019]-[0023] [0037][0050] and Fig. 1; process 300 begins with the plug-in vehicle already connected to a charger, or with an onboard charging system connected to a wall outlet that supplies utility power [0037] where controller 154 acts as a server, as described in at least [0023]};
transferring controller area network (CAN) messages from a CAN bus of the vehicle to the server via a communication pathway within the charging cable {Pudar [0030][0032] [0058]-[0061][0070] and Figs. 1 & 5; User profiles 512 may store information regarding power consumption, plug-in vehicle efficiency, charging schedules, preferred charging times, as well as other information as discussed above [0059] and data communication service provider 510 receives power consumption data related to charging onboard energy storage system 202 at a remote location. Plug-in vehicle 200 may also send SOC/SOH data and the vehicle location data to data communication service provider 510. Data communication service provider 510 then transmits information to information control center 530 [0061] and In the exemplary embodiment transceiver 602 communicates wirelessly with charging station 610, in other embodiments, however, communication may also be through a wired connection, such as through a charging cable connecting charging station 610 to plug-in vehicle 200 [0070]}; and
establishing a wireless network communication channel between the server and the vehicle {Pudar [0019][0025][0031][0060][0070] Figs. 1&2; Plug-in vehicle 200 may communicate with remote command center 112 using a vehicle data communication system 214 such as the ONSTAR.RTM. communication system or the like. In practice, data communication system 214 might leverage a cellular or other wireless telephone system based upon satellite and/or terrestrial wireless infrastructure [0031] and where Fig. 1 shows vehicles 102 and 103 wirelessly connected to the system via data communication links 120}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Aguilar to incorporate coupling a vehicle battery to a charging station, transferring messages, and establishing a wireless network communication channel as taught by Pudar because this would provide a manner for management, billing, and/or controlling of the charging of onboard energy storage systems of plug-in vehicles at various remote locations (Pudar [0002]), thus aiding the user by assisting them in managing their electric vehicle.
Aguilar, as modified by Pudar, discloses a system for tracking energy data for estimating energy consumption and facilitating the reduction of energy consumption (abstract). Aguilar, as modified by Pudar, does not disclose generating routing instructions based on the CAN messages, wherein processing of the CAN messages to generate the routing instructions takes place at both the vehicle and the server; and presenting the routing instructions to a display device of the vehicle.
However, Mukhopadhyay discloses a similar system for enabling eco-driving. Mukhopadhyay discloses generating routing instructions based on the CAN messages {Mukhopadhyay [0035]-[0038][0040][0064][0065]; Systems and methods in accordance with the present disclosure may provide one or more low-emission routes based on information provided by a user/driver [0064]}, wherein processing of the CAN messages to generate the routing instructions takes place at both the vehicle and the server {Mukhopadhyay [0022][0023][0040] [0052]; The OBMU 202 may determine one or more vehicle condition parameters, one or more driving condition parameters, and/or one or more driving pattern parameters. Determination of these parameters may involve the use one or more sensors located on the vehicle [0023] and The EC 304 may serve as a central controller and communications hub for the eco-driving system 100. Accordingly, the EC 304 may process requests for information by various subsystems of the eco-driving system 10 [0040] where the EC 304 is the server that is processing the messages}; and
presenting the routing instructions to a display device of the vehicle {Mukhopadhyay [0035]-[0038][0040][0064][0065]; The ECDRT 204 may also provide other real-time feedback such as driver alerts and/or messages (e.g. low-fuel alerts, oil-change alerts, manufacturer recall notices, etc.), and/or low-emission route guidance [0036]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Aguilar and Pudar to incorporate generating and presenting routing instructions as taught by Mukhopadhyay because this would provide a manner for providing real-time feedback to the driver (Mukhopadhyay [0036]), thus aiding the user by assisting them in reducing their emissions.
Referring to claim 3:
Aguilar, as modified by Pudar and Mukhopadhyay, discloses wherein the determining comprises: receiving carbon use behavior data for a period of time from the vehicle; and comparing the carbon use behavior data to a carbon impact threshold, wherein the carbon impact corresponds to a difference between the carbon use behavior data and the carbon impact threshold {Aguilar [0057][0106]-[0109][0132]-[0134]; Likewise, the user's past energy and emissions balance can be used as a baseline for future analysis. Analysis includes the impact of using the system and also the resulting calculation of carbon credits [0057] where the past energy and emissions balance is the threshold}.
Referring to claim 4:
Aguilar, as modified by Pudar and Mukhopadhyay, discloses wherein the determining comprises: determining one or more uses of the vehicle in the future period of time to reduce the carbon impact {Aguilar [0056] [0057][0065][0066][0076]; This example involves the optimization module 312 informing the consumer that their vehicle can run on flex-fuel and that alternative fuel stations exist within five miles of the household zip code and that switching to flex-fuel would reduce the vehicle carbon footprint by 14% and save $20 in monthly fuel cost [0076] where the use is flex-fuel}.
Referring to claim 8:
Claim 8 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 1, with the following additions:
Aguilar discloses a system, comprising: a processor; and a memory, coupled to the processor, comprising instructions that when executed by the processor are configured {Aguilar [0043][0123]-[0125]; The computer system 400 includes a processor 402, a main memory 404 and a static memory 406 [0124]}.
Referring to claims 10 and 11:
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected on a similar basis to claims 3 and 4.
Referring to claim 15:
Claim 15 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 1, with the following additions:
Aguilar discloses a computer readable storage medium comprising instructions, that when read by a processor, cause the processor to perform {Aguilar [0043][0123]-[0125]; The disk drive unit 416 includes a machine-readable medium 424 on which is stored a set of executable instructions, i.e. software, 426 embodying any one, or all, of the methodologies described herein below [0125]}.
Referring to claims 17 and 18:
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected on a similar basis to claims 3 and 4.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aguilar (US 20110137763), in view of Pudar et al. (US 20090210357), in view of Mukhopadhyay (US 20130218427), and further in view of Gibson et al. (US 20230062728).
Referring to claim 5:
Aguilar, as modified by Pudar and Mukhopadhyay, discloses a system for tracking energy data for estimating energy consumption and facilitating the reduction of energy consumption (abstract). Aguilar, as modified by Pudar and Mukhopadhyay, does not disclose wherein the determining comprises: determining a future carbon impact for a different type of vehicle in the future period of time; and displaying the notification with a recommendation to use the different type of vehicle in the future period of time based on the future carbon impact for the different type of vehicle.
Gibson discloses a system for ecosystem environmental impact monitoring (abstract). Gibson discloses wherein the determining comprises: determining a future carbon impact for a different type of vehicle in the future period of time; and displaying the notification with a recommendation to use the different type of vehicle in the future period of time based on the future carbon impact for the different type of vehicle {Gibson [0050]-[0053]; for example, if both users in the commuter example above were initially using gasoline vehicles, the first user might be informed that switching to an electric vehicle would save a few dollars a week, and would output slightly less carbon per week, but relative to the higher cost of the vehicle and the production impact of the vehicle, the net benefit may be low or negative. Thus, such a strategy may not be recommended for that person, or prioritized as a way to significantly reduce impact. At the same time, the second person may realize both significant impact and cost savings by switching, providing both a financial and personal incentive to switch vehicle types [0053]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Aguilar, Pudar, and Mukhopadhyay to incorporate determining a benefit received from another vehicle as taught by Gibson because this would provide a manner for helping an individual make choices that make more environmental sense for their personal situation (Gibson [0052]), thus aiding the user by helping them to save money and reduce their carbon footprint.
Referring to claim 12:
Claim 12 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 5.
Referring to claim 19:
Claim 19 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 5.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aguilar (US 20110137763), in view of Pudar et al. (US 20090210357), in view of Mukhopadhyay (US 20130218427), and further in view of Berkooz et al. (US 20230088087).
Referring to claim 7:
Aguilar, as modified by Pudar and Mukhopadhyay, discloses a system for tracking energy data for estimating energy consumption and facilitating the reduction of energy consumption (abstract). Aguilar, as modified by Pudar and Mukhopadhyay, does not disclose audibly presenting the notification via a mobile device associated with the vehicle.
Berkooz discloses a similar system for operating a vehicle (abstract). Berkooz discloses audibly presenting the notification via a mobile device associated with the vehicle {Berkooz [0044][0051][0069]; control system 130 may transmit the driver behavior recommendation to a computing device, such as a smartphone or tablet, via wireless communication system 160. For instance, a software application on the computing device of the driver may visually present the driver behavior recommendation on a display of the computing device, audibly present the driver behavior recommendation on a speaker of the computing device, etc. [0051]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Aguilar, Pudar, and Mukhopadhyay to incorporate audibly presenting the recommendation as taught by Berkooz because this would provide a manner for providing a recommendation so that the vehicle may operate at an optimal state with respect to emissions and/or efficiency (Berkooz [0049]-[0051]), thus aiding the user by helping them to save money and reduce their carbon footprint.
Referring to claim 14:
Claim 14 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Examiner thanks Applicant for identifying support in the Specification for the amendments.
Rejection under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues that when claim 1 is viewed as a whole, claim 1 is “not directed to an abstract concept, but rather a process of determining to alter a use of at least one of the vehicle and another vehicle based on CAN messages to reduce carbon emissions.” Remarks 8. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As is explained more fully above, the process of determining to alter a use of at least one vehicle to reduce carbon emissions is an abstract idea. The limitations regarding messages generated by a CAN of the vehicle provides nothing more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Applicant then argues that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because “Applicant’s claims impose meaningful, practical, and succinct operations which enable faster processing of CAN messages . . . by processing the CAN messages at both the vehicle and a remote server.” Remarks 9. The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have identified a number of considerations as relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements demonstrate that a claim is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include: an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a); applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2); implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b); effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e). Applicant’s use of multiple processors does not provide an improvement in the functioning of the processor itself, and does not satisfy any other indication of an additional element that integrates the exception into a practical application, as outlined by the Courts.
Applicant also argues that the claims provide an ordered combination of elements which provides significantly more than the judicial exception. Remarks 9. However, this is unsupported attorney argument and is not persuasive.
Rejection under 35 USC 112
Applicant argues that the claims have been amended, thereby rendering the previous rejection moot. Examiner agrees as to the previous rejection; however, a new rejection has been issued as a result of the amended claim limitations (see above).
Rejection under 35 USC 103
Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the amended claim limitations. Examiner has provided new art in response to the amended limitations.
Conclusion
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 CARRIE S GILKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30 CT and Friday 7:30-12 CT.
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 on 571-270-3445. 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.
/CARRIE S GILKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626