DETAILED ACTION
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Novel/Non-Obvious Subject Matter
Examiner has determined that Claims 15-20 of Applicant’s claims have overcome having prior art rejections. The reason for this is that Examiner does not believe that, at the time of Applicant’s priority date, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine prior art disclosures to result in the particular combinations of elements/limitations in the claims, including the particular configurations of the elements/limitations with respect to each other in the particular combinations, without the use of impermissible hindsight.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 1 and 8, Claim(s) 1 and 8 recite(s):
- sharing digital media in an event ecosystem;
- a unique identification marker assigned to a user;
- corresponding documentation of all changes to said digital media using said unique identification marker;
- a digital media feature utilizing said unique identification marker assigned to said digital media, wherein said feature regulates distribution permissions (of said digital media) among said plurality of users.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): manages sharing of digital media between people.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- a system; digital media; a personal device, comprising a central processing unit, capable of executing computer readable instructions and a plurality of program modules; a memory unit; in communication with an FTP server; retrieve and transmit; a cloud-based data storage medium; a web service client; hosting said cloud-based data storage medium; a program module interface for said plurality of program modules presenting said digital media, and wherein said program module interface facilitates interactions between a plurality of users through a communication interface; an editing interface (through said program module interface), wherein said digital media is capable of being modified, edited and altered by at least one of said plurality of users; encryption: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 2-7 and 9-14, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
Those dependent claim(s) add the following generic computer components, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more, under the same reasoning as given above with respect to generic computer components in the independent claim(s). Those additional generic computer components and their corresponding dependent claim(s) are as follows:
- artificial intelligence (Claims 3 and 10);
- prevent screen captures (Claims 4 and 11);
- uploading (Claims 5 and 12);
- accepts uploads (Claims 7 and 14).
The remaining added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, Claim 2 merely adds more detail to the distribution permissions.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim(s) 1-14 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
Claim(s) 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per Claim(s) 15, Claim(s) 15 recite(s):
- sharing digital media in an event ecosystem;
- a unique identification marker assigned to a user;
- receiving said digital media to an event album;
- wherein said user is invited to said event album using a QR code;
- a time limit associated with said event album to enable receiving data for a designated duration corresponding to an event, further comprising of said event album receives said digital media for an event's duration;
- a digital rights management algorithm to prevent redistribution of said digital media;
- corresponding documentation of all changes to said digital media using said unique identification marker;
- a digital media feature utilizing said unique identification marker assigned to said digital media, and wherein distribution permissions are determined by a clearance level allocated to said user.
Each of the above limitations falls within the abstract-idea category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity.” Specifically, those limitations relate to the following subject matter that is grouped into the category of “Certain methods of organizing human activity”:
- managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions): manages sharing of digital media between people.
To the extent that any of these limitations are recited alongside recitations of generic computer components, as described below in this rejection: If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter recognized as certain methods of organizing human activity but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the following additional elements/limitations, each of which are addressed in the list below with the reason(s) why they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application:
- a system; digital media; a personal device, comprising a central processing unit, capable of executing computer-readable instructions and a plurality of program modules; a memory unit; in communication with an FTP server; retrieve and transmit; a cloud-based data storage medium; a web service client; hosting said cloud-based data storage medium; uploading; uploads; accepts said uploads; prevent screen captures; a program module interface for said plurality of program modules presenting said digital media, and wherein said program module interface facilitates interactions between a plurality of users through a communication interface; an editing interface, wherein said digital media is capable of being modified, edited and altered by at least one of said plurality of users; encryption: These element(s)/limitation(s) amount to mere instructions to apply an exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). In making this determination, examiners may consider whether the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Mere instructions to apply an exception is a consideration with respect to both integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and significantly more. MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) states: “Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit).” This is the case with these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s). Those elements/limitations do not meaningfully limit the claim because implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. Therefore, these particular claim element(s)/limitation(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for at least this reason.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either individually or as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of computer-related components amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim(s) are not patent eligible.
As per dependent claim(s) 16-20, these claim(s) incorporate the above abstract idea via their dependencies on the respective independent claim(s). The additional element(s)/limitation(s) of the respective independent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they add significantly more, with respect to those dependent claim(s), under the same reasoning as above with respect to the respective independent claim(s).
Those dependent claim(s) add the following generic computer components, which do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more, under the same reasoning as given above with respect to generic computer components in the independent claim(s). Those additional generic computer components and their corresponding dependent claim(s) are as follows:
- disabling editing (Claim 18);
- locking (Claim 18);
- partially blocking displaying (Claim 18).
The remaining added elements/limitations of those dependent claim(s) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor add significantly more because they all merely add further functional step(s) and/or detail to the abstract idea; as part of the abstract idea, they cannot integrate into a practical application or be significantly more than the abstract idea of which they are a part. For example, Claim 17 merely adds detail to the clearance level.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor add significantly more. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology.
Claim(s) 15-20 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and is without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-6, 8-9, and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ow, US 20150371057 A1, in view of Warshne, WO 2022/167998 A1, in further view of Nag, US 20210232536 A1.
As per Claims 1 and 8, Ow discloses:
- a system (or method) for sharing digital media in a list (paragraph [0011] (“The file sharing systems and methods disclosed herein enables a user to select and share any number of files, folders, songs, videos, pictures and other digital media with an unlimited number of recipients, while maintaining control of the media being shared, and limiting the number of copies being downloaded or otherwise distributed.”); paragraphs [0092]-[0093] (file sharing system); paragraph [0115] (“The List Creation and Sharing features will now be discussed with reference to FIG. 5. The file sharing system provides a feature that allows users to create and share lists of their favorite files (e.g., pictures, songs, videos, recipes, files, folders, documents, etc. . . . ) The List Sharing feature enables the user to create a list of multiple files or folders for the purpose of sharing large quantities of files easily, while negating the need for the files to be moved to specific folders or other locations within the file sharing system.”));
- a personal device, comprising a central processing unit, capable of executing computer readable instructions and a plurality of program modules (Figure 1B; paragraph [0093] (“The Web User Interface 114 manages communications with the system 110 that are received through commonly known internet browser software including, but not limited to, FireFox, Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, Apple Safari and other generally known web browsers. The Web User Interface 114 allows any users that have rights to the system 110 to access the system 110 through any personal computer connected to the internet. No special software is required to manage the system 110. All system 110 functions can be managed from any personal computer with internet access and a generally known web browser.”); paragraph [0094] (“Generally known devices that can access the file sharing system 110 include (but are not limited to) desktop personal computers 128, laptop computers 130, tablets or pads 132 and smart phones 134.”));
- a memory unit, in communication with a server to retrieve and transmit said digital media to a cloud-based data storage medium, and wherein a web service client hosts said cloud-based data storage medium (Figure 1A; paragraph [0012] (“In one or more embodiments, the file sharing system relies on an operating system, that may be hosted on one or more remote servers, such as in a cloud service, to enable users to control and share their media with one another.”); paragraph [0093] (“The system 110 provides a web services 120 module that enables the web user interface 114 to function properly within the system. Since no special software is required to manage the system 110, the web services module 120 is responsible for interpreting and delegating commands and management sequences received through the web user interface 114.”; “The system 110 also provides an active notifications and messaging system 122 to keep track of all activities that happen within the system. These activities include, but are not limited to, file uploads, downloads, shares in, shares out, deleted files, list creation, usage permissions and other management and notification aspects within the system.”; “The system 110 also provides a media storage system 124 for use in instances where the user of the system 110 wishes to store their media on the cloud.”); paragraph [0150] (“Backup of digital content within the system may be performed through a series of system modules providing detailed information about the digital content being stored. The user of the file sharing system has the option of performing a backup where the contents of their backup are stored on a device they own and control, such as a personal cloud device, or in a secured storage location within the file sharing system, or both.”); the local device here can be regarded as the web service client);
- a unique identification marker assigned to a user (claim 1 (user identifiers));
- a program module interface for said plurality of program modules presenting said digital media, and wherein said program module interface facilitates interactions between a plurality of users through a communication interface (Figure 1B; paragraph [0056] (“Further, the lists can be played and streamed directly from a user's PCD (personal cloud device) or from their online storage account with the file sharing system.”); paragraph [0093] (“The Web User Interface 114 manages communications with the system 110 that are received through commonly known internet browser software including, but not limited to, FireFox, Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, Apple Safari and other generally known web browsers. The Web User Interface 114 allows any users that have rights to the system 110 to access the system 110 through any personal computer connected to the internet. No special software is required to manage the system 110. All system 110 functions can be managed from any personal computer with internet access and a generally known web browser.”); paragraph [0094] (“Generally known devices that can access the file sharing system 110 include (but are not limited to) desktop personal computers 128, laptop computers 130, tablets or pads 132 and smart phones 134.”));
- an editing interface (through said program module interface), wherein said digital media is capable of being modified, edited and altered with corresponding documentation of all changes to said digital media (paragraph [0010] (“A second shortcoming of prior art file sharing systems and methods that it is difficult to control and track changes and/or updates to the original electronic media.”); paragraph [0048] (“The systems, devices and methods described herein further enable changes to the files to be controlled and/or tracked.”));
- a digital media encryption feature utilizing said unique identification marker assigned to said digital media, wherein said feature regulates distribution permissions (of said digital media) among said plurality of users through said communication interface (paragraph [0011] (“The file sharing systems and methods disclosed herein enables a user to select and share any number of files, folders, songs, videos, pictures and other digital media with an unlimited number of recipients, while maintaining control of the media being shared, and limiting the number of copies being downloaded or otherwise distributed.”); paragraph [0154] (most of paragraph); claim 1 (user identifiers)).
Ow fails to disclose wherein a list relates to an event ecosystem; wherein a server is an FTP server. Warshne discloses wherein a list relates to an event ecosystem (paragraph [0001] (event, organizer); paragraph [0003] (discussion of events and organizers); paragraph [0030] (collaborative album; event); paragraph [0040] (photos); paragraph [0041] (event and party decoration and publicity; event)); wherein a server is an FTP server (paragraph [0019] (servers); paragraph [0022] (FTP)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Ow such that a list relates to an event ecosystem; and a server is an FTP server, as disclosed by Warshne, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
The modified Ow fails to disclose wherein said digital file is capable of being modified, edited and altered by at least one of said plurality of users with corresponding documentation of all changes to said digital file using said unique identification marker. Nag discloses wherein said digital file is capable of being modified, edited and altered by at least one of said plurality of users with corresponding documentation of all changes to said digital file using said unique identification marker (paragraph [0041] (much of paragraph)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Ow such that said digital file is capable of being modified, edited and altered by at least one of said plurality of users with corresponding documentation of all changes to said digital file using said unique identification marker, as disclosed by Nag, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claims 2 and 9, Ow further discloses wherein said distribution permissions are assigned clearance levels that determine a user's ability to edit or distribute an image (paragraph [0008]; paragraph [0011]; paragraph [0098]; paragraph [0099]; paragraph [0100]; paragraph [0101]).
As per Claims 5 and 12, the modified Ow fails to disclose wherein said program module interface enables said user to create an event album for uploading said digital media to said communication interface. Warshne further discloses wherein said program module interface enables said user to create an event album for uploading said digital media to said communication interface (paragraph [0001]; paragraph [0003]; paragraph [0030]; paragraph [0041]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Ow such that said program module interface enables said user to create an event album for uploading said digital media to said communication interface, as disclosed by Warshne, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claims 6 and 13, the modified Ow fails to disclose wherein said user is invited to said event album using a QR code. Warshne further discloses wherein said user is invited to said event album using a QR code (paragraph [0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Ow such that said user is invited to said event album using a QR code, as disclosed by Warshne, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ow in view of Warshne in further view of Nag in further view of Leblanc, US 20230205897 A1.
As per Claims 3 and 10, the modified Ow fails to disclose wherein said digital media applies a digital rights management algorithm using artificial intelligence (analysis) to prevent redistribution of digital media. Leblanc discloses wherein said digital media applies a digital rights management algorithm using artificial intelligence (analysis) to prevent redistribution of digital media (paragraph [0071]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Ow such that said digital media applies a digital rights management algorithm using artificial intelligence (analysis) to prevent redistribution of digital media, as disclosed by Leblanc, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claims 4 and 11, the modified Ow fails to disclose a content protection blackout to prevent screen captures of said digital media. Leblanc further discloses a content protection blackout to prevent screen captures of said digital media (paragraph [0031]; paragraph [0063]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Ow such that the invention includes a content protection blackout to prevent screen captures of said digital media, as disclosed by Leblanc, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ow in view of Warshne in further view of Nag in further view of Foster, US 20180063209 A1.
As per Claims 7 and 14, the modified Ow fails to disclose said event album accepts uploads of said digital media for an event's duration. Foster discloses said event album accepts uploads of said digital media for an event's duration (paragraph [0045]; paragraph [0046]; paragraph [0063]; claim 8; claim 22). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the modified Ow such that said event album accepts uploads of said digital media for an event's duration, as disclosed by Foster, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Manuel, US 20210134406 A1 (uploading a data record to a cloud repository).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN ERB whose telephone number is (571)272-7606. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 11:30 AM - 8 PM.
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, JEFFREY ZIMMERMAN can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
nhe
/NATHAN ERB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628