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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s submission filed 6/27/24 has been entered. Claims 1-15 are presented for examination.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims disclose the abstract idea of determining whether a customer order is eligible to be modified by the customer based on satisfaction of one or more modification eligibility conditions.
STEP 1
Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
The claims are all directed to a statutory category (e.g., a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). The answer is YES.
STEP 2A. Prong 1
Exemplary claim 1 recites the following abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea”:
“-a customer application configured to:
--generate a customer order in response to input received from the customer, wherein the customer order includes a plurality of ordered items for picking in the store; and
--generate an order modification interface configured to receive at least one of addition modifications, deletion modifications, and substitution modifications; and
--determine whether the customer order is eligible to be modified by the customer based on satisfaction of one or more modification eligibility conditions; and
--send an eligibility determination to the customer device that indicates whether the customer order is eligible to be modified, wherein the customer application is configured to receive customer input in the order modification interface that modifies the customer order when the customer order is eligible to be modified.”
The remaining limitations are no more than computer elements (i.e., a computing system, customer device) to be used as a tool to perform this abstract idea.
The recited limitations cover a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers subject matter viewed as a certain method of organizing human activity with the additional recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the “customer device”, “a computer system configured to” language, “generate, determine, send” in the context of this claim encompasses the user generating the order, generating an order modification template/interface, determining whether the customer order is eligible to be modified by the customer based on satisfaction of one or more modification eligibility conditions; and --sending an eligibility determination to the customer device.
The practice of generating, determining data, as well as selecting an action based on rules is a commercial or legal interaction long prevalent in our system of commerce. The claims recite the idea of performing various conceptual steps generically resulting in determining whether a customer order is eligible to be modified by the customer based on satisfaction of one or more modification eligibility conditions.
As determined earlier, none of these steps recites specific technological implementation details, but instead get to this result by receiving, selecting and determining data. Thus, the claims are directed to a certain method of organizing human activity
STEP 2A, Prong 2
Are there additional elements or a combination of elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception?
The claim recites: “render, on a customer device, a customer graphical user interface (GUI) including a plurality of items for sale at a store”; and “a computing system configured to determine…. Send determination”.
The customer device and the computing system in the steps are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data. These limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, these 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 is directed to an abstract idea.
STEP 2B
The next issue is whether the claims provide an inventive concept because the additional elements recited in the claims provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception. Taking the claim elements separately, the function performed by the computing system at each step of the process is purely conventional. The claim does 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 elements of using a computing system or customer device to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of Applicants' claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately. The claimed invention does not focus on an improvement in computers as tools, but rather certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. {Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1354). (Step 2B: NO).
There is no indication that indication that the computing system or the customer device is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Dependent claims 2-15 do not include any new additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For the reasons described above, they are also ineligible.
Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2.
See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity.
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350,1355,112 USPQ2d 1093,1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hoteis.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result-a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306,1334,115 USPQ2d 1681,1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363,115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
The claims are ineligible.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 11, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borders et al. (US 8635113 B2), in view of DUAN (CN 110648200 A).
Re-claim 1, Borders et al. teach --A system comprising:
-a customer application configured to:
--render, on a customer device, a customer graphical user interface (GUI) including a plurality of items for sale at a store;
(see e.g. (19) The system also includes a customer interface subsystem in communication with the inventory subsystem. The customer interface subsystem is configured or designed to store available inventory information, and is also configured or designed to present selected item information relating to the inventory merchandise to at least one customer via the data network. The customer interface subsystem is further configured or designed to facilitate customer shopping transactions, and to store customer order information.
(22) The system comprises a customer interface subsystem for presenting representations of selected products to customers via the data network. The customer interface subsystem is also configured to enable customers to generate orders for any of the selected products via the data network)
--generate a customer order in response to input received from the customer, wherein the customer order includes a plurality of ordered items for picking in the store; and
(see e.g. (22) The system comprises a customer interface subsystem for presenting representations of selected products to customers via the data network. The customer interface subsystem is also configured to enable customers to generate orders for any of the selected products via the data network
124) At (3) it is assumed that a buyer has approved a purchase order (PO) which has been generated for a new item at the Order Management Subsystem 150.
(224) The inventory restocking process initially begins at the OMS where a purchase order is generated for specific inventory items.
--generate an order modification interface configured to receive at least one of addition modifications, deletion modifications, and substitution modifications; and
(see e.g. (135) In a specific embodiment, order modifications may be implemented by making a new Webstore order, which is an action that may create new scheduled orders or change existing scheduled orders. A customer or CSR may make changes such as, for example, deletion of ordered items, modifying the quantity of one or more ordered items, modifying delivery times or delivery destinations, or canceling entire shipments.)
- a computing system configured to:
--determine whether the customer order is eligible to be modified by the customer based on satisfaction of one or more modification eligibility conditions; and
(see e.g. claim 1 -- receiving, via the customer interface system, a modification request from the customer for the customer order, --determining whether the customer order is eligible to be modified in view of the modification request;)
--wherein the customer application is configured to receive customer input in the order modification interface that modifies the customer order when the customer order is eligible to be modified.
(see e.g. claim 1 - modifying the customer order in accordance with the modification request if the determining determines that the customer order is permitted to be modified, but denying modification of the customer order if the determining determines that the customer order is not permitted to be modified).
Although Borders et al. teach “indicate whether the customer order is eligible to be modified,
(see e.g. claim 1 - modifying the customer order in accordance with the modification request if the determining determines that the customer order is permitted to be modified, but denying modification of the customer order if the determining determines that the customer order is not permitted to be modified),
Borders et al. does not explicitly teach -send an eligibility determination to the customer device that indicates whether the customer order is eligible to be modified,
However, DUAN. teaches -- Page 10--Illustratively, the drink order processing method further comprises the following steps: step S160, does not satisfy a predetermined condition in order to be modified, sending prompt information to the user (not shown in FIG. 1) cannot be modified. Similarly the prompt information with successful modification of the can to submit to the user to be modified the order of sending prompt information cannot be modified. prompt information cannot be modified may include the order to be modified does not satisfy the condition modification condition description. For example, has begun manufacturing or has been completed in the order to be modified, cannot be modified.
--sending the prompt information cannot be modified in time to the user, the drink can make processing the order by the user according to the condition, such as in the condition incapable of receiving the request of others substituted ring, avoiding waste of money and improves the user experience.
--it can be understood that the identifier of the user can be mobile phone number of the user. In this case, the prompt information can be sent to the client of the user, namely, on the mobile phone. Illustratively, the prompt information may by APP, a small program or the short message is sent to the client of the user..)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Borders et al., and include the steps cited above, as taught by DUAN, in order to improve the user experience (see DUAN page 10).
Re-claim 5, Borders et al. teach --The system of claim 1, wherein the modification eligibility conditions include at least one of a deletion-specific modification condition that indicates when an item can be deleted from the customer order, an addition-specific modification condition that indicates when an item can be added to the customer order, and a substitution-specific modification condition that indicates when an item in the customer order can be substituted with another item.
(see e.g. (135) In a specific embodiment, order modifications may be implemented by making a new Webstore order, which is an action that may create new scheduled orders or change existing scheduled orders. A customer or CSR may make changes such as, for example, deletion of ordered items, modifying the quantity of one or more ordered items, modifying delivery times or delivery destinations, or canceling entire shipments.).
Re-claims 11, 15 Borders et al. does not explicitly teach the limitation as claimed.
However, DUAN teaches --The system of claim 1, wherein the modification eligibility conditions include a modification eligibility condition based on a type of item to be added or deleted from the customer order.
(see e.g. beverage information may include the type of beverage, quantity, etc. drink related content. For example, taking coffee for example, type information can include cup capacity, sugar, cold, concentration, type and so on, the number information may include a cup or multiple cups. the condition for the order modification information relates to beverage information, may change the number of type or beverage drink. In this case the order to be modified can be deleted and modified content establishing a new order according to the order. )
15.--The system of claim 1, wherein the customer application is configured to render, on the customer device, at least some of the modification eligibility conditions.
(see e.g. Illustratively, the drink order processing method further comprises the following steps: step S160, does not satisfy a predetermined condition in order to be modified, sending prompt information to the user (not shown in FIG. 1) cannot be modified. Similarly the prompt information with successful modification of the can to submit to the user to be modified the order of sending prompt information cannot be modified. prompt information cannot be modified may include the order to be modified does not satisfy the condition modification condition description. For example, has begun manufacturing or has been completed in the order to be modified, cannot be modified.
sending the prompt information cannot be modified in time to the user, the drink can make processing the order by the user according to the condition, such as in the condition incapable of receiving the request of others substituted ring, avoiding waste of money and improves the user experience.
the solution can receive orders from the client of the user modifying instruction, order under certain circumstances, can modify the order modification instructions corresponding to meet the user modifying requirement of the order, and the user experience is improved.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Borders et al., and include the steps cited above, as taught by DUAN, in order to improve the user experience and satisfy a predetermined condition (see DUAN page 10).
Claims 2, 3, 4, 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borders et al. (US 8635113 B2), in view of DUAN (CN 110648200 A), in further view of Smith et al. (US 20180247369 A1).
Re-claims 2, 3, 4, 6, Borders et al., in view of DUAN, do not explicitly teach the limitations as claimed.
However, Smith et al. teach -2. The system of claim 1, wherein the modification eligibility conditions include a location eligibility condition that is not satisfied when the customer is traveling to the store.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the modification eligibility conditions include a location eligibility condition that is satisfied when the customer is traveling to the store.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the modification eligibility conditions include a location eligibility condition that is not satisfied when the customer is at the store.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the modification eligibility conditions include a modification eligibility condition based on an estimated customer time of arrival.
(see e.g. [0030] In some embodiments, while the customer's order is pending (i.e., being fulfilled at the store), the customer may later decide to add one or more purchasable items to the order so that the additional items are available for pick-up during the same fulfillment or pick-up window as the customer's pending order. The order server may receive a selection of the additional item or items and may treat the additional item or items as a separate order that is linked to the pending order. The order server may transmit the additional order to an order forecasting server to estimate an amount of time needed to fulfill or assemble the order. The order forecasting server may transmit the estimated time to the appointment server to determine whether the store employee who is assigned to the pending order has sufficient time to assemble the additional order by the time the pick-up window arrives. If the appointment server determines that the employee has sufficient time to assemble the additional order, the appointment server may transmit a message or notification to order forecasting server which in turn may transmit a message or notification to the order server. The order server may then enable the customer to finalize the order for the additional items with the prior-selected pick-up window.)
****The Examiner notes the pickup window time accounts for when the customer is travelling to the store, or has arrived at the store.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Borders et al., in view of DUAN, and include the steps cited above, as taught by Smith et al, in order to ensure that both orders are ready for pick-up during the pick-up window. (see e.g. [0031]).
Claims 7, 8, 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borders et al. (US 8635113 B2), in view of DUAN (CN 110648200 A), in further view of Kataria (US 20070192715 A1)
Re-claims 7, 8, 9, 10, Borders et al., in view of DUAN, do not teach the limitations as claimed.
However, Kataria et al. teach --The system of claim 1, wherein the modification eligibility conditions include a modification eligibility condition based on whether the customer order is currently being picked by users in the store.
8. The system of claim 1, wherein the modification eligibility conditions include a modification eligibility condition based on whether the customer order has already been picked by users in the store.
9. The system of claim 1, wherein the modification eligibility conditions include a modification eligibility condition based on whether the customer order has been handed over to the customer at the store.
(see e.g. [0196] Modifying an order. Once an order is placed, the user may go back and modify the order details. However, in some embodiments, only those orders in pending or in progress status can be edited.
[0198] Set order status. In some embodiments, each time a received item is entered into the program, the corresponding order status also gets updated. An order can be in any of the following status: pending, in progress, completed, or cancelled. When pending, the order is created, but no line items have been received. When in progress, at least some quantity of a line item has been received. When completed, all order line items and their quantities have been received. Once all materials for the order are received that order status is automatically moved to completed. When cancelled, the order has been cancelled. The user can only cancel if the order is pending. The user cannot change the status of an order from pending to in-progress or from in-progress to complete manually. The status of the order will change from "in progress" or "pending" to "complete" when the user have received all the line items of that order. status will change from "pending" to "in-progress" when the order is partially fulfilled.)
10. The system of claim 1, wherein the modification eligibility conditions include a modification eligibility condition based on whether a user is available to modify the customer order.
(see e.g. [0046] Order forecasting server 33 may be used to determine whether one or more additional items selected by the customer may be added to the order after the order has been finalized and transmitted to the store (e.g., after the order has been transmitted to order assembly server 24 and/or to appointment server 31). For example, order forecasting server 33 may estimate an amount of time needed to fulfill the additional items (i.e., gather the additional items together for pickup or delivery to the customer) and may determine whether sufficient time exists to add the items to the existing fulfillment window. To estimate the amount of time needed to fulfill the additional items and to include the items in the originally selected fulfillment window, order forecasting server 33 may consider the number of items added, the workflow of the store employee assigned to the original order (i.e., how busy the employee is and how much time is available on the employee's workflow to handle the additional items), and how close in time the order for the additional items is to the originally selected fulfillment window, for example.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Borders et al., in view of DUAN, and include the steps cited above, as taught by Kataria, in order to provide users worry-free management while reducing costs, and to show product traceability (see e.g. [0014]. [0015]).
Claims 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borders et al. (US 8635113 B2), in view of DUAN (CN 110648200 A), in further view of Kamani et al. (US 20100241604 A1).
Re-claim 12, Borders et al., in view of DUAN, do not teach the limitations as claimed.
However, Kamani et al. teach --The system of claim 1, wherein the modification eligibility conditions include a modification eligibility condition based on a number of modifications to be made to the customer order.
[(see e.g. [0035] Accordingly, as items (or amounts of items) in an order change, a rule's condition regarding a corresponding order may change from being met or unmet. Thus, as explained above, the collection of orders may be monitored such that when an order (or any item of an order) is added, removed, or modified in some fashion, the corresponding rule may be re-executed to ensure that the proper action is performed in regard to the collection of orders (e.g. applying the discount if the order amount is greater than 10 in the above example). In this manner, one may ensure that rules applied to a collection are properly applied, even when the collection is modified and the condition's state (met/unmet) regarding the collection has changed.
[0043] Accordingly, in a ruleset governing orders received from a customer, if one or more portions of a given order are changed (e.g. customer address, number or type of widget ordered, etc.), those rules that whose conditions were affected by the customer address change or number/type of widget ordered change will be re-executed. Thus, in cases where, for example, a discount applies to orders over a certain number, and the order change raises the number ordered to a number over that limit, the rule governing discounts is re-executed and the discount is applied.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Borders et al., in view of DUAN, and include the steps cited above, as taught by Kamani, in order to ensure that rules applied to a collection are properly applied, even when the collection is modified and the condition's state (met/unmet) regarding the collection has changed. (see e.g. [0035])).
Re-claim 14, Borders et al., teach --The system of claim 1, wherein the computing system is configured to: determine that the customer order is eligible to be modified;
(see e.g. claim 1 - modifying the customer order in accordance with the modification request if the determining determines that the customer order is permitted to be modified,)
Borders et al. does not explicitly teach the following limitation.
However, DUAN teaches --send an eligibility determination to the customer device that indicates the customer order is eligible to be modified;
(see e.g. DUAN --Similarly the prompt information with successful modification of the can to submit to the user to be modified the order of sending prompt information cannot be modified.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Borders et al., and include the steps cited above, as taught by DUAN, in order to improve the user experience (see DUAN).
, Borders et al., in view of DUAN, do not teach the limitations as claimed.
However, Kamani et al. teach --after determining that the customer order is eligible to be modified, determine that the customer order is no longer eligible to be modified.
(see e.g. [0025]. As a result of the data change, conditions in other rules may be affected, causing them to be met or to no longer be met.
[0035] Accordingly, as items (or amounts of items) in an order change, a rule's condition regarding a corresponding order may change from being met or unmet. Thus, as explained above, the collection of orders may be monitored such that when an order (or any item of an order) is added, removed, or modified in some fashion, the corresponding rule may be re-executed to ensure that the proper action is performed in regard to the collection of orders (e.g. applying the discount if the order amount is greater than 10 in the above example). In this manner, one may ensure that rules applied to a collection are properly applied, even when the collection is modified and the condition's state (met/unmet) regarding the collection has changed.)
The Examiner notes Kamani et al. reevaluate every event with a specific rule to ensure that proper action is performed. In this case the condition for modification eligibility may be met at first, then with each change and evaluation, the condition many not be met.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Borders et al., in view of DUAN, and include the steps cited above, as taught by Kamani, in order to ensure that proper action is performed in regard to the collection of orders (see e.g. [0035])).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borders et al. (US 8635113 B2), in view of DUAN (CN 110648200 A), in further view of CHONG et al. (WO 0101320 A1).
Re-claim 13, Borders et al., in view of DUAN, do not teach the limitations as claimed.
However, CHONG et al. teach –The system of claim 1, wherein the modification eligibility conditions include a modification eligibility condition based on whether an item to be added to the customer order has been advertised to the customer.
(see e.g. After a customer selects promotional items, the customer checks out of the promotional Web page using a log out procedure. When logging out of the promotional Web page, the customer is prompted by the vendor program to enter additional information that is required to process and deliver the promotional items ordered by the customer.
If the customer is eligible to receive the selected promotional items, the vendor program adds the selected promotional item to the customer's order or "shopping cart". In one embodiment of the present invention, this order of promotional merchandise and/or services is subject to further modification or cancellation by the customer.
When Customer A "checks out" of the promotional Web site, Customer A's order is processed by the vendor system using the vendor program to determine whether Customer A is eligible to receive the selected items (204). For example, the promotional items can be restricted to first-time users only, to persons above a certain age, or to residents of specific states or countries. If it is determined that Customer A is eligible to receive the items, but not at the promotional rate, then the items are added to Customer A's order at the appropriate non-promotional rate. If it is determined that Customer A is not eligible to receive the items, then the items are not added to Customer A's order.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Borders et al., in view of DUAN, and include the steps cited above, as taught by CHONG et al., in order promoting the sale of specific items by a business (see e.g. CHONG et al.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kimi et al. (US 20100293066 A1) – Virtual Shopping Mall Management System.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUNA CHAMPAGNE whose telephone number is (571)272-7177. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Florian Zeender can be reached at 571 272-6790. 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.
/LUNA CHAMPAGNE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627
February 3, 2026