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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because fig. 1-5 contain blurry text that is difficult to read. Please submit clearer copies. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 2, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathi (9,935,782), and further in view of Gorkin (2021/0392460).
Regarding claim 1, Rathi discloses a computer-implemented method for reducing control plane traffic in a network, the method comprising: (See Rathi col. 8, lines 47-64; processor executing an algorithm stored in memory (e.g. a computer-implemented method); fig. 2; reduces control traffic)
receiving, at a switch, a first query which requests a response from all hosts in the network, (See Rathi fig. 2; step 205, 210, 212 receive at a border leaf switch and IGMP query (e.g. first query) which directs a response from all hosts in a given BD, border domain (e.g. all hosts in the network); see also col. 1, lines 18-25; flooding to all switches and expecting a response from all devices)
wherein the switch is a next-hop switch of a first set of the hosts in a multicast group, wherein the first query is an Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) all-host query message, and wherein the first query is generated by an IGMP querying host and transmitted via one or more intermediate switches; (See Rathi fig. 1, col. 3, lines 25-30; LEAF1 switch is next-hop switch of Hosts H1-H5 which all are in a bridge domain and receive multicasts IGMP; col. 3, lines 40-55; MR1/MR2 broadcast multicast traffic; fig. 2, step 205; multicast router (MR1/MR2) generate an IGMP query in a given BD; MR1/MR2 must send the IGMP query via various Leafs and Spines (e.g. intermediate switches) to get to LEAF1)
tracking, by the switch, join messages received from the first set of the hosts in response to the first query, wherein a respective join message indicates that a corresponding host is to remain in the multicast group, and wherein the respective join message comprises an IGMP report message; and (See Rathi fig. 2, col. 4, lines 67-col. 5, line 10; IGMP join and leave requests from hosts are received by the switch and tracked in a repository service executed on the switch)
thereby reducing a total number of join messages propagated from the first set of the hosts to the IGMP querying host via the intermediate switches. (See Rathi fig. 2; performing this method reduces the total number of messages propagated in the network; one consolidated IGMP report is sent instead of how many every host devices (e.g. a reduction); alternatively and/or additionally this is the intended result of executing the other steps)
Rathi does not explicitly disclose response to determining that the messages meet a predetermined threshold, consolidating the messages by forwarding a reduced number of messages, wherein the reduced number is less than a total number of messages. However, Gorkin does disclose response to determining that the messages meet a predetermined threshold, consolidating the messages by forwarding a reduced number of messages, wherein the reduced number is less than a total number of messages. (See Gorkin para. 95; threshold number of messaged has been reached; send collected and bundled messages to a second node; bundled messages sent in one message which is less than total number of original messages) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Rathi to include the teaching of response to determining that the messages meet a predetermined threshold, consolidating the messages by forwarding a reduced number of messages, wherein the reduced number is less than a total number of messages of Gorkin with the motivation being to reduce traffic and network congestion and further to increase network performance and consume less bandwidth. (See Gorkin para. 17)
Regarding claim 2, Rathi in view of Gorkin discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
transmitting, by the switch, the first query to the first set of the hosts. (See Rathi fig. 2; step 210; IGMP query is sent to hosts)
Regarding claim 5, Rathi in view of Gorkin discloses the method of claim 1,
wherein the reduced number corresponds to a robustness variable associated with the IGMP querying host. (See Gorkin para. 95; threshold number of messaged has been reached; send collected and bundled messages to a second node; bundled messages sent in one message which is less than total number of original messages; robustness variable is one message once threshold is met) The motivation being to reduce traffic and network congestion and further to increase network performance and consume less bandwidth. (See Gorkin para. 17)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathi (9,935,782), and further in view of Gorkin (2021/0392460) and further in view of Sanchez (2004/0090970).
Regarding claim 6, Rathi in view of Gorkin discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, at the switch on a first port, a first leave message from a first host of the first set of the hosts, wherein the leave message indicates that the first host has left the multicast group; (See Rathi fig. 2; step 215; receive leave requests from hosts; col. 3, lines 6-15; switches have ports)
Rathi in view of Gorkin do not explicitly disclose determining that at least one other port or host is subscribed to the multicast group; and sending, by the switch on the first port in response to the first leave message, a second query which requests a response from each host belonging to the multicast group, wherein the second query is an IGMP group-specific query message, thereby eliminating propagation of messages associated with the received first leave message between the first host and the IGMP querying host via the intermediate switches. However, Sanchez does disclose determining that at least one other port or host is subscribed to the multicast group; and sending, by the switch on the first port in response to the first leave message, a second query which requests a response from each host belonging to the multicast group, wherein the second query is an IGMP group-specific query message, thereby eliminating propagation of messages associated with the received first leave message between the first host and the IGMP querying host via the intermediate switches. (See Sanchez para. 198-199; following an IGMP leave message, an IGMP Group-specific query message is sent; and a last member query timer is set and awaits a response; if the response is for membership then it continues multicast; thereby clause is a result of these steps and an intended result which is given little to no patentable weight) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Rathi in view of Gorkin to include the teaching of determining that at least one other port or host is subscribed to the multicast group; and sending, by the switch on the first port in response to the first leave message, a second query which requests a response from each host belonging to the multicast group, wherein the second query is an IGMP group-specific query message, thereby eliminating propagation of messages associated with the received first leave message between the first host and the IGMP querying host via the intermediate switches of Sanchez with the motivation being to prevent early termination of a stream for devices that are already subscribed and further to utilize bandwidth efficiently by not streaming data that is not used but only streaming necessary data and further to reduce unnecessary network traffic.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathi (9,935,782), and further in view of Gorkin (2021/0392460) and further in view of Sanchez (2004/0090970) and further in view of Luby (8,131,867).
Regarding claim 7, Rathi in view of Gorkin in view of Sanchez discloses the method of claim 6. Rathi discloses that the multicast routers stream the data across the network and are the source and the multicast routers perform IGMP query. (See Rathis fig. 2, step 205; col. 3, lines 5-17; multicast routers route multicast across the network to the switches and ultimately to the subscribed hosts) Rathi in view of Gorkin in view of Sanchez does not explicitly disclose receiving, at the switch on a second port, a second leave message from a second host of the first set of the hosts, wherein the second leave message indicates that the second host has left the multicast group; and responsive to determining that no other ports or hosts are subscribed to the multicast group, ending the stream. However, Luby does disclose receiving, at the switch on a second port, a second leave message from a second host of the first set of the hosts, wherein the second leave message indicates that the second host has left the multicast group; and responsive to determining that no other ports or hosts are subscribed to the multicast group, ending the stream. (See Luby col. 8, lines 59-67; number of subscribers drops to zero, ending the stream; IGMP leave message) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of receiving, at the switch on a second port, a second leave message from a second host of the first set of the hosts, wherein the second leave message indicates that the second host has left the multicast group; and responsive to determining that no other ports or hosts are subscribed to the multicast group, ending the stream of Luby with the motivation being to utilize network resources efficiently by not streaming a multicast that no one is subscribed to and further to reduce unnecessary load on network devices and reduce congestion and further to save processing and memory which assists in reducing latency for other devices and content.
Regarding claim 8, Rathi in view of Gorkin in view of Sanchez in view of Luby discloses the method of claim 7, wherein the eliminated messages associated with the received first leave message and the propagated messages associated with the received second leave message include:
leave messages transmitted to the IGMP querying host via the intermediate switches;
group-specific query messages transmitted from the IGMP querying host to every other host in the multicast group via the intermediate switches; and
report messages transmitted from every other host in the multicast group to the IGMP querying host via the intermediate switches. (See Rathi fig. 2; performing this method reduces the total number of messages propagated in the network; one consolidated IGMP report is sent instead of how many every host devices (e.g. a reduction); individual leave messages not sent; group-specific query not sent; and responses (join or continuing to join) not sent; just a consolidated message)
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 9, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathi (9,935,782), and further in view of Gorkin (2021/0392460) and further in view Jain (2020/0328988).
Regarding claim 9, Rathi discloses a switch, comprising:
a plurality of ports;
a packet processor to receive a first query which requests a response from all hosts in the network, (See Rathi col. 8, lines 47-64; processor executing an algorithm stored in memory; physical ports) (See Rathi fig. 2; step 205, 210, 212 receive at a border leaf switch and IGMP query (e.g. first query) which directs a response from all hosts in a given BD, border domain (e.g. all hosts in the network); see also col. 1, lines 18-25; flooding to all switches and expecting a response from all devices)
wherein the switch is a next-hop switch of a first set of the hosts in a multicast group, wherein the first query is an Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) all-host query message, and wherein the first query is generated by an IGMP querying host and transmitted via one or more intermediate switches; (See Rathi fig. 1, col. 3, lines 25-30; LEAF1 switch is next-hop switch of Hosts H1-H5 which all are in a bridge domain and receive multicasts IGMP; col. 3, lines 40-55; MR1/MR2 broadcast multicast traffic; fig. 2, step 205; multicast router (MR1/MR2) generate an IGMP query in a given BD; MR1/MR2 must send the IGMP query via various Leafs and Spines (e.g. intermediate switches) to get to LEAF1)
a join-tracking logic block to track join messages received from the first set of the hosts in response to the first query, wherein a respective join message indicates that a corresponding host is to remain in the multicast group, and wherein the respective join message comprises an IGMP report message; (See Rathi fig. 2, col. 4, lines 67-col. 5, line 10; IGMP join and leave requests from hosts are received by the switch and tracked in a repository service executed on the switch; blocks are algorithms stored in memory and executed by a processor)
thereby reducing a total number of join messages propagated from the first set of the hosts to the IGMP querying host via the intermediate switches. (See Rathi fig. 2; performing this method reduces the total number of messages propagated in the network; one consolidated IGMP report is sent instead of how many every host devices (e.g. a reduction); alternatively and/or additionally this is the intended result of executing the other steps)
Rathi does not explicitly disclose response to determining that the messages meet a predetermined threshold, consolidating the messages by forwarding a reduced number of messages, wherein the reduced number is less than a total number of messages. However, Gorkin does disclose response to determining that the messages meet a predetermined threshold, consolidating the messages by forwarding a reduced number of messages, wherein the reduced number is less than a total number of messages. (See Gorkin para. 95; threshold number of messaged has been reached; send collected and bundled messages to a second node; bundled messages sent in one message which is less than total number of original messages) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Rathi to include the teaching of response to determining that the messages meet a predetermined threshold, consolidating the messages by forwarding a reduced number of messages, wherein the reduced number is less than a total number of messages of Gorkin with the motivation being to reduce traffic and network congestion and further to increase network performance and consume less bandwidth. (See Gorkin para. 17)
Rathi in view of Gorkin does not explicitly disclose switch with forwarding hardware and processing circuitry. However, Jain does disclose switch with forwarding hardware and processing circuitry. (See Jain para. 12) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Rathi in view of Gorkin to include the teaching of switch with forwarding hardware and processing circuitry of Jain with the motivation being to reduce delay when processing data to be forwarded and further to allow for specialized hardware which can more efficiently process and forward data which saves energy and speeds delay sensitive data.
Regarding claim 10, Rathi in view of Gorkin in view of Jain discloses the switch of claim 9, the packet processor further to transmit the first query to the first set of the hosts. (See Rathi fig. 2; step 210; IGMP query is sent to hosts)
Regarding claim 13, Rathi in view of Gorkin in view of Jain discloses the switch of claim 9,
wherein the reduced number corresponds to a robustness variable associated with the IGMP querying host. (See Gorkin para. 95; threshold number of messaged has been reached; send collected and bundled messages to a second node; bundled messages sent in one message which is less than total number of original messages; robustness variable is one message once threshold is met) The motivation being to reduce traffic and network congestion and further to increase network performance and consume less bandwidth. (See Gorkin para. 17)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathi (9,935,782), and further in view of Gorkin (2021/0392460) and further in view Jain (2020/0328988) and further in view of Sanchez (2004/0090970).
Regarding claim 14, Rathi in view of Gorkin in view of Jain discloses the switch of claim 9.
wherein the packet processor is further to receive, on a first port, a first leave message from a first host of the first set of the hosts, wherein the leave message indicates that the first host has left the multicast group; (See Rathi fig. 2; step 215; receive leave requests from hosts; col. 3, lines 6-15; switches have ports; blocks are algorithm stored in memory and executed by a processor)
Rathi in view of Gorkin in view of Jain do not explicitly disclose determining that at least one other port or host is subscribed to the multicast group; and sending, by the switch on the first port in response to the first leave message, a second query which requests a response from each host belonging to the multicast group, wherein the second query is an IGMP group-specific query message, thereby eliminating propagation of messages associated with the received first leave message between the first host and the IGMP querying host via the intermediate switches. However, Sanchez does disclose determining that at least one other port or host is subscribed to the multicast group; and sending, by the switch on the first port in response to the first leave message, a second query which requests a response from each host belonging to the multicast group, wherein the second query is an IGMP group-specific query message, thereby eliminating propagation of messages associated with the received first leave message between the first host and the IGMP querying host via the intermediate switches. (See Sanchez para. 198-199; following an IGMP leave message, an IGMP Group-specific query message is sent; and a last member query timer is set and awaits a response; if the response is for membership then it continues multicast; thereby clause is a result of these steps and an intended result which is given little to no patentable weight) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Rathi in view of Gorkin in view of Jain to include the teaching of determining that at least one other port or host is subscribed to the multicast group; and sending, by the switch on the first port in response to the first leave message, a second query which requests a response from each host belonging to the multicast group, wherein the second query is an IGMP group-specific query message, thereby eliminating propagation of messages associated with the received first leave message between the first host and the IGMP querying host via the intermediate switches of Sanchez with the motivation being to prevent early termination of a stream for devices that are already subscribed and further to utilize bandwidth efficiently by not streaming data that is not used but only streaming necessary data and further to reduce unnecessary network traffic.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathi (9,935,782), and further in view of Gorkin (2021/0392460) and further in view Jain (2020/0328988) and further in view of Sanchez (2004/0090970) and further in view of Luby (8,131,867).
Regarding claim 15, Rathi in view of Gorkin in view of Jain in view of Sanchez discloses the switch of claim 14.
Rathi discloses that the multicast routers stream the data across the network and are the source and the multicast routers perform IGMP query. (See Rathis fig. 2, step 205; col. 3, lines 5-17; multicast routers route multicast across the network to the switches and ultimately to the subscribed hosts) Rathi in view of Gorkin in view of Sanchez does not explicitly disclose receiving, at the switch on a second port, a second leave message from a second host of the first set of the hosts, wherein the second leave message indicates that the second host has left the multicast group; and responsive to determining that no other ports or hosts are subscribed to the multicast group, ending the stream. However, Luby does disclose receiving, at the switch on a second port, a second leave message from a second host of the first set of the hosts, wherein the second leave message indicates that the second host has left the multicast group; and responsive to determining that no other ports or hosts are subscribed to the multicast group, ending the stream. (See Luby col. 8, lines 59-67; number of subscribers drops to zero, ending the stream; IGMP leave message) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of receiving, at the switch on a second port, a second leave message from a second host of the first set of the hosts, wherein the second leave message indicates that the second host has left the multicast group; and responsive to determining that no other ports or hosts are subscribed to the multicast group, ending the stream of Luby with the motivation being to utilize network resources efficiently by not streaming a multicast that no one is subscribed to and further to reduce unnecessary load on network devices and reduce congestion and further to save processing and memory which assists in reducing latency for other devices and content.
Regarding claim 16, Rathi in view of Gorkin in view of Jain in view of Sanchez in view of Luby discloses the switch of claim 15, wherein the eliminated messages associated with the received first leave message and the propagated messages associated with the received second leave message include:
leave messages transmitted to the IGMP querying host via the intermediate switches;
group-specific query messages transmitted from the IGMP querying host to every other host in the multicast group via the intermediate switches; and
report messages transmitted from every other host in the multicast group to the IGMP querying host via the intermediate switches. (See Rathi fig. 2; performing this method reduces the total number of messages propagated in the network; one consolidated IGMP report is sent instead of how many every host devices (e.g. a reduction); individual leave messages not sent; group-specific query not sent; and responses (join or continuing to join) not sent; just a consolidated message)
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 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathi (9,935,782), and further in view of Gorkin (2021/0392460).
Regarding claim 17, Rathi discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that when executed by a computer cause the computer to perform a method, the method comprising: (See Rathi col. 8, lines 47-64; processor executing an algorithm stored in memory (e.g. a computer-implemented method); fig. 2; reduces control traffic)
(See Rathi col. 8, lines 47-64; processor executing an algorithm stored in memory (e.g. a computer-implemented method); fig. 2; reduces control traffic)
receiving, at a switch, a first query which requests a response from all hosts in the network, (See Rathi fig. 2; step 205, 210, 212 receive at a border leaf switch and IGMP query (e.g. first query) which directs a response from all hosts in a given BD, border domain (e.g. all hosts in the network); see also col. 1, lines 18-25; flooding to all switches and expecting a response from all devices)
wherein the switch is a next-hop switch of a first set of the hosts in a multicast group, wherein the first query is an Internet Group Management Protocol (IGMP) all-host query message, and wherein the first query is generated by an IGMP querying host and transmitted via one or more intermediate switches; (See Rathi fig. 1, col. 3, lines 25-30; LEAF1 switch is next-hop switch of Hosts H1-H5 which all are in a bridge domain and receive multicasts IGMP; col. 3, lines 40-55; MR1/MR2 broadcast multicast traffic; fig. 2, step 205; multicast router (MR1/MR2) generate an IGMP query in a given BD; MR1/MR2 must send the IGMP query via various Leafs and Spines (e.g. intermediate switches) to get to LEAF1)
tracking, by the switch, join messages received from the first set of the hosts in response to the first query, wherein a respective join message indicates that a corresponding host is to remain in the multicast group, and wherein the respective join message comprises an IGMP report message; and (See Rathi fig. 2, col. 4, lines 67-col. 5, line 10; IGMP join and leave requests from hosts are received by the switch and tracked in a repository service executed on the switch)
thereby reducing a total number of join messages propagated from the first set of the hosts to the IGMP querying host via the intermediate switches. (See Rathi fig. 2; performing this method reduces the total number of messages propagated in the network; one consolidated IGMP report is sent instead of how many every host devices (e.g. a reduction); alternatively and/or additionally this is the intended result of executing the other steps)
Rathi does not explicitly disclose response to determining that the messages meet a predetermined threshold, consolidating the messages by forwarding a reduced number of messages, wherein the reduced number is less than a total number of messages. However, Gorkin does disclose response to determining that the messages meet a predetermined threshold, consolidating the messages by forwarding a reduced number of messages, wherein the reduced number is less than a total number of messages. (See Gorkin para. 95; threshold number of messaged has been reached; send collected and bundled messages to a second node; bundled messages sent in one message which is less than total number of original messages) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the method of Rathi to include the teaching of response to determining that the messages meet a predetermined threshold, consolidating the messages by forwarding a reduced number of messages, wherein the reduced number is less than a total number of messages of Gorkin with the motivation being to reduce traffic and network congestion and further to increase network performance and consume less bandwidth. (See Gorkin para. 17)
Regarding claim 20, Rathi in view of Gorkin discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 17,
wherein the reduced number corresponds to a robustness variable associated with the IGMP querying host. (See Gorkin para. 95; threshold number of messaged has been reached; send collected and bundled messages to a second node; bundled messages sent in one message which is less than total number of original messages; robustness variable is one message once threshold is met) The motivation being to reduce traffic and network congestion and further to increase network performance and consume less bandwidth. (See Gorkin para. 17)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 11, 12, 18, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J CLAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 pm est.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at (571) 272-3155. 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.
/Stephen J Clawson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461