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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claim
1. Applicant's amendment dated 01/26/2026 responding to the Office Action 10/01/2025 provided in the rejection of claims 1-20.
2. Claims 1-6, 8-9 and 13-19 have been amended.
3. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application, of which claims 1, 9 and 19 in independent form and which have been fully considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
4. (A). Regarding Abstract objection: Abstract objection has been maintained as below.
(B) Regarding art rejection: Applicants' amendment necessitated new grounds of rejections presented in the following art rejection. Please Schornig et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0015104 A1) and Ogren et al. (US Pub No. 2024/0187348 A1).
Examiner Notes
5. Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Abstract
6. Line 1 of Abstract recites “Techniques are described”. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
7. Claims 9-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The set of claims 9-10 and 13-18 repeat the same limitations as the set of claims 1-8 appear to be mis-descriptive, and as such, it renders the claims indefinite.
Claims 11-12 are also rejected 112(b) since they are depend on claim 9.
Examiner respectfully recommends that the set of apparatus claims 9-10 and 13-18, currently drafted as apparatus claims, should be changed to product claims.
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.
8. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis specific to Claims 1, 9 and 19 are being presented below.
Claims 1, 9 and 19:
Step 1 Analysis:
Claims 1-8 of the instant application is direct to apparatus.
Claims 9-18 of the instant application is direct to apparatus.
Claims 19-20 of the instant application is direct to process.
Thus, they are statutory categories.
Step 2 Analysis:
Claims 1, 9 and 19 recites:
(a) receive input associated with network conditions to be emulated;
(b) provide, via a local communication path, the network conditions to be emulated to a device configured to test at least one application;
(c) receive one or more results associated with testing the at least one application;
(d) determine, based on the one or more results, one of the network conditions associated with a degradation in quality of the at least one application;
(d) output an indication of the one of the network conditions associated with the degradation in quality, wherein the indication is usable for presentation at a user interface.
Step 2A -- Prong 1:
The claims 1, 9 and 19 recites the limitations of:
(b) provide, via a local communication path, the network conditions to be emulated to a device configured to test at least one application;
(d) determine, based on the one or more results, one of the network conditions associated with a degradation in quality of the at least one application;
Limitations (b)-(d) are limitations that, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretations, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, i.e. “provide” and “determine” can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion with the aid of pen and paper. As such, these limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A -- Prong 2:
The claim 1 recites the additional limitations of “An apparatus”, “at least one processor” and “a device”. The limitations of “An apparatus”, “at least one processor” and “a device” are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Claim 9 recites the additional limitations of “A apparatus”; “at least one computer medium”; “at least one processor” and “a device”. The limitations of “A apparatus”; “at least one computer medium”; “at least one processor” and “a device” are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Claim 19 recites the additional limitations of “a network emulator” and “a device”. The limitation of “a device” are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., merely instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. And “a network emulator” is as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, limitations (a) and (c) perform as well-understood, routine and conventional activity and limitation (d) are merely insignificant extra solution activity of evaluating and outputting data. 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.
Step 2B:
As explained with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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 same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., simply adding extra-solution activity or well-understood, routine and conventional activity or generic computer components does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B since the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting/receiving and storing data as well- understood, routine, conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and See MPEP 2106.05(g) . Therefore, claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims
Additionally, claims 2 and 13 recite “wherein the network conditions comprise bandwidth” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of defining data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claims 2 and 13 are ineligible.
Additionally, claims 3 and 14 recite “wherein the network conditions comprise packet loss” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of defining data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claims 3 and 14 are ineligible.
Additionally, claims 4 and 15 recite “wherein the network conditions comprise jitter” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of defining data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claims 4 and 15 are ineligible.
Additionally, claims 5 and 16 recite “wherein the network conditions comprise latency” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of defining data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claims 5 and 16 are ineligible.
Additionally, claims 6 and 17 recite “wherein the network conditions comprise loss of a server connection” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of defining data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claims 6 and 17 are ineligible.
Additionally, claims 7 and 10 recite “wherein the device comprises a computer game console” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of defining data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 7 is ineligible.
Additionally, claims 8 and 18 recite “comprising at least one display communicating with the processor assembly, the processor assembly being configured to present on a display at least one user interface (UI) configured to receive the input to establish the network conditions to be emulated” which perform as well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claims 8 and 18 are ineligible.
Additionally, claim 20 recites “wherein the device comprises a computer game console and the application comprises a computer game” is merely insignificant extra solution activity of defining data. Accordingly, these limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea or provide an inventive concept and thus do not amount to significantly more that the abstract idea. As such, these claims fail both Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B. Therefore, claim 20 is 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.
9. Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9-10, 13-16 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schornig et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0015104 A1 – herein after Schornig) in view of Ogren et al. (US Pub No. 2024/0187348 A1 – provisional application 63/430300 filed on 12/05/2022 -- herein after Ogren) .
Regarding claim 1.
Schornig discloses
An apparatus (a device 200 – See Fig. 2) comprising:
at least one processor assembly (processor 220 – See Fig. 2) configured to:
receive [[input associated with]] network conditions to be emulated (A traffic generator emulates a real-time encoder with controls for emulating target bitrates, error correction and related variables to create traffic similar to what would be generated by an equivalent real time video encoder. A developer client receives traffic generated from the traffic generator – See paragraph [0006]);
provide, via a local communication path, the network conditions to be emulated to a device configured to test at least one application (provide supervisory control over an emulation engine 614 located along a path in the network and/or endpoints 612a-612b of that path. Thus, a conducted test may entail one client of the online application – See paragraph [0080]);
receive one or more results associated with testing the at least one application (a device obtains media data captured by an endpoint of an online application that results from conducting a test in a network that subjects traffic of the online application to a particular network path degradation pattern – See paragraph [0071]);
determine, based on the one or more results, one of the network conditions associated with a degradation in quality of the at least one application (based on the user feedback, a quality of experience metric for the online application associated with the particular network path degradation pattern. The device causes a configuration change to be made with respect to the online application, based on the quality of experience metric – See paragraphs [0069-0073]. The QoE metric determined by QoE evaluation process 249 for a given degradation motif/pattern may be used to initiate one or more configuration changes with respect to the online application. Prediction model 610 may predict the QoE for the application under such a motif. If the QoE is considered unacceptable, the traffic of the application may be rerouted onto a different network path. In another instance, the configuration change may be to a parameter of the application itself, such as by adjusting the operation of the codec of the application, causing the application to utilize FEC or packet duplication, or the like. – See paragraph [0092]); and
output an indication of the one of the network conditions associated with the degradation in quality (prediction model 610 may also be constantly reevaluated based on user feedback, newly-discovered applications, new motifs, or the like, to correlate user feedback with motif per application. The ultimate outcome is a good understanding of each motif and the impact that it has on the QoE of the application – See paragraph [0091]. Providing, by the device, data indicative of the quality of experience metric and the particular network path degradation pattern for display – See paragraphs [0095-0098]), wherein the indication is usable for presentation at a user interface (motif selector 604 may do so based on a policy specified by a network administrator or other user, which may be specified via a user interface. For example, motif selector 604 may present information regarding the degradation motifs for review by a network administrator and the administrator may select which motifs are considered to be of interest. The presentation of the motifs to the administrator by motif selector 604 may also be performed in a selective or dynamic manner, such as by requesting review of a motif when it is first detect – See paragraph [007]. Providing data indicative of a specific motif and its predicted QoE to a user interface – See paragraphs [0093-0096]).
Schorning does not disclose
receive input…
Ogren discloses
receive input associated with network conditions to be emulated (the model expects values for the network conditions profiles as input in order to estimate the user experience… send/receive network packets to/from the server, thereby emulating typical communication between a cloud game client and a cloud game server. While emulating the communication, the tool is able to measure network-related performance metrics, as described in the above method—packet loss, delay, and jitter. The uniqueness of the proposed system lies in its ability to dynamically adapt the emulating network traffic packet pattern – See paragraphs [0055-0056]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Ogren’s teaching into Schorning’s invention because incorporating Ogren’s teaching would enhance Schorning to enable to consider the collected subjective user experience scores from the users and the network conditions profiles as suggested by Ogren (paragraphs [0055-0056]).
Regarding claim 2, the apparatus of Claim 1,
Schornig discloses
wherein the network conditions comprise bandwidth (size and cost constraints on smart object nodes (e.g., sensors) result in corresponding constraints on resources such as energy, memory, computational speed and bandwidth – See paragraph [0016]).
Regarding claim 3, the apparatus of Claim 1,
Schorning discloses
wherein the network conditions comprise packet loss (a site where WAN connectivity is provisioned over fiber might experience very low values of latency, jitter, and packet loss most of the times but may see short bursts of packet loss at random intervals caused by rerouting events in the provider network – See paragraphs [0074-0076]).
Regarding claim 4, the apparatus of Claim 1,
Schorning discloses
wherein the network conditions comprise jitter (obtain and analyze network path telemetry from existing network devices, probing mechanisms, and/or other sources. The telemetry may be indicative of any number of path metrics such as, but not limited to, any or all of the following: jitter measurements, latency measurements, packet loss measurements, throughput measurements – See paragraphs [0074-0076]).
Regarding claim 5, the apparatus of Claim 1,
Schorning discloses
wherein the network conditions comprise latency (each of these connectivity options have different characteristics and behaviors that can usually result in completely different degradation motifs. For example, a site where WAN connectivity is provisioned over fiber might experience very low values of latency, jitter, and packet loss most of the times but may see short bursts of packet loss at random intervals caused by rerouting events in the provider network – See paragraphs [0074-0076]).
Regarding claim 7, the apparatus of Claim 1,
Ogren discloses
wherein the device comprises a computer game console (a mobile video game - See paragraphs [0136-0137]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Ogren’s teaching into Schorning’s invention because incorporating Ogren’s teaching would enhance Schorning to enable to play a game under all the network conditions as suggested by Ogren (paragraphs [0136-0137]).
Regarding claim 9.
Schorning and Ogren discloses
An apparatus (a device 200 – See Fig. 2 -- Schorning) comprising:
at least one computer medium that is not a transitory signal and that comprises instructions executable by at least one processor assembly to (software being stored on a tangible (non-transitory) computer-readable medium (e.g., disks/CDs/RAM/EEPROM/etc.) having program instructions executing on a computer – See paragraph [0101]):
Regarding claim 9, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 13, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 14, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 15, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 16, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 19.
A method, comprising:
Regarding claim 19, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 20, the method of Claim 19,
Ogren discloses
wherein the device comprises a computer game console (a mobile video game - See paragraphs [0136-0137]) and the application comprises a computer game (the network traffic recorded at the laptop 143 includes all the traffic to and from the gamer module 150, including re-transmissions caused by the network conditions induced by the NetEm mobile network simulator. The network logs at the laptop 143 were recorded using tcpdump command line tool - See paragraph [0193]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Ogren's teaching into Schorning’s invention because incorporating Ogren's teaching would enhance Schorning to enable to simulate gaming traffic as suggested by Ogren (See paragraph [0193]).
10. Claim(s) 6, 8 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schorning and Ogren as applied to claims 1 and 9 respectively above, and further in view of Dhanapal et al. (US Pub. No. 2011/0145642 A1 – IDS filed on 12/05/2024 – herein after Dhanapal).
Regarding claim 6, the apparatus of Claim 1,
Dhanapal discloses
wherein the network conditions comprises loss of a server connection (the emulated wireless network conditions such as loss of connectivity – See paragraphs [0008-0009]) .
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Dhanapal’s teaching into Schorning’s and Ogren’s inventions because incorporating Dhanapal’s teaching would enhance Schorning and Ogren to enable to provide the loss of connectivity that can be emulated in order to check the behavior of the application at the selected message as suggested by Dhanapal (paragraph [0009]).
Regarding claim 8, the apparatus of Claim 1,
Dhanapal discloses
comprising at least one display communicating with the processor assembly, the processor assembly being configured to present on a display at least one user interface (UI) configured to receive the input to establish the network conditions to be emulated (the user-interface enables a tester to assign probabilities to the one or more messages that were communicated between the server and the application. Further, the user-interface enables the tester to assign probabilities to the one or more testing parameters. Thereafter, the application installed on the wireless communication device re-communicates the messages to the server. A control module in the test-bed monitors the messages. The control module identifies the one or more messages that are re-communicated and emulates one or more wireless network conditions based on the probabilities assigned to the one or more messages and the one or more testing parameters. The tester then tests the application in the emulated wireless network conditions – See paragraphs [0008] and [0038-0039]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Dhanapal’s teaching into Schorning’s and Ogren’s inventions because incorporating Dhanapal’s teaching would enhance Schorning and Ogren to enable to select a message for testing and emulates one or more wireless network conditions as specified by the tester through user-interface as suggested by Dhanapal (paragraphs [0038-0039]).
Regarding claim 17, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 18, recites the same limitations as rejected claim 8 above.
11. Claim(s) 11 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schorning and Ogren as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Beltran et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0159644 A1 – herein after Beltran).
Regarding claim 11, the apparatus of Claim 9,
Beltran discloses
wherein the application comprises a computer simulation (replicating the sequence of control inputs 214 during execution of the video game application 210, the network data 220, system data 222, and the seed data 224 may also be replicated, mirrored, or simulated to recreate the operating conditions during the windows in which bugs 106, 108, and 110 occurred - See paragraph [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Beltran's teaching into Schorning’s and Ogren's inventions because incorporating Beltran's teaching would enhance Schorning and Ogren to enable to replicate the sequence of control inputs during execution of the video game application as suggested by Beltran (See paragraph [0035]).
Regarding claim 12, the apparatus of Claim 11,
Beltran discloses
wherein the computer simulation comprises a computer game (the developer may specify network variances such as latency, jitter, data rate capacity, and other network properties to be simulated during the automated video game sessions - See paragraph [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to use Beltran's teaching into Schorning’s and Ogren's inventions because incorporating Beltran's teaching would enhance Schorning and Ogren to enable to specify network variances such as latency, jitter, data rate capacity, and other network properties to be simulated during the automated video game sessions as suggested by Beltran (See paragraph [0046]).
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nair et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0326467 A1) discloses provide a software development process involving multiple individual quality parameter ratings for an application, based on detailed technical criteria, and the publication of those individual ratings in an application marketplace – See paragraphs [0004-0006].
Poulin (US Patent No. 10,691,579 B2) discloses software product emulate and profile an application playing on a mobile device. The mobile device is emulated using a model based upon characteristics related to performance of the mobile device. The application is played and monitored within the model to determine resource utilization of the application for the mobile device – See Abstract and specification for more details.
Watson et al. (US Pub. No. 2020/0310947 A1) discloses a plurality of virtual machine images each including a hardware abstraction layer with simulated hardware component definitions corresponding to physical hardware components of specific ones of the plurality of networked computing resources – See paragraphs [0012-0013].
Ma et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0187347 A1) discloses measuring data packet delays in an end-to-end communication path according to some embodiments may include transmitting from a first computing device to a second computing device first delay measurement information in a first packet with a header portion configured to indicate that the first packet is a data packet – See Abstract and specification for more details.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MONGBAO NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7180. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Hyung S. Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. 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.
/MONGBAO NGUYEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights