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 .
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 1-3, 5-6, 10-13, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boutaba et al. (“Boutaba”), “A Multi-Agent Architecture for QoS Management in Multimedia Networks” (2003), in view of Begen et al. (“Begen”), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0005360 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Boutaba discloses “a queue management system comprising: at least one queue for storing and forwarding packets associated with a number of data flows” through its ATM switch having a shared finite output buffer that stores cells belonging to multiple multiplexed video connections. Boutaba, pp. 88-92, §§2.3-2.3.3 and Fig. 3. The shared output buffer corresponds to the claimed queue, ATM cells correspond to packets, and the multiplexed video connections correspond to the claimed data flows.
Boutaba further discloses “a queueing manager” that performs “computer processes to manage queueing of packets” through its FEC-aware Partial Video Slice Discard mechanism, including DexPAS, per-connection state variables, discard counters, buffer-occupancy thresholds, and state transitions that control cells in the output buffer. Boutaba, pp. 88-90, §§2.3-2.3.2 and Fig. 3.
Boutaba further discloses “for each data flow, determining forward error correction (FEC) and/or data compression encoding characteristics for the data flow associated with an encoding system for the data flow” through its per-video-connection use of MPEG frame or slice priority, FEC Control Block boundaries, and Cell Drop Tolerance (CDT), where CDT specifies the maximum number of discarded cells recoverable by the destination FEC decoder. Boutaba, pp. 85-90, §§2.1-2.3.2.
Boutaba further discloses “managing queueing of data flow packets using the at least one queue based on the encoding characteristics for the data flow including at least selectively dropping and/or reordering data flow packets based on the encoding characteristics for the data flow” through its selection of the lower-priority MPEG slice for discard, commencement of discard at a slice or Control Block boundary, counting of discarded cells within the Control Block, and termination of discard when CDT is reached. Boutaba, pp. 88-92, §§2.3-2.3.3. Because “dropping and/or reordering” is recited in the alternative, Boutaba’s selective dropping satisfies the quoted language.
Boutaba does not expressly disclose that the queueing manager comprises “at least one processor and at least one tangible, non-transitory computer-readable memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one processor,” perform the recited processes. Begen discloses routines executing on one or more processors, implementation in a computer-readable storage medium, and control logic in software or hardware that, when executed by one or more processors, performs the disclosed packet-control operations. Begen, concluding implementation paragraphs following the discussion of Fig. 4. Begen further discloses FEC-aware packet selection using the operative FEC scheme, one- and two-dimensional parity arrangements, recoverability, media-frame importance, decoding deadline, and QoE. Begen, Fig. 2 and its loss-report-analyzer discussion; Figs. 3A-3D; and Fig. 4.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement Boutaba’s FEC-aware queue-management algorithm using Begen’s processor, computer-readable storage medium, and processor-executed control logic. Both references concern packetized multimedia delivery and select packet treatment according to FEC recoverability and media importance under limited network resources. The combination would have used Begen’s known programmable implementation for its ordinary purpose and would predictably have enabled Boutaba’s disclosed states, thresholds, counters, and discard operations to execute in network equipment. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Regarding claim 2, Boutaba discloses “the encoding characteristics include at least one of how the data of the flow has been encoded or loss-recovery capabilities of the flow” through its MPEG frame and slice type, FEC Control Block structure, and CDT. Boutaba, pp. 85-88, §§2.1-2.3. The MPEG information identifies how the flow was encoded, and CDT identifies the number of discarded cells that the destination FEC system can recover and therefore identifies a loss-recovery capability. Begen additionally determines recovery options from the FEC scheme and the source and FEC packets available at the receiver. Begen, Fig. 2 and Figs. 3A-3D.
Boutaba discloses the foregoing subject matter but does not expressly disclose the inherited processor-and-memory implementation of claim 1. Begen discloses routines executed by one or more processors, implementation in a computer-readable storage medium, and processor-executed software or hardware control logic. Begen, concluding implementation paragraphs following Fig. 4. It would have been obvious to implement Boutaba’s FEC-aware queue control using Begen’s programmable implementation because doing so would use known processor and storage components for their ordinary purpose and predictably execute Boutaba’s disclosed queue-control operations in network equipment.
Regarding claim 3, Boutaba discloses “selectively dropping and/or reordering packets introduces patterns of losses in the data flow that are consistent with loss recovery capabilities of the encoding system” through its controlled discard within an FEC Control Block, maintenance of a count of discarded cells, and cessation of discard when the recoverable CDT is reached. Boutaba, pp. 87-90, particularly §2.3.1. The resulting loss pattern is constrained to the number of cell losses the destination encoding system can recover. Begen likewise identifies which missing packets remain recoverable under one- or two-dimensional FEC before selecting additional repair packets. Begen, Figs. 3A-3D and the accompanying discussion.
Boutaba discloses the foregoing subject matter but does not expressly disclose the inherited processor-and-memory implementation of claim 1. Begen discloses routines executed by one or more processors, implementation in a computer-readable storage medium, and processor-executed software or hardware control logic. Begen, concluding implementation paragraphs following Fig. 4. It would have been obvious to implement Boutaba’s FEC-aware queue control using Begen’s programmable implementation because doing so would use known processor and storage components for their ordinary purpose and predictably execute Boutaba’s disclosed queue-control operations in network equipment.
Regarding claim 5, Boutaba discloses the alternative “some or all of the encoding characteristics are derived by the queueing manager from the data flow packets” through its DexPAS reading the ExCLP field carrying priority or frame information from arriving cells and detecting MPEG slice and FEC Control Block boundaries in the arriving stream. Boutaba, pp. 85-86, §2.1, and pp. 88-90, §2.3. Begen also discloses inspecting indexed media-stream information to distinguish I-, P-, and B-frames and evaluating received loss information to determine FEC recovery options. Begen, Fig. 2 and the importance-based discussion preceding Fig. 4. Because the claim recites receipt “and/or” derivation, the disclosed derivation satisfies the quoted language.
Boutaba discloses the foregoing subject matter but does not expressly disclose the inherited processor-and-memory implementation of claim 1. Begen discloses routines executed by one or more processors, implementation in a computer-readable storage medium, and processor-executed software or hardware control logic. Begen, concluding implementation paragraphs following Fig. 4. It would have been obvious to implement Boutaba’s FEC-aware queue control using Begen’s programmable implementation because doing so would use known processor and storage components for their ordinary purpose and predictably execute Boutaba’s disclosed queue-control operations in network equipment.
Regarding claim 6, Boutaba discloses that selectively dropping and/or reordering packets is based on “at least one of the type of encoding system, the type of flow, QoS/QoE specifications for the flow, FEC parameters used by the encoding system to produce the flow (e.g., τ), a frame splitting scheme used to produce the flow, a parity allocation scheme used to produce the flow, guard space characteristics for the flow, failsafe characteristics for the flow, or a data compression scheme used to produce the flow” through its use of MPEG frame or flow type, QoS or priority information, and the FEC parameter CDT to control selective discard. Boutaba, pp. 85-89, §§2.1-2.3.1, and pp. 91-92. Begen additionally uses FEC-scheme type, parity layout, frame importance, decoding deadline, and QoE when selecting packet treatment. Begen, Fig. 2; Figs. 3A-3D; and the importance-based discussion preceding Fig. 4. Each of Boutaba’s MPEG type, QoS or priority, and FEC-parameter disclosures independently satisfies the quoted “at least one of” language.
Boutaba discloses the foregoing subject matter but does not expressly disclose the inherited processor-and-memory implementation of claim 1. Begen discloses routines executed by one or more processors, implementation in a computer-readable storage medium, and processor-executed software or hardware control logic. Begen, concluding implementation paragraphs following Fig. 4. It would have been obvious to implement Boutaba’s FEC-aware queue control using Begen’s programmable implementation because doing so would use known processor and storage components for their ordinary purpose and predictably execute Boutaba’s disclosed queue-control operations in network equipment.
Regarding claim 10, Boutaba discloses “the encoding system includes an FEC encoding system” through its AV-SSCS FEC system using Reed-Solomon and burst-erasure codes. Boutaba, p. 87, §2.2 and Fig. 1. Begen also discloses one- and two-dimensional parity FEC applied to blocks of source packets. Begen, Fig. 2 and Figs. 3A-3D. The language “optionally wherein the FEC encoding system is a CSIPB or CSIPBRAL FEC encoding system” is expressly optional and does not further limit the claim.
Boutaba discloses the foregoing subject matter but does not expressly disclose the inherited processor-and-memory implementation of claim 1. Begen discloses routines executed by one or more processors, implementation in a computer-readable storage medium, and processor-executed software or hardware control logic. Begen, concluding implementation paragraphs following Fig. 4. It would have been obvious to implement Boutaba’s FEC-aware queue control using Begen’s programmable implementation because doing so would use known processor and storage components for their ordinary purpose and predictably execute Boutaba’s disclosed queue-control operations in network equipment.
Regarding clasim 11, Boutaba discloses “managing queueing of packets associated with a number of data flows using at least one queue” through its management of cells belonging to multiple video connections in a shared finite ATM-switch output buffer. Boutaba, pp. 88-92, §§2.3-2.3.3 and Fig. 3.
Boutaba further discloses “for each data flow, determining, by a queueing manager, forward error correction (FEC) and/or data compression encoding characteristics for the data flow associated with an encoding system for the data flow” through its per-connection determination or use of MPEG frame and slice priority, FEC Control Block boundaries, and CDT. Boutaba, pp. 85-90, §§2.1-2.3.2.
Boutaba further discloses “managing, by a queueing manager, queueing of data flow packets using the at least one queue based on the encoding characteristics for the data flow including at least selectively dropping and/or reordering data flow packets based on the encoding characteristics for the data flow” through its direction of selective discard according to MPEG hierarchy, queue occupancy, Control Block state, and CDT. Boutaba, pp. 88-92, §§2.3-2.3.3. Begen’s FEC-aware packet-control process supplies additional confirmation that packet treatment may be selected according to the operative FEC scheme and recoverability. Begen, Fig. 2, Figs. 3A-3D, and Fig. 4.
Boutaba discloses the foregoing claimed method. Boutaba does not expressly disclose Begen’s general processor-executed implementation for carrying out the disclosed FEC-aware packet-control operations. Begen discloses routines executed by one or more processors, a computer-readable storage medium, and processor-executed control logic. Begen, concluding implementation paragraphs following Fig. 4. It would have been obvious to employ Begen’s known programmable implementation to carry out Boutaba’s queue-control method because the combination would predictably execute the disclosed FEC-aware operations in conventional network equipment.
Regarding claim 12, Boutaba discloses “the encoding characteristics include at least one of how the data of the flow has been encoded or loss-recovery capabilities of the flow” through its MPEG frame and slice information, FEC Control Block organization, and recoverable CDT. Boutaba, pp. 85-88, §§2.1-2.3. Begen additionally evaluates the FEC scheme and received packets to determine packet recoverability. Begen, Fig. 2 and Figs. 3A-3D.
Boutaba discloses the foregoing claimed method. Boutaba does not expressly disclose Begen’s general processor-executed implementation for carrying out the disclosed FEC-aware packet-control operations. Begen discloses routines executed by one or more processors, a computer-readable storage medium, and processor-executed control logic. Begen, concluding implementation paragraphs following Fig. 4. It would have been obvious to employ Begen’s known programmable implementation to carry out Boutaba’s queue-control method because the combination would predictably execute the disclosed FEC-aware operations in conventional network equipment.
Regarding claim 13, Boutaba discloses that “selectively dropping and/or ordering packets introduces patterns of losses in the data flow that are consistent with loss recovery capabilities of the encoding system” through its intentional discard within each FEC Control Block, counting of discarded cells, and termination of discard when CDT is reached. Boutaba, pp. 87-90, particularly §2.3.1. Begen similarly identifies losses recoverable through one- or two-dimensional parity before selecting an additional repair packet. Begen, Figs. 3A-3D.
Boutaba discloses the foregoing claimed method. Boutaba does not expressly disclose Begen’s general processor-executed implementation for carrying out the disclosed FEC-aware packet-control operations. Begen discloses routines executed by one or more processors, a computer-readable storage medium, and processor-executed control logic. Begen, concluding implementation paragraphs following Fig. 4. It would have been obvious to employ Begen’s known programmable implementation to carry out Boutaba’s queue-control method because the combination would predictably execute the disclosed FEC-aware operations in conventional network equipment.
Regarding claim 15, Boutaba discloses the alternative “some or all of the encoding characteristics are derived by the queueing manager from the data flow packets” through its reading of ExCLP priority or frame information and its detection of slice and Control Block boundaries from arriving cells. Boutaba, pp. 85-86, §2.1, and pp. 88-90, §2.3. Begen also derives I-, P-, and B-frame importance from indexed media-stream information. Begen, importance-based discussion preceding Fig. 4.
Boutaba discloses the foregoing claimed method. Boutaba does not expressly disclose Begen’s general processor-executed implementation for carrying out the disclosed FEC-aware packet-control operations. Begen discloses routines executed by one or more processors, a computer-readable storage medium, and processor-executed control logic. Begen, concluding implementation paragraphs following Fig. 4. It would have been obvious to employ Begen’s known programmable implementation to carry out Boutaba’s queue-control method because the combination would predictably execute the disclosed FEC-aware operations in conventional network equipment.
Regarding claim 16, Boutaba discloses that selectively dropping and/or reordering packets is based on “at least one of the type of encoding system, the type of flow, QoS/QoE specifications for the flow, FEC parameters used by the encoding system to produce the flow (e.g., τ), a frame splitting scheme used to produce the flow, a parity allocation scheme used to produce the flow, guard space characteristics for the flow, failsafe characteristics for the flow, or a data compression scheme used to produce the flow” through its use of MPEG type, QoS or priority, and FEC CDT to control discard. Boutaba, pp. 85-89, §§2.1-2.3.1, and pp. 91-92. Begen additionally uses FEC-scheme type, parity organization, media-frame importance, decoding deadline, and QoE. Begen, Fig. 2; Figs. 3A-3D; and the importance-based discussion preceding Fig. 4.
Boutaba discloses the foregoing claimed method. Boutaba does not expressly disclose Begen’s general processor-executed implementation for carrying out the disclosed FEC-aware packet-control operations. Begen discloses routines executed by one or more processors, a computer-readable storage medium, and processor-executed control logic. Begen, concluding implementation paragraphs following Fig. 4. It would have been obvious to employ Begen’s known programmable implementation to carry out Boutaba’s queue-control method because the combination would predictably execute the disclosed FEC-aware operations in conventional network equipment.
Regarding claim 20, Boutaba discloses “the encoding system includes an FEC encoding system” through its AV-SSCS Reed-Solomon and burst-erasure FEC system. Boutaba, p. 87, §2.2 and Fig. 1. Begen also discloses block-based one- and two-dimensional parity FEC. Begen, Fig. 2 and Figs. 3A-3D. The further CSIPB or CSIPBRAL language is introduced by “optionally wherein” and does not further limit the claim.
Boutaba discloses the foregoing claimed method. Boutaba does not expressly disclose Begen’s general processor-executed implementation for carrying out the disclosed FEC-aware packet-control operations. Begen discloses routines executed by one or more processors, a computer-readable storage medium, and processor-executed control logic. Begen, concluding implementation paragraphs following Fig. 4. It would have been obvious to employ Begen’s known programmable implementation to carry out Boutaba’s queue-control method because the combination would predictably execute the disclosed FEC-aware operations in conventional network equipment.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boutaba in view of Begen, as applied above, and further in view of Vucevic et al. (“Vucevic”), “Reinforcement Learning for Active Queue Management in Mobile All-IP Networks” (IEEE PIMRC 2007).
Regarding claim 7, Boutaba in view of Begen discloses the queue-management system of claim 1 but does not expressly disclose “managing queueing of data flow packets comprises at least one of deciding which of a plurality of queues to queue a given packet or selectively reallocating packets across a plurality of queues.” Vucevic discloses an aggregate classifier that directs each arriving packet into one of separate Expedited Forwarding (EF), Assured Forwarding (AF), and Best Effort (BE) queues, and a scheduler that selects among the traffic classes. Vucevic, PDF p. 2, §III and Fig. 2. Selection of EF, AF, or BE for the arriving packet discloses “deciding which of a plurality of queues to queue a given packet.”
Regarding claim 17, Boutaba in view of Begen discloses the queue-management method of claim 11 but does not expressly disclose “managing queueing of data flow packets comprises at least one of deciding which of a plurality of queues to queue a given packet or selectively reallocating packets across a plurality of queues.” Vucevic discloses the same aggregate classifier directing arriving packets into separate EF, AF, and BE queues. Vucevic, PDF p. 2, §III and Fig. 2. The classifier therefore performs the expressly recited queue-selection alternative.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ Vucevic’s classifier and plural service queues in the FEC-aware switch of Boutaba and Begen because the references manage differentiated packet traffic under congestion and QoS constraints. Separating arriving packets into EF, AF, and BE queues would predictably have enabled flows having different service, encoding, and recovery requirements to receive differentiated queue treatment, using the known classifier and queues for their ordinary functions.
Claims 8-9 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boutaba in view of Begen, as applied above, and further in view of Vucevic.
Regarding claim 8, Boutaba in view of Begen discloses the queue-management system of claim 1 but does not expressly disclose that “the queueing manager is trained, alone or together with the encoding system, based on actions in various states and a reward function.” Vucevic discloses an RL-QDL active queue manager that observes a continuous state space, selects per-class queue-delay-limit actions, computes a reward from throughput, packet loss, delay, and QoS fulfillment, and iteratively updates the policy from the measured reward. Vucevic, PDF pp. 2-3, §§III-IV, Fig. 3 and Eqs. (3)-(7). Those disclosures disclose the expressly recited states, actions, reward function, and training. The additional procedure following “optionally wherein” does not further limit the claim.
Regarding claim 18, Boutaba in view of Begen discloses the method of claim 11 but does not expressly disclose “training the queueing manager, alone or together with the encoding system, based on actions in various states and a reward function.” Vucevic discloses observation of continuous queue states, selection of per-class QDL actions, calculation of a QoS-based reward, and iterative reinforcement-learning updates from that reward. Vucevic, PDF pp. 2-3, §§III-IV, Fig. 3 and Eqs. (3)-(7). The expressly optional fixing-and-iteration procedure does not further limit the claim.
It would have been obvious to apply Vucevic’s reinforcement-learning mechanism to the queue thresholds and discard controls of Boutaba and Begen. Boutaba identifies queue thresholds, discard states, and FEC CDT as control parameters affecting congestion and recoverability, while Vucevic discloses adapting queue-control limits in response to traffic, QoS, delay, loss, and reward. The combination would predictably have adapted the queue controls to changing conditions while advancing the shared objectives of reducing loss and delay and preserving throughput and recoverability.
Regarding claim 9, Boutaba in view of Begen discloses the parent subject matter but does not expressly disclose reinforcement-learning tuning of the recited components. Vucevic discloses reinforcement-learning adjustment of queue-control parameters based on observed loss, delay, throughput, traffic class, and reward. Vucevic, PDF pp. 2-3, §§III-IV, Fig. 3 and Eqs. (3)-(7). Boutaba additionally discloses that “at least one of the queueing manager component, the FEC encoding component, or the data compression encoding component is tuned based on at least one of the other components” by configuring the queue manager according to FEC Control Block structure, CDT, and recovery capability. Boutaba, pp. 87-92, §§2.2-2.3.3. It would have been obvious to use Vucevic’s learning process to tune Boutaba’s FEC-dependent queue controls because doing so would predictably adapt those controls to measured network conditions and recovery performance. The joint-training language following “optionally wherein” does not further limit the claim.
Regarding claim 19, Boutaba in view of Begen discloses the parent method but does not expressly disclose reinforcement-learning tuning of the recited components. Vucevic discloses learning-based adjustment of queue-control parameters from measured loss, delay, throughput, traffic class, and reward. Vucevic, PDF pp. 2-3, §§III-IV, Fig. 3 and Eqs. (3)-(7). Boutaba additionally discloses that “at least one of the queueing manager component, the FEC encoding component, or the data compression encoding component is tuned based on at least one of the other components” through its FEC-dependent CDT and Control Block settings for the queue manager. Boutaba, pp. 87-92, §§2.2-2.3.3. It would have been obvious to apply Vucevic’s learning mechanism to those FEC-dependent controls to predictably adapt queue operation to network conditions and recovery performance. The joint-training language is expressly optional.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boutaba in view of Begen, as applied above, and further in view of Rudow et al. (“Rudow”), “Learning-Augmented Streaming Codes for Variable-Size Messages Under Partial Burst Losses” (IEEE ISIT 2023).
Regarding claim 4, Boutaba in view of Begen discloses the system of claim 3, including intentional FEC-aware losses constrained by the destination’s recovery capability, but does not expressly disclose that “the patterns of losses include partial burst losses with optional guardspaces or partial guardspaces in the packet flow consistent with loss recovery capabilities of the encoding system.” Boutaba, pp. 87-90. Rudow discloses a partial-burst loss in which only a fraction of transmitted packets is lost in each affected time slot, followed by a guard space of at least τ time slots in which all transmitted packets are received, and a streaming FEC code constructed to recover variable-size messages under that model. Rudow, pp. 1101-1103, Fig. 1 and §II (“Loss model”). Rudow therefore discloses partial-burst losses with guard space consistent with the encoding system’s recovery capability.
Regarding claim 14, Boutaba in view of Begen discloses the method of claim 13 but does not expressly disclose that “the patterns of losses include partial burst losses with optional guardspaces or partial guardspaces in the packet flow consistent with loss recovery capabilities of the encoding system.” Rudow discloses the same formally defined partial-burst channel followed by a loss-free guard space of at least τ time slots and streaming-code recovery under that channel model. Rudow, pp. 1101-1103, Fig. 1 and §II (“Loss model”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply Rudow’s partial-burst and guard-space loss structure to Boutaba’s controlled FEC-aware discard. Boutaba seeks to release congested queue capacity while keeping imposed losses within the destination FEC capability, and Rudow supplies a known recoverable loss geometry for low-delay streaming codes. Applying that geometry would predictably have produced controlled partial bursts separated by guard space while preserving recovery under the selected code.
Any inquiry con
87887cerning this communication or an earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to the examiner whose name appears on the Office Action. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor may be contacted.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGEL T BROCKMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00 AM-4:30 PM..
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Jiang can be reached at 571-270-7191. 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.
/ANGEL T BROCKMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2412
