DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/10/25 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 2,840,201) in view of Satrom et al (“Satrom”) (US 2021/0404245) and Smith (US 7,340,866).
Re claim 1, Anderson discloses a door frame (Fig. 1) for a pre-hung door (Fig. 1 is capable of use with a pre-hung door) comprising:
a header (header of Fig. 6) spanning between a pair of side jambs (side jambs of Fig. 6), wherein each of the pair of side jambs (side jambs of Fig. 6) include:
a frame member (B) including:
a first frame face (see examiner comments) and an opposing second frame face (see examiner comments);
a rabbet (see examiner comments) defined proximate the first frame face (see examiner comments) such that the first frame face (see examiner comments) has a first frame width (width thereof), the rabbet (see examiner comments) configured to at least partially receive (Fig. 1) the pre-hung door (K);
a soffit (see examiner comments) defined proximate the second frame face (see examiner comments) such that the second frame face (see examiner comments) has a second frame width (width thereof), the second frame width (Fig. 3) being greater than (Fig. 3) the first frame width (Fig. 3); and
a track member (A) coupled to the frame member (B) enclosing (Fig. 1) the interior cavity (within B) of the frame member (B), the track member (A) including:
a base (A3) and two legs (A1, A2) extending from each end (Fig. 1) of the base (A3), the two legs (A1, A2) covering at least a portion of a respective face of the first or second frame faces (see examiner comments), an outside surface (proximate F of A3), wherein the outside surface (proximate F of A3) is a substantially planar surface (Fig. 1) for installing the door frame (B) to a corresponding rough opening (at F) on a corrugated wall of a building structure (F, as this language is a statement of intended use, and the prior art is capable of installation in a rough opening of a corrugated wall),
but fails to disclose a first return extending from the first frame face opposite the rabbet and a second return extending from the second frame face opposite the soffit, the first return and the second return defining a throat opening allowing access into an interior cavity of the frame member, wherein the first return is positioned against an inside of the base of the track member opposite the outside surface and the second return is positioned against the inside of the base of the track member.
However, Satrum discloses a first return (see examiner comments) extending from the first frame face (see examiner comments) opposite the rabbet (see examiner comments) and a second return (see examiner comments) extending from the second frame face (see examiner comments) opposite the soffit (see examiner comments), the first return (see examiner comments) and the second return (see examiner comments) defining a throat opening (see examiner comments) allowing access into an interior cavity (within 904) of the frame member (at 904),
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door frame of Anderson with a first return extending from the first frame face opposite the rabbet and a second return extending from the second frame face opposite the soffit, the first return and the second return defining a throat opening allowing access into an interior cavity of the frame member as disclosed by Satrum in order to increase strength, rigidity, and/or load bearing capacity, at least at the first and second faces.
In addition, Smith discloses wherein the first return (see examiner comments) is positioned against an inside (Fig. 3-4) of the base of the track member (see examiner comments) opposite the outside surface (left surface of 12) and the second return (see examiner comments) is positioned against (Fig. 3-4) the inside of the base (see examiner comments) of the track member (12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door frame of Anderson wherein the first return is positioned against an inside of the base of the track member opposite the outside surface and the second return is positioned against the inside of the base of the track member as disclosed by Smith in order to protect the edges or ends of the return from damage.
Re claim 2, Anderson as modified discloses the door frame of claim 1, wherein the header (Col 2 lines 2-7) includes the frame member (B) and the track member (A).
Re claim 3, Anderson as modified discloses the door frame of claim 1, but fails to disclose further comprising a sill disposed opposite of the header between the pair of side jambs.
However, Satrum discloses further comprising a sill (836) disposed opposite of the header ([0005]) between the pair of side jambs ([0005]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door frame of Anderson with further comprising a sill disposed opposite of the header between the pair of side jambs as disclosed by Satrum in order to provide a smooth appearing transition between flooring surfaces, or to provide a barrier to prevent water, drafts, and/or insects from entering, as door sills are extremely well-known and common in the art.
Re claim 6, Anderson as modified discloses the door frame of claim 1, wherein the track member (A) is connected to the frame member (B), but fails to disclose connection by welding.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door frame of Anderson with connection by welding, such as by replacing H with a weld, in order permanently secure the track member to the frame member. In addition, since it has been held that simple substitution of one known element (fastener H) for another (welds) to obtain predictable results (permanent securement) is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143(B).
Re claim 7, Anderson as modified discloses the door frame of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the interior cavity is at least partially sealed.
However, Satrum discloses wherein the interior cavity (Fig. 9B, within the frame member at 904) is at least partially sealed (Fig. 9B).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door frame of Anderson wherein the interior cavity is at least partially sealed as disclosed by Satrum in order to prevent water, drafts, and/or insects from entering.
Re claim 8, Anderson as modified discloses the door frame of claim 1, wherein the first frame face (see examiner comments) has a width (width thereof) that is less than (Fig. 3) a width (width thereof) of the second frame face (see examiner comments).
Re claim 9, Anderson as modified discloses the door frame of claim 1, but fails t to disclose wherein a depth of the frame member between the first and second frame faces is 3 ¾ inches.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door frame of Anderson wherein a depth of the frame member between the first and second frame faces is 3 ¾ inches in order to provide sufficient spacing for a door, or to fit to a 2x4. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 2,840,201) in view of Satrom et al (“Satrom”) (US 2021/0404245) and Ruff et al (“Ruff”) (US 5,619,823).
Re claim 4, Anderson as modified discloses the door frame of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein one side jamb of the pair of side jambs includes at least one hinge cutout disposed at least partially within the rabbet.
However, Ruff discloses wherein one side jamb (16) of the pair of side jambs (12, 16) includes at least one hinge cutout (48) disposed at least partially within the rabbet (Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door frame of Anderson wherein one side jamb of the pair of side jambs includes at least one hinge cutout disposed at least partially within the rabbet as disclosed by Ruff in order to provide a space for a door hinge, as cutouts for door hinges are extremely well-known and common in the art.
Re claim 5, Anderson as modified discloses the door frame of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein another side jamb of the pair of side jambs includes at least one strike cutout disposed at least partially within the rabbet.
However, Ruff discloses wherein another side jamb (12) of the pair of side jambs (12, 16) includes at least one strike cutout (62) disposed at least partially within the rabbet (Fig. 6).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door frame of Anderson wherein another side jamb of the pair of side jambs includes at least one strike cutout disposed at least partially within the rabbet as disclosed by Ruff in order to provide a space for a strike plate to maintain the door in a shut position, as cutouts for strike plates are extremely well-known and common in the art.
Claim(s) 10-14, 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 2,840,201) in view of Satrom et al (“Satrom”) (US 2021/0404245), Smith (US 7,340,866) and Theune (US 5,613,324).
Re claim 10, Anderson as modified discloses the door frame of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the frame member and the track member are 16 Gauge steel.
However, Theune discloses wherein the frame member (Anderson: B) and the track member (Anderson: A) are 16 Gauge steel (Col 3 lines 48-50).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door frame of Anderson wherein the frame member and the track member are 16 Gauge steel as disclosed by Theune in order to use a material which is strong, durable, provides a long lifespan, provides security, and provides fire resistance, all known benefits of 16 gauge steel.
Re claim 11, Anderson discloses a pre-hung door assembly (Fig. 1, as no point in time for pre-hung is provided) comprising:
a door frame (Fig. 1) including a header (header of Fig. 6), a first side jamb (one jamb of Fig. 6), a second side jamb (one jamb of Fig. 6),wherein each of the header (header of Fig. 6) and the first and second side jambs (side jambs of Fig. 6) include (Col 2 lines 2-7):
a frame member (B) including:
a first frame face (see examiner comments) and an opposing second frame face (see examiner comments);
an interior wall (right wall of the examiner comments) extending between the first and second frame faces face (see examiner comments), the interior wall (right wall of the examiner comments) including a rabbit (see examiner comments) and a soffit (see examiner comments); and
a track member (A) coupled to the frame member (B) enclosing (Fig. 1) the interior cavity (within B) of the frame member (B), the track member (A) including:
a base (A3) and two legs (A1, A2) extending from each end (Fig. 1) of the base (A3), the two legs (A1, A2) covering the throat (the opening therein) of the frame member (B), wherein an outside surface (surface of A3 proximate F) forms an exterior surface (Fig. 1) of the base (A3) that is a substantially planar (Fig. 1) for installing the door frame (B) to a corresponding rough opening (at F) on a corrugated wall of a building structure (F, as this language is a statement of intended use, and the prior art is capable of installation in a rough opening of a corrugated wall),
a door (K) mounted in the rabbet (see examiner comments) of the frame member (B),
but fails to disclose the door frame as steel, a first return extending from the first frame face opposite the rabbet and a second return extending from the second frame face opposite the soffit, the first and second returns opposite the interior wall, the first return and the second return defining a throat opening allowing access into an interior cavity of the frame member, and the door as metal, wherein the first return is positioned against an inside of the base of the track member opposite the outside surface and the second return is positioned against the inside of the base of the track member.
However, Satrum discloses a first return (see examiner comments) extending from the first frame face (see examiner comments) opposite the rabbet (see examiner comments) and a second return (see examiner comments) extending from the second frame face (see examiner comments) opposite the soffit (see examiner comments), the first and second returns (see examiner comments) opposite the interior wall (see examiner comments), the first return (see examiner comments) and the second return (see examiner comments) defining a throat opening (see examiner comments) allowing access into an interior cavity (within 904) of the frame member (at 904).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pre-hung door assembly of Anderson with a first return extending from the first frame face opposite the rabbet and a second return extending from the second frame face opposite the soffit, the first and second returns opposite the interior wall, the first return and the second return defining a throat opening allowing access into an interior cavity of the frame member as disclosed by Satrum in order to increase strength, rigidity, and/or load bearing capacity, at least at the first and second faces.
In addition, Theune discloses the door frame (Anderson: B) as steel (Col 3 lines 48-50).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pre-hung door assembly of Anderson with the door frame as steel as disclosed by Theune in order to use a material which is strong, durable, provides a long lifespan, provides security, and provides fire resistance, all known benefits of steel.
In addition, Theune discloses the door frame (Anderson: B) as steel (Col 3 lines 48-50).
In addition, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pre-hung door assembly of Anderson with the door as metal in order to use a material which is strong, durable, provides a long lifespan, provides security, and provides fire resistance, all known benefits of metallic doors.
In addition, Smith discloses wherein the first return (see examiner comments) is positioned against an inside (Fig. 3-4) of the base of the track member (see examiner comments) opposite the outside surface (left surface of 12) and the second return (see examiner comments) is positioned against (Fig. 3-4) the inside of the base (see examiner comments) of the track member (12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pre-hung door assembly of Anderson wherein the first return is positioned against an inside of the base of the track member opposite the outside surface and the second return is positioned against the inside of the base of the track member as disclosed by Smith in order to protect the edges or ends of the return from damage.
Re claim 12, Anderson as modified discloses the pre-hung door assembly of claim 11, wherein the first frame face (see examiner comments) has a width (width thereof) that is less than (Fig. 3) a width (width thereof) of the second frame face (see examiner comments).
Re claim 13, Anderson as modified discloses the pre-hung door assembly of claim 11, wherein the two legs (A1, A2) of the track member (A) are connected to a respective face of first or second frame faces (see examiner comments) of the frame member (B) but fails to disclose connection by welding.
However, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pre-hung door assembly of Anderson with connection by welding, such as by replacing H with a weld, in order permanently secure the track member to the frame member. In addition, since it has been held that simple substitution of one known element (fastener H) for another (welds) to obtain predictable results (permanent securement) is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143(B).
Re claim 14, Anderson as modified discloses the pre-hung door assembly of claim 11, but fails to disclose further comprising a sill extending between the first and second side jambs.
However, Satrum discloses further comprising a sill (836) extending between the first and second side jambs ([0005]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pre-hung door assembly of Anderson with further comprising a sill extending between the first and second side jambs as disclosed by Satrum in order to provide a smooth appearing transition between flooring surfaces, or to provide a barrier to prevent water, drafts, and/or insects from entering, as door sills are extremely well-known and common in the art.
Re claim 16, Anderson as modified discloses the pre-hung door assembly of claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the interior cavity is at least partially sealed.
However, Satrum discloses wherein the interior cavity (Fig. 9B, within the frame member at 904) is at least partially sealed (Fig. 9B).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pre-hung door assembly of Anderson wherein the interior cavity is at least partially sealed as disclosed by Satrum in order to prevent water, drafts, and/or insects from entering.
Re claim 17, Anderson as modified discloses the pre-hung door assembly of claim 11, but fails t to disclose wherein a depth of the frame member between the first and second frame faces is 3 ¾ inches.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pre-hung door assembly of Anderson wherein a depth of the frame member between the first and second frame faces is 3 ¾ inches in order to provide sufficient spacing for a door, or to fit to a 2x4. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955).
Re claim 18, Anderson as modified discloses the pre-hung door assembly of claim 11, Theune discloses wherein the frame member (Anderson: B) and the track member (Anderson: A) are 16 Gauge steel (Col 3 lines 48-50).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pre-hung door assembly of Anderson wherein the frame member and the track member are 16 Gauge steel as disclosed by Theune in order to use a material which is strong, durable, provides a long lifespan, provides security, and provides fire resistance, all known benefits of 16 gauge steel.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 2,840,201) in view of Satrom et al (“Satrom”) (US 2021/0404245), Theune (US 5,613,324), Smith (US 7,340,866) and Ruff et al (“Ruff”) (US 5,619,823).
Re claim 15, Anderson as modified discloses the pre-hung door assembly of claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the second side jamb includes a strike box.
However, Ruff discloses wherein the second side jamb (12) includes a strike box (62).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the -hung door assembly of Anderson wherein the second side jamb includes a strike box as disclosed by Ruff in order to provide a space for a strike plate and a strike to maintain the door in a shut position, as cutouts for strike plates are extremely well-known and common in the art.
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anderson (US 2,840,201) in view of Gill et al (“Gill”) (US 10,000,939), Satrom et al (“Satrom”) (US 2021/0404245), Smith (US 7,340,866) and Bemis (US 1,958,124).
Re claim 19, Anderson discloses a method of installing (Fig. 1-6) a pre-hung door assembly (Fig. 1; as no point in time for pre-hung is provided) on a building (of F) having a wall (F), the method comprising:
providing (Fig. 1-6 showing all features provided) the pre-hung door assembly (Fig. 1) that includes a door frame (A, B) with a frame member (B) and a track member (A), the frame member (B) having a first frame face (see examiner comments) and an opposing second frame face (see examiner comments), an interior wall (see examiner comments) extending between (Fig. 3) the first and second frames faces (see examiner comments), the interior wall (see examiner comments) including a rabbet (see examiner comments) and a soffit (see examiner comments), the track member (A) is coupled to the frame member (B) enclosing (Fig. 1) the interior cavity (within B) of the frame member (B), the track member (A) including a base (A3) and two legs (A1, A2) extending from each end (Fig. 1) of the base (A3), the base (A3) covering the throat opening (opening into B between the first and second faces) of the frame member (B), the pre-hung door assembly (Fig. 1) also includes a door (K) mounted in the rabbet (see examiner comments) of the frame member (B);
providing (Fig. 1 showing the opening provided) a rough opening (at F) on the wall (F) of the building (of F);
at least partially inserting (Fig. 1) the door frame (A, B) within the rough opening (at F), wherein an outside surface (outer surface proximate of of A3) forms an exterior surface (outer surface of A3) of the base (A3) of the track member (A) that is substantially planar (Fig. 2) for receiving corrugations (the outer face thereof is capable of receiving corrugations) of the wall (F), wherein the inside (inside of A) is opposite the outside surface (outer surface proximate of of A3),
but fails to disclose the building as a modular building with a corrugated wall, the door frame as steel, a first return extending from the first frame face and a second return extending from the second frame face, the first and second returns opposite the interior wall, the first return and the second return defining a throat opening allowing access into an interior cavity of the frame member, the door as metal, the rough opening formed by cutting, and welding the corrugated wall to the exterior surface of the base of the track member, wherein the first return is positioned against an inside of the base of the track member and the second return is positioned against the surface of the base of the track member.
However, Gill discloses the building (1) as a modular building (Col 5 lines 4-6) with a corrugated wall (20; Col 5 lines 19-20), the rough opening formed by cutting (Claim 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Anderson with the building as a modular building with a corrugated wall, the rough opening formed by cutting as disclosed by Gill in order to provide a temporary structure which is wind resistant (Col 1 lines 15-18), and to provide on-site ability to locate the door opening to specific design needs at the time of install.
In addition, Satrum discloses a first return (see examiner comments) extending from the first frame face (see examiner comments) and a second return (see examiner comments) extending from the second frame face (see examiner comments), the first return (see examiner comments) and the second return (see examiner comments) defining a throat opening (see examiner comments) allowing access into an interior cavity (within 904) of the frame member (at 904).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Anderson with a first return extending from the first frame face and a second return extending from the second frame face, the first and second returns opposite the interior wall, the first return and the second return defining a throat opening allowing access into an interior cavity of the frame member as disclosed by Satrum in order to increase strength, rigidity, and/or load bearing capacity, at least at the first and second faces.
In addition, Bemis discloses welding (Page 2 lines 42-48) the corrugated wall (2, as modified above) to the exterior surface (of 4) of the base (of 4) of the track member (4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Anderson with welding the corrugated wall to the exterior surface of the base of the track member as disclosed by Bemis in order to permanently secure the track member to the frame member. In addition, since it has been held that simple substitution of one known element (mechanical fastening) for another (welds) to obtain predictable results (permanent securement) is within the level of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2143(B).
In addition, Smith discloses wherein the first return (see examiner comments) is positioned against an inside (Fig. 3-4) of the base of the track member (see examiner comments) and the second return (see examiner comments) is positioned against (Fig. 3-4) the inside of the base (see examiner comments) of the track member (12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Anderson wherein the first return is positioned against an inside of the base of the track member and the second return is positioned against the inside of the base of the track member as disclosed by Smith in order to protect the edges or ends of the return from damage.
Finally, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Anderson with the door frame as steel and the door frame as metal in order to use material which is strong, durable, provides a long lifespan, provides security, and provides fire resistance, all known benefits of metal and steel. Moreover, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. See also Ballas Liquidating Co. v. Allied industries of Kansas, Inc. (DC Kans) 205 USPQ 331.
Re claim 20, Anderson as modified discloses the method of claim 19, but fails to disclose wherein the interior cavity of the steel door frame is at least partially sealed.
However, Satrum discloses wherein the interior cavity (Fig. 9B, within the frame member at 904) of the steel door frame (at 904, per the above) is at least partially sealed (Fig. 9B).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the door frame of Anderson wherein the interior cavity of the steel door frame is at least partially sealed as disclosed by Satrum in order to prevent water, drafts, and/or insects from entering.
Examiner Comments
PNG
media_image1.png
457
335
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
873
561
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
549
819
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections 35 USC 103: Applicant’s arguments with respect to all claims have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the amended language of claim 1 requiring that the first return is positioned against an inside of the base member opposite the outside surface. As discussed in the 11/19/25 Interview, this language overcomes the previous rejection. However, upon further search and/or consideration, Smith has been identified as reading on the newly amended claim limitation. As such, the prior art meets the claim.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the remaining independent claims mirror that of the above and are addressed thereby.
Applicant’s arguments concerning dependent claims are addressed by the above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571)270-3238. 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.
KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3635
/KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635