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 CORRESPONDENCE
This communication is a first Office Action on the Merits. Claims 34-49, 51-52 and 54-55 as originally filed 10 DEC. 2025, are pending and have been considered as follows:
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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
10 DEC. 25 has been entered.
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.
Claim 34-46, and 51-52 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Cl. 34 ln. 4: the recitation(s) of “deforms by 10% at a load of 10psi or less” is vague indefinite and confusing as to how zero psi (note: 0.00 psi is within the range of “10psi or less”) causes a deformation.
For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as “deforms by --at least 10% at a load of 10psi-- [[or less]]“
Claims 35--46, and 51-52 though not particularly referenced in this section are nonetheless rejected as being dependent upon an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
CLAIMS PRESENTED BELOW IN ORDER OF DEPENDCNCE
Claim 34-43 and 55 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batch et al. US 5031374 A (Batch) in view of Фесенко Антон Сергеевич RU 173884 U1 (hereinafter RU173).
As per claim 34 Batch teaches a building surface system comprising:
a support surface (exemplary “surface” 6 of FIG. 6 which would employ the particular plate 22 of FIG. 8A) of a building wall construction (see “roofing system … for installation on a structure” abstract, ln. 1; this is recognized as teaching a building wall as broadly claimed);
a layer of insulation (see exemplary “insulation” 20 of FIG. 6 which would employ the particular plate 22 of FIG. 8A) extending over the support surface (exemplary “surface” 6 of FIG. 6 which would employ the particular plate 22 of FIG. 8A),
a first building surface standoff (plate 22, FIG. 8A) comprising:
a support platform (upper surface of plate 22, FIG. 8A); and
a first group of legs (rightmost legs 73, 73, FIG. 8A) extending rearward from the support platform (upper surface of plate 22, FIG. 8A),
wherein each of the legs in the first group of legs (rightmost legs 73, 73, FIG. 8A) is arranged on the support platform (upper surface of plate 22, FIG. 8A) in a first space (see space between rightmost legs 73, 73, FIG. 8A) having a diameter equal to a first distance (see distance between rightmost legs 73, 73, FIG. 8A); and
a second group of legs (leftmost legs 73, 73, FIG. 8A) extending rearward from the support platform (upper surface of plate 22, FIG. 8A), wherein each of the legs in the second group of legs (leftmost legs 73, 73, FIG. 8A) is arranged on the support platform (upper surface of plate 22, FIG. 8A) in a second space (see space between leftmost legs 73, 73, FIG. 8A) having a diameter equal to the first distance (see distance between rightmost legs 73, 73, FIG. 8A), and wherein the first space (see space between rightmost legs 73, 73, FIG. 8A) is separated from the second space (see space between leftmost legs 73, 73, FIG. 8A) by at least the first distance (see distance between rightmost legs 73, 73, FIG. 8A),
the first building surface standoff (plate 22, FIG. 8A) being disposed on the layer of insulation (see exemplary “insulation” 20 of FIG. 6 which would employ the particular plate 22 of FIG. 8A) with the legs penetrating the insulation (see exemplary “insulation” 20 of FIG. 6 which would employ the particular plate 22 of FIG. 8A) such that the building surface standoff is supported by the support surface (exemplary “surface” 6 of FIG. 6 which would employ the particular plate 22 of FIG. 8A); and
a building surface component (roof covering 24, FIG. 6) disposed over the layer of insulation (see exemplary “insulation” 20 of FIG. 6 which would employ the particular plate 22 of FIG. 8A) and supported by the support platform (upper surface of plate 22, FIG. 8A) of the first building surface standoff (plate 22, FIG. 8A)..
Batch teaches the insulation layer has substantial compressive strength (see 1:63) but fails to explicitly disclose the claimed details, namely:
wherein the layer of insulation deforms by [[10% at a load of 10psi or less]] --at least 10% at a load of 10psi--, as measured by ASTM C165-95 (note 10 psi is approximately 68.95 kPa).
RU173 teaches a deformation as claimed, specifically:
wherein the layer of insulation deforms by [[10% at a load of 10psi or less]] --at least 10% at a load of 10psi--, as measured by ASTM C165-95 (“compressive strength at 10% deformation - 56 kPa”)(10 psi ≈ 68.95 kPa).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Batch by substituting the insulation layer as taught by RU173 in order to resist deformation under heavy loads and preventing sagging.
As per claim 35 Batch in view of RU173 teaches the limitations according to claim 34, and Batch further discloses wherein the first building surface standoff (plate 22, FIG. 8A) further comprises comprising at least one intermediate group of legs (see “intermediate legs” 73, 73 between above identified leftmost and rightmost legs, FIG. 8A) between the first group of legs (rightmost legs 73, 73, FIG. 8A) and the second group of legs (leftmost legs 73, 73, FIG. 8A).
As per claim 36 Batch in view of RU173 teaches the limitations according to claim 34, and Batch further discloses wherein the groups of legs of the first building surface standoff (plate 22, FIG. 8A) are arranged in a line (see “in a line” as claimed, FIG. 8A) along a length.
As per claim 37 Batch in view of RU173 teaches the limitations according to claim 34, and Batch further discloses wherein each of the legs of the first building surface standoff (plate 22, FIG. 8A) extends from the support platform (upper surface of plate 22, FIG. 8A) by a depth (see FIG. 8A; distance of “spike length 75” is recognized as a depth), and wherein the depth of each leg is at least five times larger than the thickness and the width of the leg (see FIG. 8A).
In other words, the examiner's position is that Batch in view of RU173 inherently teaches has “the depth of each leg is at least five times larger”.
However, in the alternative, if Batch in view of RU173 does not disclose that depth of the legs is at least five times the width, then it certainly would have been obvious to a skilled artisan art at the time the invention was made to modify the assembly of Batch by making the legs have any desired length —including up to and including— five times the thickness the in order to provide robust legs which would resist breaking upon installation.
As per claim 38 Batch in view of RU173 teaches the limitations according to claim 34, and Batch further discloses wherein [[the]] a pattern of each group of legs of the first building surface standoff (plate 22, FIG. 8A) is symmetrical (see “symmetrical ” as claimed, FIG. 8A).
As per claim 39 Batch in view of RU173 teaches the limitations according to claim 34, and Batch further discloses each group of legs of the first building surface standoff (plate 22, FIG. 8A) includes central legs (see “central legs” 73, 73, FIG. 8A) arranged along a length of the building surface standoff (plate 22, FIG. 8A).
As per claim 40 Batch in view of RU173 teaches the limitations according to claim 34, and Batch further discloses wherein the first building surface standoff (plate 22, FIG. 8A) is formed in a single integral piece (see “According to FIG. 8A, the lower surface 71 of anchor plate 22 has sharpened spikes 73 integrally formed therewith” 6:7-9).
As per claim 41 Batch in view of RU173 teaches the limitations according to claim 34, and Batch further discloses wherein the support platform (upper surface of plate 22, FIG. 8A) of the first building surface standoff (plate 22, FIG. 8A) forms a rear surface of a building surface accessory (see exemplary “surface accessory” 24, FIG. 6 which would employ the particular plate 22 of FIG. 8A; the Examiner takes official notice the device of FIG. 8A is installed in FIG. 6).
As per claim 42 Batch in view of RU173 teaches the limitations according to claim 41, but the combination fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the building accessory is a window trim, light fixture block, vent outlet, or critter guard.
In a separate embodiment, Batch teaches standoffs particularly shaped to accommodate a vent outlet (112, FIG. 9A), specifically:
wherein the building accessory (112, FIG. 9A) is a window trim, light fixture block, vent outlet, or critter guard.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in before the effective filing date to modify the plate of Batch in view of RU173 by forming the plate as a rear surface of the flashing pieces of the building accessory as taught by Batch in order to perform the function of holding town insulation in an area proximate a building accessory.
As per claim 43 Batch in view of RU173 teaches the limitations according to claim 34, and Batch further discloses wherein the first building surface standoff (plate 22, FIG. 8A) forms an elongate strip (see “elongate strip” extending left to right, FIG. 8A).
As per claim 55 Batch teaches a building surface system comprising:
a support surface (exemplary “surface” 6 of FIG. 6 which would employ the particular plate 22 of FIG. 8A) of a building wall construction (see “roofing system … for installation on a structure” abstract, ln. 1; this is recognized as teaching a building wall as broadly claimed);
a layer of insulation (see exemplary “insulation” 20 of FIG. 6 which would employ the particular plate 22 of FIG. 8A) extending over the support surface (exemplary “surface” 6 of FIG. 6 which would employ the particular plate 22 of FIG. 8A),
a first building surface standoff (plate 22, FIG. 8A) comprising:
a support platform (upper surface of plate 22, FIG. 8A); and
a first group of legs (rightmost legs 73, 73, FIG. 8A) extending rearward from the support platform (upper surface of plate 22, FIG. 8A), wherein each of the legs in the first group of legs (rightmost legs 73, 73, FIG. 8A) is arranged on the support platform (upper surface of plate 22, FIG. 8A) in a first space (see space between rightmost legs 73, 73, FIG. 8A) having a diameter equal to a first distance (see distance between rightmost legs 73, 73, FIG. 8A); and
a second group of legs (leftmost legs 73, 73, FIG. 8A) extending rearward from the support platform (upper surface of plate 22, FIG. 8A), wherein each of the legs in the second group of legs (leftmost legs 73, 73, FIG. 8A) is arranged on the support platform (upper surface of plate 22, FIG. 8A) in a second space (see space between leftmost legs 73, 73, FIG. 8A) having a diameter equal to the first distance (see distance between rightmost legs 73, 73, FIG. 8A), and wherein the first space (see space between rightmost legs 73, 73, FIG. 8A) is separated from the second space (see space between leftmost legs 73, 73, FIG. 8A) by at least the first distance (see distance between rightmost legs 73, 73, FIG. 8A),
the first building surface standoff (plate 22, FIG. 8A) being disposed on the layer of insulation (see exemplary “insulation” 20 of FIG. 6 which would employ the particular plate 22 of FIG. 8A) with the legs penetrating the insulation (see exemplary “insulation” 20 of FIG. 6 which would employ the particular plate 22 of FIG. 8A) such that the building surface standoff is supported by the support surface (exemplary “surface” 6 of FIG. 6 which would employ the particular plate 22 of FIG. 8A); and
a building surface component (roof covering 24, FIG. 6) disposed over the layer of insulation (see exemplary “insulation” 20 of FIG. 6 which would employ the particular plate 22 of FIG. 8A) and supported by the support platform (upper surface of plate 22, FIG. 8A) of the first building surface standoff (plate 22, FIG. 8A).
Batch teaches the insulation layer has substantial compressive strength (see 1:63) but fails to explicitly disclose the claimed details, namely:
wherein the layer of insulation is a fibrous insulation with a density below 6 lbs per cubic foot;
RU173 teaches a fibrous insulation with a density as claimed, specifically:
wherein the layer of insulation is a fibrous insulation with a density below 6 lbs per cubic foot (see “mineral wool boards with a density of 75-100 kg / m.sup.3”; this is recognized as a range between 4.68 lbs per cubic foot and 6.24 lbs per cubic foot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Batch by substituting the insulation layer as taught by RU173 in order to resist deformation under heavy loads and preventing sagging.
Claim 44 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batch in view of RU173 as applied to claim Cl. 43 above, and further in view of Stenson US 4803823 A.
As per claim 44 Batch in view of RU173 teaches the limitations according to claim 43, but fails to explicitly disclose:
the strip comprises sections and each of the sections of the strip includes a central aperture extending through the support platform of the first building surface standoff and configured to receive a fastener.
Stenson teaches such an aperture in each of a number of sections, specifically:
the strip comprises sections and each of the sections of the strip includes a central aperture (see “aperture” proximate projections 4, FIG. 3) extending through the support platform of the first building surface standoff and configured to receive a fastener.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Batch in view of RU173 by including the apertures as taught by Stenson in order to engage the subjacent structural layers and thereby inhibit shifting between the strip and the subjacent layers.
Claim 45 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batch in view of RU173 as applied to claim 43 above, and further in view of Pollack US 20210071412 A1.
As per claim 45 Batch in view of RU173 teaches the limitations according to claim 43 but the combination fails to explicitly disclose:
wherein the support platform of the first building surface standoff comprises a frame formed by a plurality of connected members.
Pollack teaches a frame of like members separated by lines of weakness, specifically:
wherein the support platform of the first building surface standoff comprises a frame formed by a plurality of connected members (“Lines 263 are weakened folds” page 8, left column, line 31; see also FIG. 15; also “lines of weakness” Cl. 8; these are recognized as teaching “a frame formed by… connected members” as broadly claimed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Batch in view of RU173 by including the plate as a plurality of connected members as taught by Pollack in order to enable the plate to fit over an area of unknown width, whereby the connected members can be stretched or collapsed to accommodate the specific area.
Claim 46, and 51-52, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batch in view of RU173 as applied to claim 43 above, and further in view of VERNON WEAVER ARTHUR US 2087941 A (Weaver).
As per claim 46 Batch in view of RU173 teaches the limitations according to claim 43 but fails to explicitly disclose:
further comprising an attachment post extending forward from the support platform, the attachment post including a shaft and a lip extending radially outward from the shaft and configured to hold the attachment post in an opening of a building surface accessory.
an attachment post extending forward from the support platform, the attachment post including a shaft and a lip extending radially outward from the shaft and configured to hold the attachment post in an opening of a building surface accessory.
Weaver teaches such a channel engaging post, specifically:
further comprising an attachment post (shank 12 and head 13, FIG. 1) extending forward from the support platform, the attachment post including a shaft (shank 12, FIG. 1) and a lip (head 13, FIG. 1) extending radially outward from the shaft and configured to hold the attachment post in an opening of a building surface accessory.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Batch in view of RU173 by including the attachment post as taught by Weaver in order to enable the plate to engage a transverse support, adding versatility to the plate and the ability to retain insulation.
As per claim 51-52, Batch in view of RU173 teaches the limitations according to claim 34, but the combination but fails to explicitly disclose:
(Cl. 51) wherein the first building surface standoff further comprises an attachment post extending forward from the support platform, the attachment post including a shaft and a lip extending radially outward from the shaft and configured to hold holding the attachment post in an opening of a building surface accessory, and wherein a rear surface of the building surface component includes a groove configured to receive receiving the attachment post.
(Cl. 52) wherein the attachment post includes a cam locked in the groove of the building surface component.
Weaver teaches such a channel engaging post, specifically:
(Cl. 51) wherein the first building surface standoff further comprises an attachment post (shank 12 and head 13, FIG. 1) extending forward from the support platform, the attachment post including a shaft (shank 12, FIG. 1) and a lip (head 13, FIG. 1) extending radially outward from the shaft and configured to hold holding the attachment post (shank 12 and head 13, FIG. 1) in an opening of a building surface accessory, and wherein a rear surface of the building surface component includes a groove (guide 5, FIG. 1) configured to receive receiving the attachment post; and
(Cl. 52) wherein the attachment post (shank 12 and head 13, FIG. 1) includes a cam (see square proximal surface of head 13, facing flange 6; this is recognized as a cam because it would directly abut —that is to say, “lock”— against the opening and prevent release therefrom) locked in the groove (guide 5, FIG. 1) of the building surface component.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Batch by including the attachment post as taught by Weaver in order to enable the plate to engage a transverse element, adding versatility to the plate and the ability to retain insulation and to prevent the assembly from being moved in a direction away from the groove.
Claim 47-49 and 54 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batch in view of Weaver and RU173.
As per claim 47 Batch teaches a building surface system comprising:
a support surface (exemplary “surface” 6 of FIG. 6 which would employ the particular plate 22 of FIG. 8A) of a building wall construction (see “roofing system … for installation on a structure” abstract, ln. 1; this is recognized as teaching a building wall as broadly claimed);
a layer of insulation (see exemplary “insulation” 20 of FIG. 6 which would employ the particular plate 22 of FIG. 8A) extending over the support surface (exemplary “surface” 6 of FIG. 6 which would employ the particular plate 22 of FIG. 8A),
a first building surface standoff (plate 22, FIG. 8A)
comprising:
a support platform (upper surface of plate 22, FIG. 8A);
a plurality of legs (legs 73, FIG. 8A) extending rearward from the support platform (upper surface of plate 22, FIG. 8A); and
the first building surface standoff (plate 22, FIG. 8A) being disposed on the layer of insulation (see exemplary “insulation” 20 of FIG. 6 which would employ the particular plate 22 of FIG. 8A) with the legs penetrating the insulation (see exemplary “insulation” 20 of FIG. 6 which would employ the particular plate 22 of FIG. 8A) such that the building surface standoff is supported by the support surface (exemplary “surface” 6 of FIG. 6 which would employ the particular plate 22 of FIG. 8A); and
a building surface component (roof covering 24, FIG. 6) disposed over the layer of insulation (see exemplary “insulation” 20 of FIG. 6 which would employ the particular plate 22 of FIG. 8A) and supported by the support platform (upper surface of plate 22, FIG. 8A) of the first building surface standoff (plate 22, FIG. 8A).
Batch fails to explicitly disclose:
an attachment post extending forward from the support platform, the attachment post including a shaft and a lip extending radially outward from the shaft and configured to hold the attachment post in an opening of a building surface accessory ,
wherein the layer of insulation deforms by 10% at a load of 10psi or less, as measured by ASTM C165-95;
Weaver teaches such a channel engaging post, specifically:
an attachment post (shank 12 and head 13, FIG. 1) extending forward from the support platform, the attachment post including a shaft (shank 12, FIG. 1) and a lip (head 13, FIG. 1) extending radially outward from the shaft and configured to hold the attachment post in an opening (guide 5, FIG. 1) of a building surface accessory.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Batch by including the attachment post as taught by Weaver in order to enable the plate to engage a transverse element, adding versatility to the plate and the ability to retain insulation.
RU173 teaches a deformation as claimed, specifically:
wherein the layer of insulation deforms by 10% at a load of 10psi or less, as measured by ASTM C165-95 (“compressive strength at 10% deformation - 56 kPa”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Batch in view of Weaver by substituting the insulation layer as taught by RU173 in order to provide a finished assembly having a resistance to compression, thereby allowing fastening of the standoffs at a distance above the roof which allows firm fastening but doesn’t compromise the ability of the insulation to support a planar surface thereabove, such as would be exhibited by an unnecessarily compressed insulation layer.
As per claim 48 Batch in view of Weaver and RU173 teaches the limitations according to claim 47, and Weaver further discloses the lip is formed as a portion of a head disposed at a distal end of the shaft (see head 13 at distal end, FIG. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Batch in view of Weaver and RU173 by including the head disposed as claimed as taught by Weaver in order to prevent the assembly from being moved in a direction away from the groove.
As per claim 49 Batch in view of Weaver and RU173 teaches the limitations according to claim 48, and Weaver further discloses the head is formed as a cam (see square proximal surface of head 13, facing flange 6; this is recognized as a cam because it would directly abut —that is to say, “lock”— against the opening and prevent release therefrom) locked within a groove (guide 5, FIG. 1) in a building surface component. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Batch in view of Weaver by including locking surface as taught by Weaver in order to prevent the assembly from being moved in a direction away from the groove.
As per claim 54 Batch in view of Weaver and RU173 teaches the limitations according to claim 47, and RU173 further discloses the layer of insulation is a fibrous insulation (see “mineral wool boards with a density of 75-100 kg / m.sup.3”; this is recognized as a range between 4.68 lbs per cubic foot and 6.24 lbs per cubic foot). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the assembly of Batch in view of Weaver and RU173 by substituting the fibrous material as taught by Batch in view of Weaver and RU173 in order to provide a full-sized, easy-to-install low-density lamellar slab from known materials.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10 DEC. 25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As per the argument (p. 8):
the person of ordinary skill in the art would understand this limitation to refer to materials that require no more than 10 psi of load to be deformed by 10%… would understand this to mean that such a material has a deformation of at least 10% at a load of 10 psi.
the Examiner submits the claim language must be definite. “[D]eforms…at [zero psi]” in not definite. The metes and bounds of the ability for the claimed layer to deform cannot be ascertained according to claim 34 as currently constructed.
As per the argument (p. 10-11):
Recognizing that Batch… turns to RU173… Applicant disagrees for the reasons described below
and
panels can compress a compressible insulation… advantages when used in conjunction with such compressible insulation layers… This is not suggested by the prior art
the Examiner submits the rejection is proper because the assembly of Batch teaches a compressible material but does not provide the specific details as claimed. The secondary reference of RU173 provides a known solution to the specific need of Batch which would have been obvious as an improvement to the assembly of Batch.
As per the argument (p. 15):
the Office appears to have read the present specification and adopted the innovation of the inventors themselves as the reason to combine the reference
the Examiner submits it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In the instant case, RU173 teaches the claimed properties which would have been obvious to incorporate into the structural anticipating assembly of Batch.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH J SADLON whose telephone number is (571)270-5730. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 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, BRIAN D MATTEI can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JJS/
/BRIAN D MATTEI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3635