| PTO Form 1957 (Rev 5/2006) |
| OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 04/2009) |
| Input Field |
Entered |
| SERIAL NUMBER | 76618340 |
| LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED | LAW OFFICE 106 |
| MARK SECTION (no change) | |
| ARGUMENT(S) | |
|
RESPONSE TO SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL The Examiner has initially refused to register Applicant's mark on the basis of United States Registration No. 2,062,079 for PURGARD for "lined tubular glass containers for use in diagnostic and pharmaceutical drug packaging" owned by Schott AG ("Schott"). Applicant respectfully submits that there is no likelihood of confusion because Applicant's mark and the cited mark are used for different products, are sold through distinct channels of trade to different, sophisticated consumers and because there are third party registrations for similar marks, narrowing the scope of protection of the cited registration. Determining whether a likelihood of confusion will arise between two trademarks requires analysis of the factors set forth in In re E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973). Among the factors considered in determining the likelihood of confusion are the similarity or dissimilarity of the goods, the trade channels, and the conditions under which sales are made. The marks must also be considered in the context of third party usage. A. Applicant's Mark and the Cited Mark Are Used for Different Products. Confusion is unlikely because the products on which Applicant's mark and the cited mark are used are different. Applicant notes that it has amended its identification of goods and services, further distinguishing the goods with which it uses its mark from those of the cited registration. In assessing likelihood of confusion, the "nature of the products themselves and the structure of the relevant market" are paramount. Cadbury Beverages v. Cott Corp., 73 F.3d 474, 480 (2d Cir. 1996); Vitarroz Corp. v. Borden, Inc., 644 F.2d 960, 967 (2d Cir. 1981). Applicant uses its PUREGUARD mark with a sack used to transport acrylic polymer resin. The PUREGUARD sack is made of fabric similar to cardboard, but does not disintegrate and folds flatter than cardboard. During the manufacturing process, acrylic polymer resin is dispensed directly into the PUREGUARD sack, which has a heat activated chimney liner that is sealed. The sack is sealed in this manner to ensure that no contaminants enter the resin during production, packaging and shipping to the consumer. Customers can empty the resin directly from the PUREGUARD sack into a manufacturing hopper. A primary benefit of the PUREGUARD sack is that it helps ensure the transported acrylic polymer remains clean and unadulterated. Applicant's PUREGUARD product is sold to entities that purchase acrylic polymer in its unfinished form for the manufacture of various goods, such as automotive, optical and lighting products. In contrast, the cited registration is used with containers for medication products. Schott promotes its PURGARD product to the pharmaceutical industry as a specialized container for aerosols, nasal sprays, diagnostic applications, toxic products and cosmetic applications. Attached as Exhibit A is a copy of a Schott PURGARD brochure touting the benefits of the product for the pharmaceutical industry. Further information about Schott's PURGARD product can be found at http://www.us.schott.com/pharmaceutical_packaging/english/products/vials/protection.html. As is evidenced on the brochure and Schott's web site, Schott uses the PURGARD mark with the house mark Schott. The mere fact that the cited mark and Applicant's mark both broadly constitute packaging of some sort is insufficient to warrant a refusal to register based on similarity of goods. In re Digirad Corp., 45 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1841 (T.T.A.B. 1998) (DIGIRAY and DIGIRAD for medical diagnostic equipment not confusing); Fossil Inc. v. Fossil Group, 49 U.S.P.Q.2d 1451 (T.T.A.B. 1998) (FOSSIL for watches versus THE FOSSIL GROUP for clocks not confusing); Clayton Mark & Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 356 F.2d 943 (C.C.P.A. 1966) (MARK for electrical conduit not likely to cause confusion with MARK 75 for industrial circuit breaker); Checkpoint Sys. v. Check Point Software Techs., Inc., 104 F. Supp.2d 427, 467-68 (D.N.J. 2000) (no likelihood of confusion between identical marks used for goods that were both in the broad field of corporate security); Knaack Mfg. Co. v. Rally Accessories, Inc., 955 F. Supp. 991 (N.D. Ill. 1997) (WEATHER GUARD and WeatherGUARD for motor vehicle accessories not confusingly similar). Likewise, there is no likelihood of confusion between Applicant's mark and the cited mark because the products themselves are totally different and unrelated. B. Applicant's Products and the Goods of the Cited Mark Are Sold in Wholly Unrelated Channels of Trade to Different, Highly Sophisticated Consumers. Other factors considered in analysis of confusion are "the manner in which the services are displayed and advertised, the channels of trade through which they are promoted, and the class of customers for whom they are designed and to whom they are sold." Windsor, Inc. v. Intravco Travel Centers, Inc., 799 F. Supp. 1513, 1523 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). Here, there is no likelihood of confusion because Applicant's sacks for transporting acrylic polymer resin and Schott's medication containers are sold in vastly different channels of trade to different, discriminating consumers. It is well-settled that confusion is unlikely between marks used on different goods that are not marketed "in such a way that they would be encountered by the same person in situations that would create the incorrect assumption that they originate from the same source...even if the marks are identical." Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure §1207.01(a)(i). This is true even if the respective goods are in different segments of the same broad industry. Windsor, Inc. v. Intravco Travel Centers, Inc., 799 F. Supp 1513, 1523-26 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (the parties' focus on different segments of the travel industry warranted a finding of no likelihood of confusion); In re Shipp, 4 U.S.P.Q.2d 1174, 1176 (T.T.A.B. 1987) (no confusion between PURITAN for laundry and dry-cleaning services, PURITAN for commercial dry cleaning machine filters, or PURITAN for cleaning preparations because the goods and services were not likely to come to the attention of the same kinds of purchasers). Here, Applicant and Schott sell the products at issue to different consumers in unrelated industries. Applicant's PUREGUARD sack is sold to manufacturing companies in connection with the transport of acrylic polymer resin. Applicant's customers include original automotive parts fabricators, optical companies, lighting fixture manufactures (both industrial and residential), specialty plastic manufactures (i.e. sales display manufactures), fishing lure manufactures and distributors who sell to these industries ? they are highly sophisticated and exercise a great deal of care making purchasing decisions. Schott sells its finished containers to the pharmaceutical industry for medication products. The organizations purchasing these products are not the same. Even if pharmaceutical companies purchase acrylic polymer resin transported in Applicant's PUREGUARD sack, the department responsible for manufacturing acrylic polymer resin is wholly separate from the group purchasing Schott's medication containers. "[T]he mere purchase of the goods and services by of parties by the same institution does not, by itself, establish similarity of trade channels or overlap of customers." Electronic Design & Sales v. Electronic Systems, 954 F.2d 713, 717 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (computer goods and services sold to different departments within same corporations). See also Astra Pharmaceutical Prods. v. Beckman Instruments, Inc., 718 F.2d 1201, 1206 (1st Cir. 1983) (different departments within hospitals considered different trade channels). Moreover, confusion is less likely when consumers are sophisticated. Therma-Scan, Inc. v. Thermoscan, Inc., 295 F.3d 623, 638 (6th Cir. 2002) ("a higher degree of care . . . is appropriate where the buyer in question has a particular expertise or sophistication"). The purchasers of Applicant's PUREGUARD sacks, manufacturers of complex products, are sophisticated and knowledgeable. Likewise, it is settled that pharmaceutical companies, Schott's customers, exercise a great deal of care in buying products that contain their medical products. In re Digirad Corp., 45 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1841 (T.T.A.B. 1998) (purchasers of medical equipment are knowledgeable); Astra Pharmaceutical Prods. v. Beckman Instruments, Inc., 718 F.2d 1201, 1206-1207 (1st Cir. 1983) (buyers of medical equipment and pharmaceutical preparations are sophisticated). Accordingly, there can be no likelihood of confusion because of the vastly different channels of trade for and highly sophisticated, distinct purchasers of Applicant's and Schott's respective goods. C. There Are Numerous Similar Marks Registered, Entitling The Cited Mark To Only A Narrow Scope of Protection. "A trademark owner's rights in its registered mark are limited and defined by other registrations issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office." Knaack Mfg. Co. v. Rally Accessories, Inc., 955 F. Supp. 991, 1003 (N.D. Ill. 1997). The "greater the number of identical or more or less similar trademarks already in use on different kinds of goods, the less is the likelihood of confusion." Chips 'N Twigs, Inc. v. Chip-Chip, Ltd., 190 U.S.P.Q. 361, 374 (E.D. Pa. 1976). There are many approved or registered marks that are identical to or nearly identical to PURGARD. A search of the PTO's web site reveals that the following marks co-exist with the cited mark:
Each of these marks co-exist on the register. This third party use on unrelated goods and services is highly relevant to a finding of lack of confusion. See e.g., Sun Banks of Florida, Inc. v. Sun Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 651 F.2d 311, 316 (5th Cir. 1981) (finding that the term SUN was used by many different businesses in Florida). Moreover, the PTO approved Application Ser. No. 78/425641 for PURE-GUARD for medical devices. Schott's mark is registered for containers for medication products. Medical devices and medication containers are more similar than sacks to transport acrylic polymer resin and medication containers. The fact that Application Ser. No. 78/425641 was approved demonstrates the narrow scope of protection for Schott's mark. Further, Schott itself does not consider these marks to be confusingly similar. After filing an extension of time to oppose, Schott did not oppose the application to register PURE-GUARD for medical devices. The third party usage also indicates that the public can easily distinguish the "PUREGUARD" marks. In General Mills Inc. v. Kellogg Co., 824 F.2d 622, 626 (8th Cir. 1987), the court determined that "consumer confusion has been found unlikely because the mark's components are so widely used that the public can easily distinguish slight differences in the marks, even if the goods are related." The weaker the mark, the closer the cited marks must be in appearance, goods and services in order to find a likelihood of confusion. Accordingly, "in a well-trodden field like this, . . . small variations are likely to make enough of a difference . . ." Beech-Nut, Inc. v. Warner-Lambert Co., 346 F. Supp. 547, 549 (S.D.N.Y. 1972) (marks BREATH SAVERS and BREATH PLEASERS sufficiently different). Here, the marks at issue are not identical. Applicant's mark, PUREGUARD, contains an "e" and a "u" that are not part of the cited mark, PURGARD. Given the third party marks, this difference will enable consumers to distinguish these marks. See Knaack Mfg. Co. v. Rally Accessories, Inc., 955 F. Supp. 991, 1002-1003 (N.D. Ill. 1997). The evidence of third party use of "PUREGUARD" marks demonstrates that the cited mark should be afforded a narrow scope of protection. Moreover, the fact that the cited mark can co-exist with approved Application Ser. No. 78/425641 for PURE-GUARD for medical devices, supports the conclusion that Schott's mark should not bar registration of Applicant's mark. In sum, and particularly in combination with the differences in the goods and trade channels and third party marks, there can be no likelihood of confusion between Applicant's and Schott's mark. CONCLUSION Applicant respectfully submits that, with consideration of the foregoing, the refusal should be withdrawn, and the application should be passed for publication. |
|
| EVIDENCE SECTION | |
| EVIDENCE FILE NAME | \\TICRS\EXPORT8\IMAGEOUT8 \766\183\76618340\xml1\RO A0002.JPG |
| EVIDENCE FILE NAME | \\TICRS\EXPORT8\IMAGEOUT8 \766\183\76618340\xml1\RO A0003.JPG |
| EVIDENCE FILE NAME | \\TICRS\EXPORT8\IMAGEOUT8 \766\183\76618340\xml1\RO A0004.JPG |
| EVIDENCE FILE NAME | \\TICRS\EXPORT8\IMAGEOUT8 \766\183\76618340\xml1\RO A0005.JPG |
| EVIDENCE FILE NAME | \\TICRS\EXPORT8\IMAGEOUT8 \766\183\76618340\xml1\RO A0006.JPG |
| EVIDENCE FILE NAME | \\TICRS\EXPORT8\IMAGEOUT8 \766\183\76618340\xml1\RO A0007.JPG |
| EVIDENCE FILE NAME | \\TICRS\EXPORT8\IMAGEOUT8 \766\183\76618340\xml1\RO A0008.JPG |
| EVIDENCE FILE NAME | \\TICRS\EXPORT8\IMAGEOUT8 \766\183\76618340\xml1\RO A0009.JPG |
| DESCRIPTION OF EVIDENCE FILE | a copy of a Schott PURGARD brochure |
| GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (current) | |
| INTERNATIONAL CLASS | 016 |
| DESCRIPTION | packaging for acrylic polymer |
| FILING BASIS | Section 1(b) |
| GOODS AND/OR SERVICES SECTION (proposed) | |
| INTERNATIONAL CLASS | 016 |
| DESCRIPTION | |
| Packaging, namely bags made of synthetic polymeric fibers or cellulose, for acrylic polymer | |
| FILING BASIS | Section 1(b) |
| SIGNATURE SECTION | |
| DECLARATION SIGNATURE | The filing Attorney has elected not to submit the signed declaration, believing no supporting declaration is required under the Trademark Rules of Practice. |
| RESPONSE SIGNATURE | /danielle b lemack/ |
| SIGNATORY NAME | Danielle B Lemack |
| SIGNATORY POSITION | Attorney |
| SIGNATURE DATE | 11/14/2005 |
| FILING INFORMATION SECTION | |
| SUBMIT DATE | Mon Nov 14 17:31:20 EST 2005 |
| TEAS STAMP | USPTO/ROA-XX.X.XX.XXX-200 51114173120049441-7661834 0-320c7bbb1ca287747bb4227 9422f9ded91-N/A-N/A-20051 114165424686522 |
| PTO Form 1957 (Rev 5/2006) |
| OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 04/2009) |
RESPONSE TO SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL
The Examiner has initially refused to register Applicant's mark on the basis of United States Registration No. 2,062,079 for PURGARD for "lined tubular glass containers for use in diagnostic and pharmaceutical drug packaging" owned by Schott AG ("Schott"). Applicant respectfully submits that there is no likelihood of confusion because Applicant's mark and the cited mark are used for different products, are sold through distinct channels of trade to different, sophisticated consumers and because there are third party registrations for similar marks, narrowing the scope of protection of the cited registration.
Determining whether a likelihood of confusion will arise between two trademarks requires analysis of the factors set forth in In re E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357 (C.C.P.A. 1973). Among the factors considered in determining the likelihood of confusion are the similarity or dissimilarity of the goods, the trade channels, and the conditions under which sales are made. The marks must also be considered in the context of third party usage.
A. Applicant's Mark and the Cited Mark Are Used for Different Products.
Confusion is unlikely because the products on which Applicant's mark and the cited mark are used are different. Applicant notes that it has amended its identification of goods and services, further distinguishing the goods with which it uses its mark from those of the cited registration. In assessing likelihood of confusion, the "nature of the products themselves and the structure of the relevant market" are paramount. Cadbury Beverages v. Cott Corp., 73 F.3d 474, 480 (2d Cir. 1996); Vitarroz Corp. v. Borden, Inc., 644 F.2d 960, 967 (2d Cir. 1981).
Applicant uses its PUREGUARD mark with a sack used to transport acrylic polymer resin. The PUREGUARD sack is made of fabric similar to cardboard, but does not disintegrate and folds flatter than cardboard. During the manufacturing process, acrylic polymer resin is dispensed directly into the PUREGUARD sack, which has a heat activated chimney liner that is sealed. The sack is sealed in this manner to ensure that no contaminants enter the resin during production, packaging and shipping to the consumer. Customers can empty the resin directly from the PUREGUARD sack into a manufacturing hopper. A primary benefit of the PUREGUARD sack is that it helps ensure the transported acrylic polymer remains clean and unadulterated. Applicant's PUREGUARD product is sold to entities that purchase acrylic polymer in its unfinished form for the manufacture of various goods, such as automotive, optical and lighting products.
In contrast, the cited registration is used with containers for medication products. Schott promotes its PURGARD product to the pharmaceutical industry as a specialized container for aerosols, nasal sprays, diagnostic applications, toxic products and cosmetic applications. Attached as Exhibit A is a copy of a Schott PURGARD brochure touting the benefits of the product for the pharmaceutical industry. Further information about Schott's PURGARD product can be found at http://www.us.schott.com/pharmaceutical_packaging/english/products/vials/protection.html. As is evidenced on the brochure and Schott's web site, Schott uses the PURGARD mark with the house mark Schott.
The mere fact that the cited mark and Applicant's mark both broadly constitute packaging of some sort is insufficient to warrant a refusal to register based on similarity of goods. In re Digirad Corp., 45 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1841 (T.T.A.B. 1998) (DIGIRAY and DIGIRAD for medical diagnostic equipment not confusing); Fossil Inc. v. Fossil Group, 49 U.S.P.Q.2d 1451 (T.T.A.B. 1998) (FOSSIL for watches versus THE FOSSIL GROUP for clocks not confusing); Clayton Mark & Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 356 F.2d 943 (C.C.P.A. 1966) (MARK for electrical conduit not likely to cause confusion with MARK 75 for industrial circuit breaker); Checkpoint Sys. v. Check Point Software Techs., Inc., 104 F. Supp.2d 427, 467-68 (D.N.J. 2000) (no likelihood of confusion between identical marks used for goods that were both in the broad field of corporate security); Knaack Mfg. Co. v. Rally Accessories, Inc., 955 F. Supp. 991 (N.D. Ill. 1997) (WEATHER GUARD and WeatherGUARD for motor vehicle accessories not confusingly similar). Likewise, there is no likelihood of confusion between Applicant's mark and the cited mark because the products themselves are totally different and unrelated.
B. Applicant's Products and the Goods of the Cited Mark Are Sold in Wholly Unrelated Channels of Trade to Different, Highly Sophisticated Consumers.
Other factors considered in analysis of confusion are "the manner in which the services are displayed and advertised, the channels of trade through which they are promoted, and the class of customers for whom they are designed and to whom they are sold." Windsor, Inc. v. Intravco Travel Centers, Inc., 799 F. Supp. 1513, 1523 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). Here, there is no likelihood of confusion because Applicant's sacks for transporting acrylic polymer resin and Schott's medication containers are sold in vastly different channels of trade to different, discriminating consumers.
It is well-settled that confusion is unlikely between marks used on different goods that are not marketed "in such a way that they would be encountered by the same person in situations that would create the incorrect assumption that they originate from the same source...even if the marks are identical." Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure §1207.01(a)(i). This is true even if the respective goods are in different segments of the same broad industry. Windsor, Inc. v. Intravco Travel Centers, Inc., 799 F. Supp 1513, 1523-26 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (the parties' focus on different segments of the travel industry warranted a finding of no likelihood of confusion); In re Shipp, 4 U.S.P.Q.2d 1174, 1176 (T.T.A.B. 1987) (no confusion between PURITAN for laundry and dry-cleaning services, PURITAN for commercial dry cleaning machine filters, or PURITAN for cleaning preparations because the goods and services were not likely to come to the attention of the same kinds of purchasers).
Here, Applicant and Schott sell the products at issue to different consumers in unrelated industries. Applicant's PUREGUARD sack is sold to manufacturing companies in connection with the transport of acrylic polymer resin. Applicant's customers include original automotive parts fabricators, optical companies, lighting fixture manufactures (both industrial and residential), specialty plastic manufactures (i.e. sales display manufactures), fishing lure manufactures and distributors who sell to these industries ? they are highly sophisticated and exercise a great deal of care making purchasing decisions. Schott sells its finished containers to the pharmaceutical industry for medication products. The organizations purchasing these products are not the same.
Even if pharmaceutical companies purchase acrylic polymer resin transported in Applicant's PUREGUARD sack, the department responsible for manufacturing acrylic polymer resin is wholly separate from the group purchasing Schott's medication containers. "[T]he mere purchase of the goods and services by of parties by the same institution does not, by itself, establish similarity of trade channels or overlap of customers." Electronic Design & Sales v. Electronic Systems, 954 F.2d 713, 717 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (computer goods and services sold to different departments within same corporations). See also Astra Pharmaceutical Prods. v. Beckman Instruments, Inc., 718 F.2d 1201, 1206 (1st Cir. 1983) (different departments within hospitals considered different trade channels).
Moreover, confusion is less likely when consumers are sophisticated. Therma-Scan, Inc. v. Thermoscan, Inc., 295 F.3d 623, 638 (6th Cir. 2002) ("a higher degree of care . . . is appropriate where the buyer in question has a particular expertise or sophistication"). The purchasers of Applicant's PUREGUARD sacks, manufacturers of complex products, are sophisticated and knowledgeable. Likewise, it is settled that pharmaceutical companies, Schott's customers, exercise a great deal of care in buying products that contain their medical products. In re Digirad Corp., 45 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1841 (T.T.A.B. 1998) (purchasers of medical equipment are knowledgeable); Astra Pharmaceutical Prods. v. Beckman Instruments, Inc., 718 F.2d 1201, 1206-1207 (1st Cir. 1983) (buyers of medical equipment and pharmaceutical preparations are sophisticated).
Accordingly, there can be no likelihood of confusion because of the vastly different channels of trade for and highly sophisticated, distinct purchasers of Applicant's and Schott's respective goods.
C. There Are Numerous Similar Marks Registered, Entitling The Cited Mark To Only A Narrow Scope of Protection.
"A trademark owner's rights in its registered mark are limited and defined by other registrations issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office." Knaack Mfg. Co. v. Rally Accessories, Inc., 955 F. Supp. 991, 1003 (N.D. Ill. 1997). The "greater the number of identical or more or less similar trademarks already in use on different kinds of goods, the less is the likelihood of confusion." Chips 'N Twigs, Inc. v. Chip-Chip, Ltd., 190 U.S.P.Q. 361, 374 (E.D. Pa. 1976).
There are many approved or registered marks that are identical to or nearly identical to PURGARD. A search of the PTO's web site reveals that the following marks co-exist with the cited mark:
Each of these marks co-exist on the register. This third party use on unrelated goods and services is highly relevant to a finding of lack of confusion. See e.g., Sun Banks of Florida, Inc. v. Sun Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 651 F.2d 311, 316 (5th Cir. 1981) (finding that the term SUN was used by many different businesses in Florida).
Moreover, the PTO approved Application Ser. No. 78/425641 for PURE-GUARD for medical devices. Schott's mark is registered for containers for medication products. Medical devices and medication containers are more similar than sacks to transport acrylic polymer resin and medication containers. The fact that Application Ser. No. 78/425641 was approved demonstrates the narrow scope of protection for Schott's mark. Further, Schott itself does not consider these marks to be confusingly similar. After filing an extension of time to oppose, Schott did not oppose the application to register PURE-GUARD for medical devices.
The third party usage also indicates that the public can easily distinguish the "PUREGUARD" marks. In General Mills Inc. v. Kellogg Co., 824 F.2d 622, 626 (8th Cir. 1987), the court determined that "consumer confusion has been found unlikely because the mark's components are so widely used that the public can easily distinguish slight differences in the marks, even if the goods are related." The weaker the mark, the closer the cited marks must be in appearance, goods and services in order to find a likelihood of confusion. Accordingly, "in a well-trodden field like this, . . . small variations are likely to make enough of a difference . . ." Beech-Nut, Inc. v. Warner-Lambert Co., 346 F. Supp. 547, 549 (S.D.N.Y. 1972) (marks BREATH SAVERS and BREATH PLEASERS sufficiently different). Here, the marks at issue are not identical. Applicant's mark, PUREGUARD, contains an "e" and a "u" that are not part of the cited mark, PURGARD. Given the third party marks, this difference will enable consumers to distinguish these marks. See Knaack Mfg. Co. v. Rally Accessories, Inc., 955 F. Supp. 991, 1002-1003 (N.D. Ill. 1997).
The evidence of third party use of "PUREGUARD" marks demonstrates that the cited mark should be afforded a narrow scope of protection. Moreover, the fact that the cited mark can co-exist with approved Application Ser. No. 78/425641 for PURE-GUARD for medical devices, supports the conclusion that Schott's mark should not bar registration of Applicant's mark. In sum, and particularly in combination with the differences in the goods and trade channels and third party marks, there can be no likelihood of confusion between Applicant's and Schott's mark.
CONCLUSION
Applicant respectfully submits that, with consideration of the foregoing, the refusal should be withdrawn, and the application should be passed for publication.
