| PTO Form 1957 (Rev 9/2005) |
| OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 04/30/2011) |
| Input Field |
Entered |
|---|---|
| SERIAL NUMBER | 77926629 |
| LAW OFFICE ASSIGNED | LAW OFFICE 113 |
| MARK SECTION (no change) | |
| ARGUMENT(S) | |
|
Applicant filed a response to the Office Action emailed on February 25, 2010 earlier today. Upon review, it was noted that the written comments submitted included two typographical errors. Applicant respectfully requests that the written response be replaced with the following: In the Office Action emailed on February 25, 2010, the Examining Attorney refused registration of the subject mark on the basis of functionality and non-distinctiveness. Applicant respectfully submits a revised drawing for the mark for the features for which it seeks registration. The non-functional features for which protection is claimed are the colors blue and purple applied to portions of the insole as noted in the mark description, the wording DR. SCHOLL'S in an oval and the ridges or grooves comprising a portion of the raised purple area of the insole. Although the raised purple portion of the insole provides support for the user, the ridges or grooves comprising a portion of the insole do not perform a function but are simply a design aspect of the product configuration. As the revised drawing limits the mark to only non-functional features of the insole design, Applicant requests that the Examining Attorney withdraw the functionality and non-distinctiveness objections and allow the application to move to publication at the earliest possible date. |
|
| SIGNATURE SECTION | |
| RESPONSE SIGNATURE | /S. Roxanne Edwards/ |
| SIGNATORY'S NAME | S. Roxanne Edwards |
| SIGNATORY'S POSITION | Attorney |
| DATE SIGNED | 08/25/2010 |
| AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY | YES |
| FILING INFORMATION SECTION | |
| SUBMIT DATE | Wed Aug 25 14:00:08 EDT 2010 |
| TEAS STAMP | USPTO/ROA-XX.XX.XX.X-2010 0825140008104948-77926629 -470d9844c6b7eda0772c1157 57a2361163-N/A-N/A-201008 25135709682827 |
| PTO Form 1957 (Rev 9/2005) |
| OMB No. 0651-0050 (Exp. 04/30/2011) |
Applicant filed a response to the Office Action emailed on February 25, 2010 earlier today. Upon review, it was noted that the written comments submitted included two typographical errors. Applicant respectfully requests that the written response be replaced with the following:
In the Office Action emailed on February 25, 2010, the Examining Attorney refused registration of the subject mark on the basis of functionality and non-distinctiveness. Applicant respectfully submits a revised drawing for the mark for the features for which it seeks registration. The non-functional features for which protection is claimed are the colors blue and purple applied to portions of the insole as noted in the mark description, the wording DR. SCHOLL'S in an oval and the ridges or grooves comprising a portion of the raised purple area of the insole. Although the raised purple portion of the insole provides support for the user, the ridges or grooves comprising a portion of the insole do not perform a function but are simply a design aspect of the product configuration.
As the revised drawing limits the mark to only non-functional features of the insole design, Applicant requests that the Examining Attorney withdraw the functionality and non-distinctiveness objections and allow the application to move to publication at the earliest possible date.