Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application

 

 

 

FINAL OFFICE ACTION

 

The USPTO must receive applicant’s response to this letter within six months of the issue date below or the application will be abandoned.  Respond using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) and/or Electronic System for Trademark Trials and Appeals (ESTTA).  A link to the appropriate TEAS response form and/or to ESTTA for an appeal appears at the end of this Office action. 

 

 

Issue date:  September 11, 2019

 

INTRODUCTION

 

This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on August 19, 2019.

 

In a previous Office action dated April 25, 2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following:  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) for the mark being merely descriptive. In addition, applicant was required to satisfy the following requirement(s):  amend the identification of goods.

 

Based on applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney notes that the following requirement have been satisfied: definite amended identification provided.  See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04. 

 

For the reasons stated below, the trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in the summary of issues below.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b); TMEP §714.04.

 

SUMMARY OF ISSUES MADE FINAL that applicant must address:

• Section 2(e)(1) Refusal – Mark is Merely Descriptive

 

FINAL REFUSAL – Section 2(e)(1) Refusal – Mark is Merely Descriptive

 

The refusal under Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1) is now made FINAL for the reasons set forth below.  See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b).

 

Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature, characteristic, purpose, function, or intended use of applicant’s goods.  Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.

 

A mark is merely descriptive if it describes an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of an applicant’s goods.  TMEP §1209.01(b); see, e.g., In re TriVita, Inc., 783 F.3d 872, 874, 114 USPQ2d 1574, 1575 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (quoting In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004)); In re Steelbuilding.com, 415 F.3d 1293, 1297, 75 USPQ2d 1420, 1421 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Estate of P.D. Beckwith, Inc. v. Comm’r of Patents, 252 U.S. 538, 543 (1920)). 

 

Applicant has applied for the mark “CELLFUSE” in standard characters for use in connection with “medical apparatus for the delivery of the combination of bone marrow, autologous bone dowels and bone graft material to the surgical site” among others, in International Class 10. As stated in the initial Office Action, and explained here, the mark is merely descriptive of a feature, characteristic, purpose, or function of applicant’s goods.

 

Generally, a “telescoped mark,” which consists of two or more words combined to create a single word that shares letters, is merely descriptive or generic if the individual words are descriptive or generic and if the words retain their descriptive or generic meaning within the telescoped mark.  See In re Omaha Nat’l Corp., 819 F.2d 1117, 1118, 2 USPQ2d 1859, 1860 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (holding FIRSTIER merely descriptive of banking services); In re Greenliant Sys. Ltd., 97 USPQ2d 1078, 1083 (TTAB 2010) (holding NANDRIVE, a telescoped mark of the generic term “nand drive,” generic for electronic integrated circuits, including flash memory drives); TMEP §§1209.01(c)(i), 1209.03(d).

 

As explained in the previous Office action, the term “CELLFUSE” merely describes applicant’s goods and does not serve as an indicator of source. As the previously attached evidence demonstrated, the term “cell” is defined as “the basic structural unit of all organisms.” Further, the term “fuse” means “to become united or blended” together. Both of these terms are merely descriptive and together merely reference the intended use or function of applicant’s goods, namely, the combination of cells and other materials, namely, bone marrow, to a surgical site. Additionally, the previously attached evidence showed that bone marrow is made up of, among other things, both white and red blood cells. Thus the mark is descriptive of goods whose purpose it is to combine or fuse cells (from bone marrow) to a particular surgical site.

 

In applicant’s response, applicant argued that the term “fuse” is not descriptive of applicant’s goods because the term holds a different definition in the medical field than the one used in the previous Office action. Applicant argued that, the term “hydration” is used in the medical field to describe what is generally thought of as “fusion” in a non-medical sense (i.e., when items are united or blended together). Therefore, because the term “fusion” holds a different meaning in the medical field, it cannot be considered descriptive of applicant’s goods. However, descriptiveness is considered in relation to the relevant goods.  DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1254, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  “That a term may have other meanings in different contexts is not controlling.”  In re Franklin Cnty. Historical Soc’y, 104 USPQ2d 1085, 1087 (TTAB 2012) (citing In re Bright-Crest, Ltd., 204 USPQ 591, 593 (TTAB 1979)); TMEP §1209.03(e).  “It is well settled that so long as any one of the meanings of a term is descriptive, the term may be considered to be merely descriptive.”  In re Mueller Sports Med., Inc., 126 USPQ2d 1584, 1590 (TTAB 2018) (quoting In re Chopper Indus., 222 USPQ 258, 259 (TTAB 1984)). Thus, the fact that the term “fusion” holds a different meaning in the medical context is irrelevant. The term’s ordinary meaning is descriptive of the intended use or function of applicant’s goods. Additionally, the attached evidence from applicant’s response demonstrates that in the medical context, the term “fusion” can mean “the merging or coherence of adjacent parts or bodies.” This definition would similarly seem to describe the intended use or function of applicant’s goods (i.e., a device that merges cells from a variety of materials, including bone marrow, to a surgical site).

 

Applicant also argued that “although cells are contained in bone marrow and bone dowels, the Applicant’s product harvests among other things matrix material, growth factors, proteins, exosomes and other active biologic ingredients.” Thus, “it is not accurate to say that the purpose of the product is to harvest cells.” However, as previously stated, “a mark may be merely descriptive even if it does not describe the ‘full scope and extent’ of the applicant’s goods.”  In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d 1171, 1173, 71 USPQ2d 1370, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citing In re Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 240 F.3d 1341, 1346, 57 USPQ2d 1807, 1812 (Fed. Cir. 2001)); TMEP §1209.01(b).  It is enough if a mark describes only one significant function, attribute, or property.  In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §1209.01(b); see In re Oppedahl & Larson LLP, 373 F.3d at 1173, 71 USPQ2d at 1371. Because cells are “the basic structural unit of all organisms,” it stands to reason that all of applicant’s referenced materials are made up of and contain cells. Thus, a significant function of applicant’s applied-for goods is the collection of cells from a variety of materials. Therefore, the mark is descriptive of goods whose purpose it is to merge or combine the cells from those materials to a surgical site.

 

Accordingly, for these and the reasons stated above, the refusal to register under Section 2(e)(1) is hereby maintained and made FINAL.

 

Although applicant’s mark has been refused registration, applicant may respond to the refusal by submitting evidence and arguments in support of registration.

 

 

Comments

 

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action. Although the trademark examining attorney cannot provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights, the trademark examining attorney can provide applicant with additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.  Although the USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions, emails can be used for informal communications and will be included in the application record.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05.

 

 

TEAS PLUS OR TEAS REDUCED FEE (TEAS RF) APPLICANTS – TO MAINTAIN LOWER FEE, ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET, INCLUDING SUBMITTING DOCUMENTS ONLINE:  Applicants who filed their application online using the lower-fee TEAS Plus or TEAS RF application form must (1) file certain documents online using TEAS, including responses to Office actions (see TMEP §§819.02(b), 820.02(b) for a complete list of these documents); (2) maintain a valid e-mail correspondence address; and (3) agree to receive correspondence from the USPTO by e-mail throughout the prosecution of the application.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.22(b), 2.23(b); TMEP §§819, 820.  TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants who do not meet these requirements must submit an additional processing fee of $125 per class of goods and/or services.  37 C.F.R. §§2.6(a)(1)(v), 2.22(c), 2.23(c); TMEP §§819.04, 820.04.  However, in certain situations, TEAS Plus or TEAS RF applicants may respond to an Office action by authorizing an examiner’s amendment by telephone or e-mail without incurring this additional fee.  

 

 

How to respond.  Click to file a response to this final Office action and/or appeal it to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB)

 

 

/Faucette, Max/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 107

(571)270-5655

max.faucette@uspto.gov

 

 

RESPONSE GUIDANCE

• Missing the response deadline to this letter will cause the application to abandon.  A response or notice of appeal must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  TEAS and ESTTA maintenance or unforeseen circumstances could affect an applicant’s ability to timely respond.  

 

• Responses signed by an unauthorized party are not accepted and can cause the application to abandon.  If applicant does not have an attorney, the response must be signed by the individual applicant, all joint applicants, or someone with legal authority to bind a juristic applicant.  If applicant has an attorney, the response must be signed by the attorney.

 

• If needed, find contact information for the supervisor of the office or unit listed in the signature block.

 

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

 

USPTO OFFICIAL NOTICE

 

Office Action (Official Letter) has issued

on September 11, 2019 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88245691

 

Your trademark application has been reviewed by a trademark examining attorney.  As part of that review, the assigned attorney has issued an official letter that you must respond to by the specified deadline or your application will be abandoned.  Please follow the steps below.

 

(1)  Read the official letter.

 

(2)  Direct questions about the contents of the Office action to the assigned attorney below. 

 

 

/Faucette, Max/

Trademark Examining Attorney

Law Office 107

(571)270-5655

max.faucette@uspto.gov

 

 

Direct questions about navigating USPTO electronic forms, the USPTO website, the application process, the status of your application, and/or whether there are outstanding deadlines or documents related to your file to the Trademark Assistance Center (TAC).

 

(3)  Respond within 6 months (or earlier, if required in the Office action) from September 11, 2019, using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS).  The response must be received by the USPTO before midnight Eastern Time of the last day of the response period.  See the Office action for more information about how to respond.

 

 

 

GENERAL GUIDANCE

·         Check the status of your application periodically in the Trademark Status & Document Retrieval (TSDR) database to avoid missing critical deadlines.

 

·         Update your correspondence email address, if needed, to ensure you receive important USPTO notices about your application.

 

·         Beware of misleading notices sent by private companies about your application.  Private companies not associated with the USPTO use public information available in trademark registrations to mail and email trademark-related offers and notices – most of which require fees.  All official USPTO correspondence will only be emailed from the domain “@uspto.gov.”