To: | CAPNA IP CAPITAL, LLC (peterjgluck@yahoo.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88362078 - ZERO POST-PROCESSING - N/A |
Sent: | February 03, 2020 09:38:12 AM |
Sent As: | ecom110@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 Attachment - 9 Attachment - 10 Attachment - 11 Attachment - 12 Attachment - 13 Attachment - 14 Attachment - 15 Attachment - 16 Attachment - 17 Attachment - 18 Attachment - 19 Attachment - 20 Attachment - 21 Attachment - 22 Attachment - 23 Attachment - 24 Attachment - 25 Attachment - 26 Attachment - 27 Attachment - 28 Attachment - 29 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88362078
Mark: ZERO POST-PROCESSING
|
|
Correspondence Address: 31878 DEL OBISPO STREET, SUITE # 118-320
|
|
Applicant: CAPNA IP CAPITAL, LLC
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
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: February 03, 2020
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.
Please note, the refusal under Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, 3, and 45 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered and found unpersuasive. Therefore, 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).
SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL - MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
Applciant’s mark, ZERO POST-PROCESSING, is for “Engineering services in the field of high quality custom formulation extraction technology.”
Please see the attached evidence from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/zero defining “zero” as “the arithmetical symbol 0 or 0̸ denoting the absence of all magnitude or quantity.”
Please also see the attached evidence demonstrating the descriptive uses of the term “post processing” as it relates to ethanol extraction:
“Capna Systems feature astonishingly efficient extraction with zero post-processing.”
http://www.engineeringk12.org/ethanol-extraction/
“This results in a less potent and less pure end product generally that requires more post processing (with the general exception to that is when producing full spectrum hemp extracts, since it has been proven some of the hemp plant’s water soluble components have genuine health benefits).”
http://www.cannabistech.com/articles/evolution-of-ethanol-extraction/
“With a higher boiling point than butane, the recovery of ethanol is typically more difficult and much slower. Additionally, ethanol extracts typically don’t create products like shatter and require more post-processing than other methods.”
“Use Supercooled Ethanol to Minimize Post-Processing”
http://www.deltaseparations.com/chilling/
“Quickly chill alcohol pre-extraction within a compact footprint, saving valuable lab space and post-processing time.”
The term “post processing” clearly describes an element of ethanol extraction. The use of the term “zero” in the mark indicates that no “post processing” is required for applicant’s services, thus it describes a feature of its services.
Determining the descriptiveness of a mark is done in relation to an applicant’s goods and/or services, the context in which the mark is being used, and the possible significance the mark would have to the average purchaser because of the manner of its use or intended use. See In re The Chamber of Commerce of the U.S., 675 F.3d 1297, 1300, 102 USPQ2d 1217, 1219 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d 960, 963-64, 82 USPQ2d 1828, 1831 (Fed. Cir. 2007)); TMEP §1209.01(b). Descriptiveness of a mark is not considered in the abstract. In re Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, 488 F.3d at 963-64, 82 USPQ2d at 1831.
(1) Fact sheets, instruction manuals, brochures, advertisements and pertinent screenshots of applicant’s website as it relates to the goods and/or services in the application, including any materials using the terms in the applied-for mark. Merely stating that information about the goods and/or services is available on applicant’s website is insufficient to make the information of record.;
(2) If these materials are unavailable, applicant should submit similar documentation for goods and services of the same type, explaining how its own product or services will differ. If the goods and/or services feature new technology and information regarding competing goods and/or services is not available, applicant must provide a detailed factual description of the goods and/or services. Factual information about the goods must make clear how they operate, salient features, and prospective customers and channels of trade. For services, the factual information must make clear what the services are and how they are rendered, salient features, and prospective customers and channels of trade. Conclusory statements will not satisfy this requirement.; and
(3) Applicant must respond to the following questions: Is any post-processing required for applicant’s services?
See 37 C.F.R. §2.61(b); TMEP §§814, 1402.01(e).
Failure to comply with a request for information is grounds for refusing registration. In re Harley, 119 USPQ2d 1755, 1757-58 (TTAB 2016); TMEP §814.
How to respond. Click to file a request for reconsideration of this final Office action that fully resolves all outstanding requirements and refusals and/or click to file a timely appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) with the required filing fee(s).
/Khouri, Sani/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 110
United States Patent and Trademark Office
(571) 272-5884
sani.khouri@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE