| To: | Paul Gervasi (royalrockrecords@gmail.com) |
| Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88369857 - TH - N/A |
| Sent: | January 22, 2020 07:34:12 PM |
| Sent As: | ecom122@uspto.gov |
| Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
|
U.S. Application Serial No. 88369857
Mark: TH
|
|
|
Correspondence Address:
|
|
|
Applicant: Paul Gervasi
|
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
NONFINAL 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). A link to the appropriate TEAS response form appears at the end of this Office action.
Issue date: January 22, 2020
This Office action is supplemental to and supersedes the previous Office action issued on June 21, 2019, in connection with this application. Based on information and/or documentation in applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney now issues the following new requirements: withdraw altered mark drawing and submit dates of use for Class 9. See TMEP §§706, 711.02.
In a previous Office action dated June 21, 2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following: Trademark Act Section 2(d) for a likelihood of confusion with a registered mark for Class 25, failure to show the applied-for mark in use in commerce with any of the specified goods for Class 41, failure to function as the title of a single creative work, for Class 9, and failure to function as merely ornamental in Class 25. In addition, applicant was required to satisfy the following requirement: clarify the mark description.
Based on applicant’s response, the trademark examining attorney notes that none of the refusals or requirements have been satisfactorily addressed. Thus, these issues are maintained and continued. See TMEP §713.02.
The following is a SUMMARY OF ISSUES that applicant must address:
Applicant must respond to all issues raised in this Office action and the previous June 21, 2019 Office action, within six (6) months of the date of issuance of this Office action. 37 C.F.R. §2.62(a); see TMEP §711.02. If applicant does not respond within this time limit, the application will be abandoned. 37 C.F.R. §2.65(a).
DRAWING AMENDMENT NOT ACCEPTED
The original drawing shows the mark as the overlapping letters “T” and “H” on a shaded background. The proposed amended drawing shows the mark as the letter “T” in brown crossed with the literal element “TROUBLE IN HEAVEN” in yellow, with a black bird design element on the “T”, all on a yellow and gold background.
The USPTO cannot accept an amendment to a mark if it will materially alter the mark in the drawing filed with the original application, or in a previously accepted amended drawing. 37 C.F.R. §2.72(a)(2), (b)(2); TMEP §807.14. An amendment to the mark is material when the USPTO would need to republish the mark with the change in the USPTO Trademark Official Gazette to fairly present the mark to the public. In re Thrifty, Inc., 274 F.3d 1349, 1352, 61 USPQ2d 1121, 1123-24 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing In re Hacot-Columbier, 105 F.3d 616, 620, 41 USPQ2d 1523, 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1997)); TMEP §807.14.
That is, an amendment is material if the altered mark does not retain “the essence of the original mark” or if the new and old forms do not “create the impression of being essentially the same mark.” In re Hacot-Columbier, 105 F.3d at 620, 41 USPQ2d at 1526 (quoting Visa Int’l Serv. Ass’n v. Life-Code Sys., Inc., 220 USPQ 740, 743-44 (TTAB 1983)); see, e.g., In re Who? Vision Sys., Inc., 57 USPQ2d 1211, 1218 (TTAB 2000) (amendment from “TACILESENSE” to “TACTILESENSE” a material alteration); In re CTB Inc., 52 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (TTAB 1999) (amendment of TURBO with a design to just the typed word TURBO without design a material alteration).
When determining materiality, the addition of any element that would require a further search of the USPTO database for conflicting marks is also relevant. In re Guitar Straps Online LLC, 103 USPQ2d 1745, 1747 (TTAB 2012) (citing In re Pierce Foods Corp., 230 USPQ 307, 308-09 (TTAB 1986)); In re Who? Vision Sys. Inc., 57 USPQ2d at 1218-19; TMEP §807.14.
In the present case, applicant’s proposed amendment would materially alter the mark in the drawing filed with the original application or as previously amended because the mark as amended contains major literal and design elements not present in the original application, namely the literal element “TROUBLE IN HEAVEN”, the design element of a bird, and the stylized background. The amended mark also lacks a major element present in the original mark, namely the letter “H”, which makes up a substantial portion of the mark as applied for.
To avoid the application from abandoning, applicant must respond to this issue. TMEP §807.17. Applicant may respond by (1) withdrawing the request to amend the drawing, or (2) arguing that the proposed amendment is not a material alteration of the mark.
For more information about changes to the mark in the drawing after the application filing date, please go to the Drawing webpage.
DATES OF USE REQUIRED
THIS PARTIAL REQUIREMENT APPLIES TO CLASS 9 ONLY.
Therefore, applicant must provide these two dates of first use, verified with an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(ii)-(iii), 2.193(e)(1); TMEP §903.
For an overview of the requirements for providing verified dates of first use and instructions on how to satisfy these requirements online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademark/laws-regulations/dates-use.
SECTION 2(d) REFUSAL – LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION
THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES TO CLASS 25 ONLY.
Registration of the applied-for mark 88369857 (TH) was previously refused because of a likelihood of confusion with the mark in U.S. Registration No. 3264718 (TH). Trademark Act Section 2(d), 15 U.S.C. §1052(d); see TMEP §§1207.01 et seq. See the previously enclosed registration.
Trademark Act Section 2(d) bars registration of an applied-for mark that so resembles a registered mark that it is likely a potential consumer would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the source of the goods and/or services of the applicant and registrant. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(d). A determination of likelihood of confusion under Section 2(d) is made on a case-by case basis and the factors set forth in In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d 1357, 1361, 177 USPQ 563, 567 (C.C.P.A. 1973) aid in this determination. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d 1344, 1349, 98 USPQ2d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citing On-Line Careline, Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1085, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Not all the du Pont factors, however, are necessarily relevant or of equal weight, and any one of the factors may control in a given case, depending upon the evidence of record. Citigroup Inc. v. Capital City Bank Grp., Inc., 637 F.3d at 1355, 98 USPQ2d at 1260; In re Majestic Distilling Co., 315 F.3d 1311, 1315, 65 USPQ2d 1201, 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2003); see In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 476 F.2d at 1361-62, 177 USPQ at 567.
In this case, the following factors are the most relevant: similarity of the marks, similarity and nature of the goods, and similarity of the trade channels of the goods. See In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1361-62, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012); In re Dakin’s Miniatures Inc., 59 USPQ2d 1593, 1595-96 (TTAB 1999); TMEP §§1207.01 et seq.
Comparison of the Marks
Marks are compared in their entireties for similarities in appearance, sound, connotation, and commercial impression. Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1321, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1160 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Palm Bay Imps., Inc. v. Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin Maison Fondee En 1772, 396 F.3d 1369, 1371, 73 USPQ2d 1689, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2005)); TMEP §1207.01(b)-(b)(v). “Similarity in any one of these elements may be sufficient to find the marks confusingly similar.” In re Davia, 110 USPQ2d 1810, 1812 (TTAB 2014) (citing In re 1st USA Realty Prof’ls, Inc., 84 USPQ2d 1581, 1586 (TTAB 2007)); In re White Swan Ltd., 8 USPQ2d 1534, 1535 (TTAB 1988)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
Applicant’s mark is TH in stylized form.
Registrant’s mark is TH in stylized form.
In the present case, the applicant’s mark is highly similar to the registered mark in sound, appearance, and overall commercial impression. Specifically, the marks are identical in literal element, TH, in appearance, sound, and meaning, “and have the potential to be used . . . in exactly the same manner.” In re i.am.symbolic, llc, 116 USPQ2d 1406, 1411 (TTAB 2015), aff’d, 866 F.3d 1315, 123 USPQ2d 1744 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Additionally, because they are identical, these marks are likely to engender the same connotation and overall commercial impression when considered in connection with applicant’s and registrant’s respective goods. Id.
Additionally, the stylization of both marks renders the marks visually highly similar. Both marks have a similar font, and are arranged so a capital “T” is placed in the center of a smaller capital “H”. When comparing marks, “[t]he proper test is not a side-by-side comparison of the marks, but instead whether the marks are sufficiently similar in terms of their commercial impression such that [consumers] who encounter the marks would be likely to assume a connection between the parties.” Cai v. Diamond Hong, Inc., __ F.3d __, 127 USPQ2d 1797, 1801 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (quoting Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1368, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2012)); TMEP §1207.01(b). The proper focus is on the recollection of the average purchaser, who retains a general rather than specific impression of trademarks. In re Inn at St. John’s, LLC, 126 USPQ2d 1742, 1746 (TTAB 2018) (citing In re St. Helena Hosp., 774 F.3d 747, 750-51, 113 USPQ2d 1082, 1085 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Geigy Chem. Corp. v. Atlas Chem. Indus., Inc., 438 F.2d 1005, 1007, 169 USPQ 39, 40 (CCPA 1971)); TMEP §1207.01(b).
Therefore, the applicant’s mark is highly similar to the registered mark in sound, appearance, and overall commercial impression. Accordingly, the marks are considered to be confusingly similar.
Comparison of the Goods
The goods of the parties need not be identical or even competitive to find a likelihood of confusion. See On-line Careline Inc. v. Am. Online Inc., 229 F.3d 1080, 1086, 56 USPQ2d 1471, 1475 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Recot, Inc. v. Becton, 214 F.3d 1322, 1329, 54 USPQ2d 1894, 1898 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (“[E]ven if the goods in question are different from, and thus not related to, one another in kind, the same goods can be related in the mind of the consuming public as to the origin of the goods.”); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
The applicant has not entered arguments regarding this issue into the record. Accordingly, the refusal to register under Trademark Act Section 2(d) is maintained and continued.
The respective goods need only be “related in some manner and/or if the circumstances surrounding their marketing [be] such that they could give rise to the mistaken belief that [the goods and/or services] emanate from the same source.” Coach Servs., Inc. v. Triumph Learning LLC, 668 F.3d 1356, 1369, 101 USPQ2d 1713, 1722 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting 7-Eleven Inc. v. Wechsler, 83 USPQ2d 1715, 1724 (TTAB 2007)); TMEP §1207.01(a)(i).
Applicant’s identified goods are: “Hats; T-shirts; Baseball caps and hats; Graphic T-shirts; Short-sleeved or long-sleeved t-shirts; Sports caps and hats” in Class 25.
Registrant’s identified goods are: “Clothing for men, women and children, namely, shirts, golf shirts, T-shirts, sweatshirts, tank tops, sweaters, jeans, vests, jackets, coats, parkas, underwear, scarves.” in Class 25.
Determining likelihood of confusion is based on the description of the goods stated in the application and registration at issue, not on evidence of actual use. See Stone Lion Capital Partners, LP v. Lion Capital LLP, 746 F.3d 1317, 1323, 110 USPQ2d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Octocom Sys. Inc. v. Hous. Computers Servs. Inc., 918 F.2d 937, 942, 16 USPQ2d 1783, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 1990)).
In this case, the goods of the parties have no restrictions as to nature, type, channels of trade, or classes of purchasers and are “presumed to travel in the same channels of trade to the same class of purchasers.” In re Viterra Inc., 671 F.3d 1358, 1362, 101 USPQ2d 1905, 1908 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Packard Press, Inc., 281 F.3d 1261, 1268, 62 USPQ2d 1001, 1005 (Fed. Cir. 2002)).
Additionally, the previously attached Internet evidence consisting of third party websites shows that entities that provide and sell varieties of different clothing items together under the same mark. See previously attached evidence from www.fashionnova.com, www.prada.com, www.ae.com, www.adidas.com, www.express.com, www.jcrew.com, and www.ralphlauren.com.
The evidence establishes that the same entity commonly manufactures the relevant goods and markets the goods under the same mark, and that the relevant goods are sold or provided through the same trade channels and used by the same classes of consumers in the same fields of use. Thus, applicant’s and registrant’s goods are considered related for likelihood of confusion purposes. See, e.g., In re Davey Prods. Pty Ltd., 92 USPQ2d 1198, 1202-04 (TTAB 2009); In re Toshiba Med. Sys. Corp., 91 USPQ2d 1266, 1268-69, 1271-72 (TTAB 2009).
Because the marks are highly similar and the goods are closely related, a likelihood of confusion exists and registration is refused.
SECTIONS 1, 2, AND 45 TITLE OF SINGLE CREATIVE WORK REFUSAL
THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES TO CLASS 9 ONLY.
The applicant has not responded to this issue on the record. Accordingly, the refusal to register under Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, and 45 is maintained and continued.
In this case, the submitted specimen shows the applied-for mark, TH, appearing on the front cover, of a musical recording. Such use shows only what would be perceived by consumers as the title or portion of the title. There is no evidence in the application record that applicant’s CD is part of a series of works, nor are there specimens or evidence in the record otherwise showing proper trademark use of the applied-for mark for the identified goods.
Therefore, consumers would view the applied-for mark as the title of a single work, rather than as a trademark to indicate the source of applicant’s goods and to distinguish applicant’s goods from others.
In appropriate circumstances, applicant may overcome this refusal by satisfying one of the following options:
(1) Submit evidence that the applied-for mark is used to identify a series of creative works.
(2) Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b). This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements.
For an overview of both response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy each option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/law/title_single_work.jsp.
SECTIONS 1, 2, AND 45 ORNAMENTAL REFUSAL
THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES TO CLASS 25 ONLY.
The applicant has not responded to this issue on the record. Accordingly, the refusal to register under Trademark Act Sections 1, 2, and 45 is maintained and continued.
The size, location, dominance, and significance of the alleged mark as used on the goods are all relevant factors in determining the commercial impression of the applied-for mark. See, e.g., In re Peace Love World Live, LLC, 127 USPQ2d 1400, 1403 (TTAB 2018) (quoting In re Hulting, 107 USPQ2d 1175, 1178 (TTAB 2013)); In re Lululemon Athletica Can. Inc., 105 USPQ2d at 1687 (quoting In re Right-On Co., 87 USPQ2d 1152, 1156 (TTAB 2008)); TMEP §1202.03(a).
With respect to clothing, consumers may recognize small designs or discrete wording as trademarks, rather than as merely ornamental features, when located, for example, on the pocket or breast area of a shirt. See TMEP §1202.03(a). Consumers may not, however, perceive larger designs or slogans as trademarks when such matter is prominently displayed across the front of a t-shirt. See In re Pro-Line Corp., 28 USPQ2d at 1142; In re Dimitri’s Inc., 9 USPQ2d 1666, 1667-68 (TTAB 1988); TMEP §1202.03(a), (b), (f)(i), (f)(ii).
In this case, the submitted specimen shows the applied-for mark, TH, located directly on the upper-center area of the front of the shirt, where ornamental elements often appear. See TMEP §1202.03(a), (b). Furthermore, the mark is displayed in a relatively large size on the clothing such that it dominates the overall appearance of the goods. Lastly, the applied-for mark appears to be a design element that is used in a merely decorative manner that would be perceived by consumers as having little or no particular source-identifying significance.
Therefore, consumers would view the applied-for mark as a decorative or ornamental feature of the goods, rather than as a trademark to indicate the source of applicant’s goods and to distinguish them from others.
In appropriate circumstances, applicant may overcome this refusal by satisfying one of the following options:
(1) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application (or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use) and that shows proper trademark use for the identified goods in International Class 25. Examples of acceptable specimens that show non-ornamental use on clothing include hang tags and labels used inside a garment.
(2) Amend to the Supplemental Register, which is a second trademark register for marks not yet eligible for registration on the Principal Register, but which may become capable over time of functioning as source indicators.
(3) Claim acquired distinctiveness under Trademark Act Section 2(f) by submitting evidence that the applied-for mark has become distinctive of applicant’s goods; that is, proof that applicant’s extensive use and promotion of the mark allowed consumers now directly to associate the mark with applicant as the source of the goods.
(4) Submit evidence that the applied-for mark is an indicator of secondary source; that is, proof that the mark is already recognized as a source indicator for other goods or services that applicant sells/offers.
(5) Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b). This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements.
For an overview of the response options above and instructions on how to satisfy each option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, see the Ornamental Refusal webpage.
SPECIMEN REFUSAL
THIS PARTIAL REFUSAL APPLIES TO CLASS 41 ONLY.
Applicant has submitted a substitute specimen; however this does not obviate the refusal because the applied-for mark is not shown on the substitute specimen. Additionally, the substitute specimen appears to be merely be a reproduction of the amended drawing, and thus does not show the services identified in the application in commerce.
An application based on Trademark Act Section 1(a) must include a specimen showing the applied-for mark in use in commerce for each international class of services identified in the application or amendment to allege use. 15 U.S.C. §1051(a)(1); 37 C.F.R. §§2.34(a)(1)(iv), 2.56(a); TMEP §§904, 904.07(a).
Examples of specimens for services include advertising and marketing materials, brochures, photographs of business signage and billboards, and webpages that show the mark used in the actual sale, rendering, or advertising of the services. See TMEP §1301.04(a), (h)(iv)(C). Specimens comprising advertising and promotional materials must show a direct association between the mark and the services. TMEP §1301.04(f)(ii).
Applicant may respond to this refusal by satisfying one of the following for each applicable international class:
(1) Submit a different specimen (a verified “substitute” specimen) that (a) was in actual use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of an amendment to allege use and (b) shows the mark in actual use in commerce for the goods and/or services identified in the application or amendment to allege use. A “verified substitute specimen” is a specimen that is accompanied by the following statement made in a signed affidavit or supported by a declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20: “The substitute (or new, or originally submitted, if appropriate) specimen(s) was/were in use in commerce at least as early as the filing date of the application or prior to the filing of the amendment to allege use.” The substitute specimen cannot be accepted without this statement.
(2) Amend the filing basis to intent to use under Section 1(b), for which no specimen is required. This option will later necessitate additional fee(s) and filing requirements such as providing a specimen.
For an overview of both response options referenced above and instructions on how to satisfy either option online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) form, please go to http://www.gov.uspto.report/trademarks/law/specimen.jsp.
CLARIFICATION OF MARK DESCRIPTION REQUIRED
A complete description must identify all the literal and design elements in the mark and specify where the colors appear in those elements. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.37, 2.52(b)(1); TMEP §§807.07(a) et seq. If black, white, and/or gray are not being claimed as a color feature of the mark, applicant must exclude them from the color claim and include in the description a statement that black, white, and/or gray represent background, outlining, shading, and/or transparent areas and are not part of the mark. See TMEP §807.07(d).
The following description is suggested, if accurate:
The mark consists of Stylized capital letter T inside stylized smaller capital H. The color black represents background and/or transparent areas and is not claimed as a feature of the mark.
RESPONSE GUIDELINES
For this application to proceed toward registration, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement raised in this Office action. If the action includes a refusal, applicant may provide arguments and/or evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and the mark should register. Applicant may also have other options for responding to a refusal and should consider such options carefully. To respond to requirements and certain refusal response options, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements.
In addition, if applicant filed a TEAS RF application, applicant must respond online using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) to avoid incurring an additional fee. See 37 C.F.R. §2.23(b)(1), (c). For more information and general tips on responding to USPTO Office actions, response options, and how to file a response online, see “Responding to Office Actions” on the USPTO’s website.
If applicant does not respond to this Office action within six months of the issue/mailing date, or responds by expressly abandoning the application, the application process will end, the trademark will fail to register, and the application fee will not be refunded. See 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.65(a), 2.68(a), 2.209(a); TMEP §§405.04, 718.01, 718.02. Where the application has been abandoned for failure to respond to an Office action, applicant’s only option would be to file a timely petition to revive the application, which, if granted, would allow the application to return to active status. See 37 C.F.R. §2.66; TMEP §1714. There is a $100 fee for such petitions. See 37 C.F.R. §§2.6, 2.66(b)(1).
Because of the legal technicalities and strict deadlines involved in the USPTO application process, applicant may wish to hire a private attorney specializing in trademark matters to represent applicant in this process and provide legal advice. Although the undersigned trademark examining attorney is permitted to help an applicant understand the contents of an Office action as well as the application process in general, no USPTO attorney or staff is permitted to give an applicant legal advice or statements about an applicant’s legal rights. TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.
For attorney referral information, applicant may consult the American Bar Association’s Consumers’ Guide to Legal Help at http://www.abanet.org/legalservices/findlegalhelp/home.cfm, an attorney referral service of a state or local bar association, or a local telephone directory. The USPTO may not assist an applicant in the selection of a private attorney. 37 C.F.R. §2.11.
If applicant has questions regarding this Office action, please telephone or e-mail the assigned trademark examining attorney. All relevant e-mail communications will be placed in the official application record; however, an e-mail communication will not be accepted as a response to this Office action and will not extend the deadline for filing a proper response. See 37 C.F.R. §2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. Further, although the trademark examining attorney may provide additional explanation pertaining to the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action, the trademark examining attorney may not provide legal advice or statements about applicant’s rights. See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06.
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 nonfinal Office action.
/C. Scott Strickland/
C. Scott Strickland
Examining Attorney
Law Office 122
571-272-3277
scott.strickland@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE