To: | CONVOSO, INC. (sevag@demirjianlaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88415296 - CONVERSATIONAL AI AGENT - N/A |
Sent: | July 23, 2019 06:26:28 PM |
Sent As: | ecom122@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 Attachment - 3 Attachment - 4 Attachment - 5 Attachment - 6 Attachment - 7 Attachment - 8 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88415296
Mark: CONVERSATIONAL AI AGENT
|
|
Correspondence Address: 5200 LANKERSHIM BLVD., SUITE 850
|
|
Applicant: CONVOSO, INC.
|
|
Reference/Docket No. N/A
Correspondence Email Address: |
|
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: July 23, 2019
SEARCH OF OFFICE’S DATABASE OF MARKS
SUMMARY OF ISSUES
PRIOR-FILED APPLICATION – ADVISORY
In response to this Office action, applicant may present arguments in support of registration by addressing the issue of the potential conflict between applicant’s mark and the mark in the referenced application. Applicant’s election not to submit arguments at this time in no way limits applicant’s right to address this issue later if a refusal under Section 2(d) issues.
SECTION 2(e)(1) REFUSAL – MERELY DESCRIPTIVE
Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes a feature, characteristic, or function of applicant’s services. Trademark Act Section 2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); see TMEP §§1209.01(b), 1209.03 et seq.
“Whether consumers could guess what the product [or service] is from consideration of the mark alone is not the test.” In re Am. Greetings Corp., 226 USPQ 365, 366 (TTAB 1985).
In this case, applicant has applied to register the mark CONVERSATIONAL AI AGENT for “Software as a service (SAAS) services featuring software for contact center management featuring personalized one-on-one artificial intelligence conversations over the phone using human voice and tonality to provide a realistic and connected experience for customers; Design, development, and implementation of software for contact center management featuring personalized one-on-one artificial intelligence conversations over the phone using human voice and tonality to provide a realistic and connected experience for customers; Providing temporary use of non-downloadable cloud-based software for contact center management featuring personalized one-on-one artificial intelligence conversations over the phone using human voice and tonality to provide a realistic and connected experience for customers” in International Class 42.
The attached dictionary evidence defines “CONVERSATIONAL” as “As used in conversation; not formal,” or “Consisting of or relating to conversation,” “AI” as an abbreviation of “Artificial intelligence,” and “AGENT” as “A person or company that provides a particular service, typically one that involves organizing transactions between two other parties,” or “An independently operating Internet program, typically one that performs background tasks such as information retrieval or processing on behalf of a user or other program.” Taken together, CONVERSATIONAL AI AGENT would be perceived by consumers as describing applicant’s software and software design, development, and implementation services, namely, that the software features a person or thing that provides service by using artificial intelligence to make conversation with the end user.
Furthermore, the attached Internet evidence also shows that “CONVERSATIONAL AI AGENT” is commonly used to describe software of the type provided, designed, developed, and implemented by applicant:
The examining attorney additionally notes that a copending application from applicant (Serial No. 88415243 CONVOSO) for similar if not identical services, in fact uses the terms “CONVERSATIONAL AI AGENT” to recite a feature of its software.
Accordingly, the mark is merely descriptive of the services, and registration is refused under Section 2(e)(1) of the Trademark Act.
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
Young Wolfe
/Young Wolfe/
Trademark Examining Attorney
Law Office 122
Phone: (571) 272-5579
young.wolfe@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE