To: | FANUC CORPORATION (ip@fredlaw.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88554937 - AI FEEDFORWARD - 48623 |
Sent: | September 04, 2019 02:38:32 PM |
Sent As: | ecom106@uspto.gov |
Attachments: | Attachment - 1 Attachment - 2 |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88554937
Mark: AI FEEDFORWARD
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: FANUC CORPORATION
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 48623
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: September 04, 2019
The referenced application has been reviewed by the assigned trademark examining attorney. Applicant must respond timely and completely to the issue(s) below. 15 U.S.C. §1062(b); 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(a), 2.65(a); TMEP §§711, 718.03.
Summary of Issues that Applicant Must Address
The trademark examining attorney has searched the Office’s database of registered and pending marks and has found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d). TMEP §704.02; see 15 U.S.C. §1052(d).
Applicant must provide a disclaimer of the unregistrable part(s) of the applied-for mark even though the mark as a whole appears to be registrable. See 15 U.S.C. §1056(a); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a). A disclaimer of an unregistrable part of a mark will not affect the mark’s appearance. See Schwarzkopf v. John H. Breck, Inc., 340 F.2d 978, 979-80, 144 USPQ 433, 433 (C.C.P.A. 1965).
In this case, applicant must disclaim the wording “AI” because it is not inherently distinctive. These unregistrable term(s) at best are merely descriptive of an ingredient, quality, characteristic, function, feature, purpose, or use of applicant’s goods and/or services. See 15 U.S.C. §1052(e)(1); DuoProSS Meditech Corp. v. Inviro Med. Devices, Ltd., 695 F.3d 1247, 1251, 103 USPQ2d 1753, 1755 (Fed. Cir. 2012); TMEP §§1213, 1213.03(a).
The attached evidence from an online dictionary shows this wording means artificial intelligence, which identifies the use of computer technology to make computers and other machines think and do things in the way that people can. Thus, the wording merely describes applicant’s goods because it identifies a characteristic and feature of the goods in utilizing a particular technology.
Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format:
No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “AI” apart from the mark as shown.
For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to satisfy this issue using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), see the Disclaimer webpage.
Identification of Goods
The current wording used to describe the goods needs clarification because it is indefinite and unclear as to the nature of applicant’s goods, as indicated below in the suggested identification of goods. Applicant must amend the identification of goods to specify the common commercial or generic name for the goods, as appropriate and as indicated below in the suggested identification of goods. If there is no common commercial or generic name for the product or service, then applicant must describe the product or service and intended consumer as well as its main purpose and intended uses. TMEP §1402.01. Moreover, the identification of goods and/or services must be specific and all-inclusive. The examining attorney has indicated below using “{ }” where the applicant must be specific. In many instances, applicant should amend the identification to incorporate the wording "namely."
Applicant may adopt the following identification, if accurate:
IC 009: Numerical controllers, namely, {specify goods in Class 009, e.g., industrial automation controls, electronic apparatus and instruments for controlling of drives and motors}; computerized numerical controllers, namely, {specify goods in Class 009, e.g., computer controls for the operation of machine tools}; downloadable computer software for {specify the function of software, e.g., tuning servomotors, controlling machinery, etc. and, if software is content- or field- specific, the content or field of use}; measuring or testing machines and instruments, namely, {specify goods in Class 009, e.g., tool measuring instruments, ultrasonic instrumentation for testing machines}; telecommunication machines and apparatus, namely, {specify goods in Class 009, e.g., apparatus for transmission of communication, wireless transmitters and receivers}
For assistance with identifying and classifying goods and/or services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual at http://tess2.gov.uspto.report/netahtml/tidm.html. See TMEP §1402.04.
An applicant may amend an identification of goods and services only to clarify or limit the goods and services; adding to or broadening the scope of the goods and/or services is not permitted. 37 C.F.R. §2.71(a); see TMEP §§1402.06 et seq., 1402.07 et seq.
Dual Filing Basis
Unless applicant indicates otherwise, the USPTO will presume that applicant is relying on both Sections 1(b) and 44(e). Thus, although the mark may be approved for publication, it will not register until an acceptable allegation of use has been filed for the goods and/or services based on Section 1(b).
Attorney Information
Responses
If applicant has questions about its application or needs assistance in responding to this Office action, please email the assigned trademark examining attorney directly at the address below.
There is no required format or form for responding to an Office action. The Office recommends applicants use the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) to respond to Office actions online at http://www.gov.uspto.report/teas/index.html. However, if applicant responds on paper via regular mail, the response should include the title “Response to Office Action” and the following information: (1) the name and law office number of the examining attorney, (2) the serial number and filing date of the application, (3) the mailing date of this Office action, (4) applicant’s name, address, telephone number and e-mail address (if applicable), and (5) the mark. 37 C.F.R. §2.194(b)(1); TMEP §302.03(a).
The response should address each refusal and/or requirement raised in the Office action. If a refusal has issued, applicant can argue against the refusal; i.e., applicant can submit arguments and evidence as to why the refusal should be withdrawn and the mark should register. To respond to requirements, applicant should set forth in writing the required changes or statements and request that the Office enter them into the application record.
The response must be personally signed or the electronic signature manually entered by applicant or someone with legal authority to bind applicant (i.e., a corporate officer of a corporate applicant, the equivalent of an officer for unincorporated organizations or limited liability company applicants, a general partner of a partnership applicant, each applicant for applications with multiple individual applicants). TMEP §§605.02, 712.
PLEASE NOTE: Because it delays processing, submission of duplicate papers is
discouraged. Unless specifically requested to do so by the Office, parties should not mail
follow up copies of documents transmitted electronically or by fax. TMEP 306.04
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
/Bernice Middleton/
Bernice Middleton
Examining Attorney
Law Office 106
571-270-1514
Bernice.Middleton@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE