Offc Action Outgoing

United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

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

 

 

 

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:  August 04, 2020

 

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:

• Disclaimer Required
• Clarification of Entity Type Required
• Unsigned Application

 

SEARCH OF USPTO DATABASE OF MARKS

 

The trademark examining attorney searched the USPTO database of registered and pending marks and found no conflicting marks that would bar registration under Trademark Act Section 2(d).  15 U.S.C. §1052(d); TMEP §704.02.

 

DISCLAIMER REQUIRED

 

Applicant must disclaim the wording “WAFER-LEVEL-GLASS” because it is merely descriptive of a feature or characteristic of applicant’s goods.  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). 

 

As shown by the attached Internet evidence from http://www.techbriefs.com/component/content/article/tb/supplements/ptb/features/articles/10971 and http://www.photonics.com/Articles/High-Precision_Wafer-Level_Optics_Fabrication_and/a45233, the term “wafer-level” is commonly used to describe a manufacturing process used in the camera/optics industry, and to the products resulting from such process, in which wafer-sized “masters” are stacked to produce optical lenses and cameras. 

 

The additional attached evidence from http://www.himax.com.tw/products/wafer-level-optics/ and http://www.evgroup.com/technologies/wafer-level-optics/ shows that “wafer-level” manufacturing is commonly employed by producers of optical products.  Indeed, the attached evidence from http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/aac-technologies-to-provide-high-quality-lenses-for-pelican-imaging-array-camera-module-300016485.html shows that the applicant itself “uses advanced wafer-level optics to produce lenses for mobile handset manufacturers [emphasis added].”

 

Next, the term “glass” is defined as “a hard, brittle substance, typically transparent or translucent, made by fusing sand with soda, lime, and sometimes other ingredients and cooling rapidly.”  The identification of goods in the application includes “optical glasses” and “optical lens blanks made of glasses.”  Thus, the term “GLASS” in the mark merely describes a material from which applicant’s goods are comprised. 

 

Further, both the individual components and the composite result are descriptive of applicant’s goods and/or services and do not create a unique, incongruous, or nondescriptive meaning in relation to the goods and/or services.  Specifically, the combined wording, WAFER-LEVEL-GLASS, immediately indicates to consumers that applicant’s goods are comprised of (or contain components comprised of) glass and are produced using wafer-level manufacturing processes.

 

In fact, the attached evidence from the following websites shows that the full wording “wafer-level glass” is commonly used in the relevant industry such that consumers for applicant’s goods would readily understand that this wording as describing a feature of applicant’s goods:

 

• http://www.ipt.fraunhofer.de/en/Competencies/processtechnology/Projects/WaferLevelOptics.html
• http://www.spiedigitallibrary.org/conference-proceedings-of-spie/9023/902303/All-glass-wafer-level-lens-technology-for-array-cameras/10.1117/12.2036727.full
• http://www.barrons.com/articles/largan-and-the-8-lens-iphone-according-to-bernstein-1507825467

 

Although the applicant may claim to be the first user of the wording “WAFER-LEVEL-GLASS” or that it pioneered the technology and manufacturing processes it describes, this does not obviate the overall descriptive significance of the relevant wording.  In this case, the evidence shows that this wording is merely descriptive.  See In re Fat Boys Water Sports LLC, 118 USPQ2d 1511, 1514 (TTAB 2016); In re Phoseon Tech., Inc., 103 USPQ2d 1822, 1826 (TTAB 2012); TMEP §1209.03(c).

 

Applicant may respond to this issue by submitting a disclaimer in the following format: 

 

No claim is made to the exclusive right to use “WAFER-LEVEL-GLASS” apart from the mark as shown. 

 

For an overview of disclaimers and instructions on how to provide one using the Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS), see the Disclaimer webpage. 

 

CLARIFICATION OF ENTITY TYPE REQUIRED

 

Applicant’s business name includes the foreign business designation “Co., Ltd.”; however, applicant set forth “corporation” as the legal entity in the application.  This business designation is generally considered the equivalent of a “limited company” or “limited liability company.”  See TMEP app. D.  Therefore, applicant must clarify the entity type in the application.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.32(a)(3), 2.61(b); TMEP §803.03(i).  Applicant may satisfy this requirement by amending the legal entity to one of those immediately listed above from Appendix D of the Trademark Manual of Examining Procedure (TMEP) for this business designation, as appropriate.  See TMEP §803.03(i). 

 

Alternatively, if applicant maintains that the legal entity in the application properly identifies applicant’s entity type, applicant must provide an explanation as to why the identified entity type is more similar to a “corporation” in this instance than to the legal entities listed in TMEP Appendix D.  See id.

 

If, in response to the above request, applicant provides information indicating that it is not the owner of the mark, registration will be refused because the application was void as filed.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(d); TMEP §§803.06, 1201.02(b).  An application must be filed by the party who owns or is entitled to use the mark as of the application filing date.  See 37 C.F.R. §2.71(d); TMEP §1201.02(b).

 

UNSIGNED APPLICATION

 

The application was unsigned, resulting in the application not being properly verified.  See TMEP §804.  Applicant must properly sign and therefore verify the application in an affidavit or signed declaration under 37 C.F.R. §2.20.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.2(n), 2.33(a), (b)(2)-(c), 2.34(a)(2), (a)(3)(i), (a)(4)(ii); TMEP §804.02. 

 

The following statements must be verified:  That applicant has a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce and had a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce as of the application filing date; that applicant believes applicant is entitled to use the mark in commerce on or in connection with the goods or services specified in the application; that to the best of the signatory’s knowledge and belief, no other persons, except, if applicable, concurrent users, have the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when used on or in connection with the goods/services of such other persons, to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive; and that the facts set forth in the application are true.  37 C.F.R. §§2.33(b)(2), (c), 2.34(a)(2), (a)(3)(i), (a)(4)(ii). 

 

For more information about the verified statement and instructions on providing one using the online Trademark Electronic Application System (TEAS) response form, see the Verified statement webpage.

 

RESPONSE GUIDELINES

 

For this application to proceed, applicant must explicitly address each refusal and/or requirement in this Office action.  For a refusal, applicant may provide written arguments and evidence against the refusal, and may have other response options if specified above.  For a requirement, applicant should set forth the changes or statements.  Please see “Responding to Office Actions” and the informational video “Response to Office Action” for more information and tips on responding.

 

ASSISTANCE

 

Please call or email the assigned trademark examining attorney with questions about this Office action.  Although an examining attorney cannot provide legal advice, the examining attorney can provide additional explanation about the refusal(s) and/or requirement(s) in this Office action.  See TMEP §§705.02, 709.06. 

 

The USPTO does not accept emails as responses to Office actions; however, emails can be used for informal communications and are included in the application record.  See 37 C.F.R. §§2.62(c), 2.191; TMEP §§304.01-.02, 709.04-.05. 

 

How to respond.  Click to file a response to this nonfinal Office action.    

 

 

/J. Evan Mucha/

J. Evan Mucha

Examining Attorney

Law Office 106

571-270-1989

evan.mucha@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 August 04, 2020 for

U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88890004

 

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. 

 

 

/J. Evan Mucha/

J. Evan Mucha

Examining Attorney

Law Office 106

571-270-1989

evan.mucha@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 August 04, 2020, 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.”