To: | Cambridge Quantum Computing Limited (jgerben@gerbenlawfirm.com) |
Subject: | U.S. Trademark Application Serial No. 88976087 - CQC - 07255-0002 |
Sent: | October 24, 2019 03:32:20 PM |
Sent As: | ecom120@uspto.gov |
Attachments: |
United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant’s Trademark Application
U.S. Application Serial No. 88976087
Mark: CQC
|
|
Correspondence Address: |
|
Applicant: Cambridge Quantum Computing Limited
|
|
Reference/Docket No. 07255-0002
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) 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: October 24, 2019
The request to divide has been processed – this is the Child Application, consisting solely of the Class 42 services of “developing customized software solutions for others in the field of quantum computing”.
This Office action is in response to applicant’s communication filed on October 1, 2019.
In a previous Office action dated February 13, 2019, the trademark examining attorney refused registration of the applied-for mark based on the following:
In addition, the trademark examining attorney required the applicant to satisfy the following requirement:
Applicant filed a request to divide on August 14, 2019 which did not count as a response, and therefore never filed a response within 6 months, causing the application to abandon on September 11, 2019.
Applicant revived the application on October 1, 2019 with a response that, per the request to divide, narrowed the identification of services to merely “developing customized software solutions for others in the field of quantum computing” in Class 42.
Based on this response, the Section 2(d) Partial Refusal and the Pending Application Advisory have all been obviated. See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04.
However, while applicant’s amendment moots most of the identification issues, it does not address the issue raised with the one remaining identification, because, as stated before, the wording “Developing customized software solutions for others in the field of quantum computing” still is ambiguous as to whether applicant is actually developing software or some other solution. See TMEP §§713.02, 714.04.
Therefore, the trademark examining attorney maintains and now makes FINAL the requirement in the summary of issues below. See 37 C.F.R. §2.63(b); TMEP §714.04.
SUMMARY OF ISSUES MADE FINAL that applicant must address:
REQUIREMENT: IDENTIFICATION OF SERVICES
Even with the amended “quantum computing” field specified, the amended wording “Developing customized software solutions for others in the field of quantum computing”, in the identification of services in Class 42 is indefinite and must be clarified because this wording choice makes it ambiguous whether applicant is actually developing software or some other solution. See 37 C.F.R. §2.32(a)(6); TMEP §1402.01.
Applicant may substitute the following wording, if accurate (additions are shown in bold):
Class 42 Computer software development, namely, developing customized software solutions for others an advanced compiler and computer operating system for quantum computers
For assistance with identifying and classifying services in trademark applications, please see the USPTO’s online searchable U.S. Acceptable Identification of Goods and Services Manual. See TMEP §1402.04.
This requirement is made FINAL
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 final Office action and/or appeal it to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB)
/benjaminrosen/
Benjamin Rosen
Examining Attorney
Law Office 120
(571) 272-8425
benjamin.rosen@uspto.gov
RESPONSE GUIDANCE