From: Singh, Tejbir
`
`Sent: 3/21/2012 3:33:47 PM
`
`To: TTAB EFiling
`
`CC:
`
`Subject: U.S. TRADEMARK APPLICATION NO. 85171068 - E-SKIN - 2010102T -
`Request for Reconsideration Denied - Return to TTAB
`
`
`
`*************************************************
`Attachment Information:
`Count: 1
`Files: 85171068.doc
`
`

`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)
`OFFICE ACTION (OFFICIAL LETTER) ABOUT APPLICANT’S TRADEMARK APPLICATION
`
` APPLICATION SERIAL NO.
`
`85171068
`
` NANOBRICK CO., Ltd.
`
` APPLICANT:
`
` CORRESPONDENT’S REFERENCE/DOCKET NO:
` 2010102T
` CORRESPONDENT E-MAIL ADDRESS:
` hparkip@gmail.com
`
`
`
`
`
`REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION DENIED
`
`
`ISSUE/MAILING DATE: 3/21/2012
`
`
`
`The trademark examining attorney has carefully reviewed applicant’s request for
`reconsideration and is denying the request for the reasons stated below. See 37 C.F.R.
`§2.64(b); TMEP §§715.03(a), 715.04(a). The requirement(s) and/or refusal(s) made final
`in the Office action dated 9/19/11 are maintained, in part, and continue to be final. See
`TMEP §§715.03(a), 715.04(a).
`
`The following wording is acceptable in Class 17: “Plastic films containing material which
`changes optical characteristics and color in the presence of an electric field, the plastic
`films being used in the manufacture of displays and screens; Plastic sheets containing
`material which changes optical characteristics and color in the presence of an electric
`field, the plastic sheets being used in the manufacture of displays and screens.”
`
`In the present case, applicant’s request has not resolved all the outstanding issue(s), nor
`does it raise a new issue or provide any new or compelling evidence with regard to the
`outstanding issue(s) in the final Office action. In addition, applicant’s analysis and
`arguments are not persuasive nor do they shed new light on the issues. Accordingly, the
`request is denied.
`
`The requirement for an acceptable identification is continued. The Class 1 goods remain
`unclear and indefinite. The type of ingredient is unclear. Applicant has not clarified
`
`
`
`
`*85171068*
`
`
`
`
`GENERAL TRADEMARK INFORMATION:
`http://www.uspto.gov/main/trademarks.htm
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` MARK: E-SKIN
`
`
`
`
` CORRESPONDENT ADDRESS:
` HYUNHO PARK
`
` DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC
` 1875 EYE STREET, NW SUITE 1200
` WASHINGTON, DC 20006
`
`
`
`
`

`
`what the “particle suspensions” refers to. The “paper” goods remain unclear and
`indefinite. Paper is typically classified in Class 16. Most of the Class 17 goods remain
`unclear and indefinite. The type of material remains unclear, and particle suspensions
`remains unclear.
`
`The filing of a request for reconsideration does not extend the time for filing a proper
`response to a final Office action or an appeal with the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board
`(Board), which runs from the date the final Office action was issued/mailed. See 37
`C.F.R. §2.64(b); TMEP §§715.03, 715.03(a), (c).
`
`If time remains in the six-month response period to the final Office action, applicant has
`the remainder of the response period to comply with and/or overcome any outstanding
`final requirement(s) and/or refusal(s) and/or to file an appeal with the Board. TMEP
`§715.03(a), (c). However, if applicant has already filed a timely notice of appeal with the
`Board, the Board will be notified to resume the appeal when the time for responding to
`the final Office action has expired. See TMEP §715.04(a).
`
`/Tejbir Singh/
`Trademark Attorney
`Law Office 106
`(571) 272-5878
`(571) 273-9106 (fax)
`Tejbir.Singh@uspto.gov (informal inquiries
`only)