When you receive a USPTO office action, GleanMark’s AI drafting tool researches the cited marks, analyzes the refusal type, finds relevant precedent, and generates an attorney-ready response draft. Review, edit, and share with clients.
What You Can Do
Generate draft responses to Section 2(d) and other refusal types
Get AI-researched arguments with precedent citations
Review cited marks and their prosecution history
Edit the draft before sharing
Share a formatted draft with clients via a public link
Access OA research and strategy tools
How It Works
Start from a trademark — on any mark’s detail page, find the office action in the prosecution history
Click “Draft Response” — or navigate to
/draft-responseSelect the office action — choose which refusal to respond to
Wait for AI analysis — the system researches cited marks, examines coexistence patterns, and analyzes refusal subtypes
Review the draft — read the generated arguments, check citations, and edit as needed
Share with client — generate a shareable link for client review
Refusal Types Supported
Section 2(d) — likelihood of confusion (the most common refusal)
Subtypes: goods overlap, mark similarity, trade channel overlap, and more
Merely descriptive (Section 2(e)(1))
Geographic descriptiveness
Surname refusal
Specimen issues
Identification of goods/services
Disclaimer requirements
And other common refusal types
OA Research Tools
Beyond drafting, GleanMark provides research tools at /oa-research:
Search — find office action cases by refusal type, document code, or subtype
Precedent — browse recommended precedent cases
Strategy — analyze strategies that have worked for similar refusals
Winning Arguments Database
At /resources/winning-arguments, browse a database of successful office action response strategies:
Strategy effectiveness rankings
Featured winning cases
Refusal-type strategy grids (Section 2(d), 2(e), and more)
Searchable case details
Tips
Review the cited marks yourself — the AI draft is a starting point, not a final product
Check the refusal subtype — a 2(d) refusal based on goods overlap needs different arguments than one based on mark similarity
Use the Winning Arguments database to find strategies that have worked in similar situations
Always review before sharing — the draft is attorney-ready but needs your professional judgment
What’s Included in Each Plan
Feature | Starter | Professional | Firm |
OA draft responses | 1/month (then $49 each) | 3/seat/month | Unlimited |
OA research tools | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Winning arguments | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Related Features
Markus AI — Ask Markus to research an office action
Examiner Profiles — Research the examining attorney’s patterns
Confusion Analysis (DuPont) — Supporting analysis for 2(d) refusals
