USPTO serial 75111363
BIOMETRIC ENCRYPTION
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- TURNER, JASON FITZGERALD
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 108 - EXAMINING ATTORNEY ASSIGNED
What this means
These status codes mean the trademark application is abandoned and no longer pending. Common reasons include missing an Office Action response (600), filing without a valid basis (602), express abandonment by the applicant (604), or failure to respond to an examiner's inquiry (618). Revival may be possible in limited circumstances. If abandonment was unintentional, consult counsel about a petition to revive. Otherwise file a new application if protection is still needed.
Need help with BIOMETRIC ENCRYPTION?
If you own this trademark, we can monitor new filings and help with USPTO deadlines. If you do not, we can file a new U.S. application.
Owner
Don Mills, Ontario M3C 3A1, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
CHARLES N J RUGGIERO
CHARLES N J RUGGIERO OHLANDT GREELEY RUGGIERO & PERLE1 LANDMARK SQ STE 903STAMFORD, CT 06901UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | computer hardware and software for the purpose of securing access to computer systems by means of an optical scanner | ACTIVE | — |
Related trademarks
CopyMark links this record to cited §2(d) serials, the owner's other marks, Nice classes, similar mark names, and recently changed USPTO applications.
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 17, 2005 | MAB2 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - FAILURE TO RESPOND | The trademark application was abandoned because a required response or document was not filed by the deadline — usually a missed Office Action response. The application is dead unless a petition to revive is granted within a limited time. |
| Feb 16, 2005 | ABN2 | ABANDONMENT - FAILURE TO RESPOND OR LATE RESPONSE | The trademark application was abandoned because a required response or document was not filed by the deadline — usually a missed Office Action response. The application is dead unless a petition to revive is granted within a limited time. |
| Jul 21, 2004 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jan 12, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jun 2, 2003 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Dec 23, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 23, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 22, 2002 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Sep 10, 2001 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 3, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Nov 8, 2000 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 1, 2000 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Oct 23, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Oct 5, 1999 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Jun 24, 1999 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Apr 26, 1999 | ABN2 | ABANDONMENT - FAILURE TO RESPOND OR LATE RESPONSE | The trademark application was abandoned because a required response or document was not filed by the deadline — usually a missed Office Action response. The application is dead unless a petition to revive is granted within a limited time. |
| Sep 28, 1998 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Feb 17, 1998 | CNSI | INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Aug 1, 1997 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jun 16, 1997 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 16, 1996 | CNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION MAILED | A non-final Office Action means the USPTO examining attorney has raised at least one issue with your trademark application but has not made a final decision. You usually have three months to respond with arguments, amendments, or evidence. Missing the deadline can abandon the application. |
| Dec 14, 1996 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 6, 1996 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |