USPTO serial 75162011
VIRTUAL RETINAL DISPLAY
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 603
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- GOODMAN, WENDY BETH
- Law office
- FILE REPOSITORY (FRANCONIA)
What this means
This page summarizes the public USPTO record for this serial number, including owners, goods and services, and prosecution history.
Need help with VIRTUAL RETINAL DISPLAY?
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.
Current trademark owner
Monitor this mark, or talk with CopyMark about this registration.
Not the owner?
File a new U.S. trademark application, or speak with our attorneys.
Owner
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
KENT A FISCHMANN
KENT A FISCHMANN HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN LLP1700 LINCOLN STE 4100DENVER, CO 80203UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | electro-optic image projection devices, namely, devices for projecting an image directly onto the eye | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 5, 2001 | ABN3 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Oct 5, 2001 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Jun 26, 2001 | EXPA | EX PARTE APPEAL-REFUSAL AFFIRMED | — |
| Dec 13, 2000 | CNES | EXAMINERS STATEMENT MAILED | — |
| Dec 8, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 12, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 12, 2000 | 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. |
| Jun 5, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 21, 1999 | NAUD | NOTICE OF UNRESPONSIVE AMENDMENT - MAILED | — |
| Mar 1, 1999 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Feb 11, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 1, 1999 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Nov 10, 1998 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jun 17, 1998 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 24, 1998 | ABN3 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Jul 28, 1997 | UNPR | UNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 21, 1997 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL MAILED | A final Office Action (final refusal) means the examining attorney is maintaining at least one refusal and your options are narrower. You can file a response addressing the refusal, appeal to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, or let the application abandon. |
| Jun 18, 1997 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 14, 1997 | 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. |
| Apr 1, 1997 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |