Drawing for FLYING SHUTTLE

USPTO serial 75646106

FLYING SHUTTLE

Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group

Status 603
Filing date
Status date
Registration date
—
Examiner
WATSON, JULIE A
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 FLYING SHUTTLE?

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.

Lawrence E. Abelman

LAWRENCE E ABELMAN ABELMAN FRAYNE & SCHWAB150 E 42ND STNEW YORK, NY 10017-5612UNITED STATES

Goods and services

ClassDescriptionStatusFirst use
007ELECTROMECHANICAL MACHINES FOR THE AUTOMATIC HANDLING OF WORKPIECES, NAMELY, ROBOTS FOR THE TRANSPORT OF WORKPIECES BETWEEN VARIOUS MACHINES DURING THE MANUFACTURING PROCESSACTIVE—
009ELECTROMECHANICAL CONTROLS FOR OPERATING ROBOTS USED IN MANUFACTURING TO TRANSPORT WORKPIECES; COMPUTER HARDWARE AND COMPUTER SOFTWARE FOR MATERIAL HANDLING MACHINES AND ROBOTS USED IN MANUFACTURING TO TRANSPORT WORKPIECESACTIVE—

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

DateCodeEventWhat it means
Aug 2, 2001DOCKASSIGNED TO EXAMINER—
Aug 1, 2001EXPTEXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED—
Jul 19, 2001ABN3ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL—
Jan 19, 2001CNCFCONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED—
Oct 12, 2000JURTJURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY—
Oct 12, 2000EXPIEX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED—
Apr 3, 2000CNFRFINAL REFUSAL MAILEDA 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.
Jan 27, 2000CRFACORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE—
Jul 30, 1999CNRTNON-FINAL ACTION MAILEDA 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.
Jul 26, 1999DOCKASSIGNED TO EXAMINER—

Frequently asked questions

Related guidance