USPTO serial 75708437
MES II
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 603
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- JOHNSON, AISHA CLARKE
- 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 MES II?
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
Santa Clara, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Robert W. Mulcahy
ROBERT W MULCAHY APPLIED MATERIALS, INC2881 SCOTT BLVD M/S 2061SANTA CLARA, CA 95054UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 010 | Software used to manage and improve the efficiency of scheduling, automations, equipment control, data analysis, process control, and document management, all with semiconductor manufacturing processes and for equipment used in connection therewith | ABANDONED | — |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| May 31, 2002 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| May 31, 2002 | EXPT | EXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED | — |
| Jan 3, 2002 | EXFB | EXPARTE APPEAL DISMISSED - FAILURE TO FILE BRIEF | — |
| Oct 29, 2001 | ABN3 | ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL | — |
| Jul 26, 2001 | CNES | EXAMINERS STATEMENT MAILED | — |
| Jul 25, 2001 | JURT | JURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY | — |
| Jul 24, 2001 | EXPI | EX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED | — |
| Feb 20, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 22, 2000 | 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. |
| Jul 26, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 11, 2000 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 10, 2000 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 12, 1999 | 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. |
| Sep 7, 1999 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |