USPTO serial 76202212
CERTIFIED LASER SAFETY OFFICER
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- CAIN, CATHERINE P
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 113 - 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 CERTIFIED LASER SAFETY OFFICER?
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.
CAROLINE C. SMITH
CAROLINE C SMITH SHAW PITTMAN LLP2300 N ST NWWASHINGTON, DC 20037-1128UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| B | Laser safety services namely, monitoring, knowledgeably evaluating, and minimizing laser hazards | 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 14, 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 14, 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 16, 2004 | 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. |
| Jul 15, 2004 | IUAA | USE AMENDMENT ACCEPTED | — |
| Jun 25, 2004 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| May 14, 2004 | UNPR | UNRESPONSIVE/DUPLICATE PAPER RECEIVED | — |
| May 14, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 12, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 23, 2004 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 23, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 28, 2004 | 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. |
| Jan 12, 2004 | AUPC | AMENDMENT TO USE PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Dec 12, 2003 | IURF | IU INFORMAL RESPONSE RECEIVED | — |
| Dec 12, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 12, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Nov 18, 2003 | IUFF | USE AFFIDAVIT FAILED FORMALITIES | — |
| Nov 6, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Oct 9, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Oct 9, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 7, 2003 | IUAF | USE AMENDMENT FILED | — |
| Apr 7, 2003 | 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. |
| Feb 20, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 20, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 14, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Aug 16, 2002 | 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. |
| Aug 16, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Dec 26, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 18, 2001 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 2, 2001 | 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 25, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 25, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 20, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |