Drawing for TITAN PROFILER

USPTO serial 76215620

TITAN PROFILER

Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group

Status 603
Filing date
Status date
Registration date
—
Examiner
NEVILLE, BRIAN
Law office
TMO LAW OFFICE 114 - EXAMINING ATTORNEY ASSIGNED

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 TITAN PROFILER?

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.

Robert W. Mulcahy

ROBERT W MULCAHY2881 SCOTT BLVD # MS 2061SANTA CLARA, CA 95050-2549UNITED STATES

Goods and services

ClassDescriptionStatusFirst use
007Power operated machines, namely, abrasive polishers for semiconductor wafers, plasma etcher polishers for semiconductor wafers, and chemical mechanical polishers for semiconductor wafersACTIVE—

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
May 19, 2006MAB3ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL—
May 19, 2006DOCKASSIGNED TO EXAMINER—
May 9, 2006ABN3ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL—
Feb 9, 2006CHANAPPLICANT/CORRESPONDENCE CHANGES (NON-RESPONSIVE) ENTERED—
Feb 3, 2006DOCKASSIGNED TO EXAMINER—
Sep 1, 2004CFITCASE FILE IN TICRS—
Sep 1, 2004EXPTEXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED—
Sep 1, 2004EXPTEXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED—
May 28, 2004MAILPAPER RECEIVED—
May 28, 2004EXFBEXPARTE APPEAL DISMISSED - FAILURE TO FILE BRIEF—
Aug 12, 2003RECDACTION DENYING REQ FOR RECON MAILED—
Jun 27, 2003JURTJURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY—
Jun 27, 2003EXPIEX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED—
Jun 10, 2003EXAFEXPARTE APPEAL RECEIVED AT TTAB—
Nov 14, 2002CNFRFINAL 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.
Nov 12, 2002DOCKASSIGNED TO EXAMINER—
Jan 3, 2002CRFACORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE—
Dec 26, 2001CRFACORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE—
Jun 28, 2001CNRTNON-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.
Jun 21, 2001DOCKASSIGNED TO EXAMINER—

Frequently asked questions

Related guidance