Drawing for PRECISIONPOINT

USPTO serial 76236279

PRECISIONPOINT

Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group

Status 603
Filing date
Status date
Registration date
—
Examiner
LAWRENCE, SUSAN KASTRINER
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 PRECISIONPOINT?

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.

William C. Cahill

WILLIAM C CAHILL CAHILL SUTTONPARK ONE2141 E HIGHLAND AVE STE 155PHOENIX, AZ 85016-4791

Goods and services

ClassDescriptionStatusFirst use
009PEN BASED COMPUTER COMPONENTS NAMELY, MICROCHIPS, ELECTRONIC PENS, PEN SIGNAL SENSORS AND ELECTRONIC SIGNAL SENSITIVE GRIDSACTIVE—

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 24, 2004EXPTEXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED—
Mar 2, 2004EXPTEXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED—
Oct 21, 2003REINREINSTATED—
Aug 18, 2003MAILPAPER RECEIVED—
Jul 17, 2003ABN2ABANDONMENT - FAILURE TO RESPOND OR LATE RESPONSEThe 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.
Apr 24, 2003ABN3ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL—
Oct 23, 2002CNCFCONTINUATION OF FINAL REFUSAL MAILED—
Sep 26, 2002JURTJURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY—
Sep 23, 2002EXPIEX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED—
Sep 16, 2002EXAFEXPARTE APPEAL RECEIVED AT TTAB—
Sep 6, 2002CRFACORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE—
Aug 22, 2002CRFACORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE—
Aug 22, 2002MAILPAPER RECEIVED—
Feb 22, 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.
Feb 21, 2002DOCKASSIGNED TO EXAMINER—
Dec 31, 2001CRFACORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE—
Dec 28, 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 14, 2001DOCKASSIGNED TO EXAMINER—

Frequently asked questions

Related guidance