USPTO serial 76250190
RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- KIM, YONG OH
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 115 - 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 RENEWABLE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.?
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.
SCOTT HERVEY
SCOTT HERVEY WEINTRAUB GENSHLEA CHEDIAK400 CAPITOL MALL, 11TH FLSACRAMENTO, CA 95814UNITED STATESGoods and services
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 31, 2005 | MAB0 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - INCOMPLETE RESPONSE | — |
| Oct 31, 2005 | ABN0 | ABANDONMENT - INCOMPLETE RESPONSE | — |
| Oct 31, 2005 | GECD | ACTION DENYING REQ FOR RECON E-MAILED | — |
| Oct 31, 2005 | CNCF | ACTION CONTINUING FINAL - COMPLETED | — |
| Aug 24, 2005 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Aug 23, 2005 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Aug 22, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 22, 2005 | TROA | TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVED | This event means the applicant filed a response to a USPTO Office Action — typically arguments, amendments, or evidence addressing the examiner's objections. The USPTO will review the response and either allow the mark to proceed or issue another action. |
| Aug 22, 2005 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Aug 22, 2005 | PROA | TEAS PETITION TO REVIVE RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 19, 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. |
| Aug 16, 2005 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Aug 12, 2005 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 12, 2005 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 12, 2005 | TROA | TEAS RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION RECEIVED | This event means the applicant filed a response to a USPTO Office Action — typically arguments, amendments, or evidence addressing the examiner's objections. The USPTO will review the response and either allow the mark to proceed or issue another action. |
| Feb 10, 2005 | 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. |
| Feb 9, 2005 | CNFR | FINAL REFUSAL WRITTEN | 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. |
| Nov 22, 2004 | ACEC | AMENDMENT FROM APPLICANT ENTERED | — |
| Nov 1, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Oct 27, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 27, 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. |
| Feb 20, 2004 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 22, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jul 31, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 31, 2003 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jan 28, 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. |
| Sep 30, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Sep 29, 2002 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Jul 18, 2002 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 18, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| May 20, 2002 | 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. |
| Aug 20, 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. |
| Jul 28, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |