Drawing for WET COMBUSTION

USPTO serial 76254783

WET COMBUSTION

Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group

Status 603
Filing date
Status date
Registration date
—
Examiner
THOMPKINS, TRICIA
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 WET COMBUSTION?

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.

Edmund J. Sease

EDMUND J SEASE ZARLEY, MCKEE, THOMTE, VOORHEES & SEASE801 GRAND AVE STE 3200DES MOINES, IA 50309-2721UNITED STATES

Goods and services

ClassDescriptionStatusFirst use
011SEWAGE TREATMENT AERATION UNITS TO ENHANCE DECOMPOSITION OF WASTE WATER SLUDGEACTIVE—

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
Dec 11, 2003EXPTEXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED—
Dec 11, 2003EXPTEXPARTE APPEAL TERMINATED—
Sep 22, 2003ABN3ABANDONMENT - AFTER EX PARTE APPEAL—
Sep 22, 2003EXPAEX PARTE APPEAL-REFUSAL AFFIRMED—
Jun 23, 2003CNESEXAMINERS STATEMENT MAILED—
May 14, 2003CFITCASE FILE IN TICRS—
Jan 31, 2003RECDACTION DENYING REQ FOR RECON MAILED—
Dec 14, 2002JURTJURISDICTION RESTORED TO EXAMINING ATTORNEY—
Dec 14, 2002EXPIEX PARTE APPEAL-INSTITUTED—
Dec 11, 2002EXAFEXPARTE APPEAL RECEIVED AT TTAB—
Nov 22, 2002MAILPAPER RECEIVED—
Nov 19, 2002CRFACORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE—
Oct 17, 2002DOCKASSIGNED TO EXAMINER—
May 20, 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.
Jan 7, 2002CRFACORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE—
Jul 19, 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.
Jul 17, 2001DOCKASSIGNED TO EXAMINER—

Frequently asked questions

Related guidance