USPTO serial 77160985
PUSHING THE BOUNDARIES OF CONVENIENCE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- PARK, JENNY K
- Law office
- DIVISIONAL UNIT
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 PUSHING THE BOUNDARIES OF CONVENIENCE?
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.
Linda H. Liu
LINDA H. LIU KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR, LLP2040 MAIN ST FL 14IRVINE, CA 92614-7216UNITED 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.
- Other trademarks owned by Heat Wave Technologies, LLC
- Other trademarks owned by Heat Wave Technologies, LLC
- Other trademarks in Class 029
- Other trademarks in Class 032
- Other trademarks in Class 033
- Similar marks named PUSHING THE BOUNDARIES OF CONVENIENCE
- Prosecution event MAB6 explained
- Recently changed USPTO trademarks
- Recently filed trademarks
- Browse all trademark records
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 6, 2011 | MAB6 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - NO USE STATEMENT FILED | The intent-to-use application was abandoned because no acceptable Statement of Use (or valid extension) was filed before the Notice of Allowance deadline expired. The application is dead unless revived within a limited window. |
| Sep 5, 2011 | ABN6 | ABANDONMENT - NO USE STATEMENT FILED | The intent-to-use application was abandoned because no acceptable Statement of Use (or valid extension) was filed before the Notice of Allowance deadline expired. The application is dead unless revived within a limited window. |
| Feb 11, 2011 | EXRA | NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF EXTENSION REQUEST E-MAILED | — |
| Feb 10, 2011 | EX5G | SOU EXTENSION 5 GRANTED | — |
| Feb 1, 2011 | EXT5 | SOU EXTENSION 5 FILED | — |
| Feb 1, 2011 | EEXT | SOU TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED | The applicant requested more time to file a Statement of Use before the Notice of Allowance deadline. Each extension typically adds six months. A limited number of extensions are available for intent-to-use applications not yet in use. |
| Nov 5, 2010 | NOAC | CORRECTED NOA E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 4, 2010 | DPCC | DIVISIONAL PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Oct 28, 2010 | DRRR | DIVISIONAL REQUEST RECEIVED | — |
| Oct 28, 2010 | ERTD | TEAS REQUEST TO DIVIDE RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 13, 2010 | EXRA | NOTICE OF APPROVAL OF EXTENSION REQUEST E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 12, 2010 | EX4G | SOU EXTENSION 4 GRANTED | — |
| Aug 5, 2010 | EXT4 | SOU EXTENSION 4 FILED | — |
| Aug 5, 2010 | EEXT | SOU TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED | The applicant requested more time to file a Statement of Use before the Notice of Allowance deadline. Each extension typically adds six months. A limited number of extensions are available for intent-to-use applications not yet in use. |
| Feb 8, 2010 | EX3G | SOU EXTENSION 3 GRANTED | — |
| Feb 5, 2010 | EXT3 | SOU EXTENSION 3 FILED | — |
| Feb 5, 2010 | EEXT | SOU TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED | The applicant requested more time to file a Statement of Use before the Notice of Allowance deadline. Each extension typically adds six months. A limited number of extensions are available for intent-to-use applications not yet in use. |
| Aug 6, 2009 | EX2G | SOU EXTENSION 2 GRANTED | — |
| Aug 5, 2009 | EXT2 | SOU EXTENSION 2 FILED | — |
| Aug 5, 2009 | EEXT | SOU TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED | The applicant requested more time to file a Statement of Use before the Notice of Allowance deadline. Each extension typically adds six months. A limited number of extensions are available for intent-to-use applications not yet in use. |
| Feb 19, 2009 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| Feb 18, 2009 | AITU | CASE ASSIGNED TO INTENT TO USE PARALEGAL | — |
| Feb 5, 2009 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Feb 5, 2009 | EEXT | SOU TEAS EXTENSION RECEIVED | The applicant requested more time to file a Statement of Use before the Notice of Allowance deadline. Each extension typically adds six months. A limited number of extensions are available for intent-to-use applications not yet in use. |
| Aug 5, 2008 | NOAM | NOA MAILED - SOU REQUIRED FROM APPLICANT | A Notice of Allowance means your intent-to-use application cleared examination and opposition but is not registered yet. You must file a Statement of Use showing the mark in commerce, or request an extension, before the deadline — usually six months from the notice date. |
| May 13, 2008 | PUBO | PUBLISHED FOR OPPOSITION | Your mark was published in the USPTO Official Gazette for a 30-day opposition window. During that period, third parties who believe they would be harmed can file an opposition. If no opposition is filed, prosecution usually continues toward registration or a Notice of Allowance. |
| Apr 23, 2008 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Apr 7, 2008 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Apr 7, 2008 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Mar 26, 2008 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Mar 26, 2008 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Mar 26, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Mar 26, 2008 | ERFR | TEAS REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 28, 2008 | GNFN | NOTIFICATION OF FINAL REFUSAL EMAILED | — |
| Feb 28, 2008 | GNFR | FINAL REFUSAL E-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 28, 2008 | 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. |
| Feb 11, 2008 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Feb 11, 2008 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Feb 11, 2008 | 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 10, 2007 | GPRN | NOTIFICATION OF PRIORITY ACTION E-MAILED | A priority action is a type of Office Action the USPTO treats as time-sensitive. It usually means the examining attorney needs a specific response or amendment quickly — often relating to a foreign priority claim or a formal requirement. Respond within the stated deadline. |
| Aug 10, 2007 | GPRA | PRIORITY ACTION E-MAILED | A priority action is a type of Office Action the USPTO treats as time-sensitive. It usually means the examining attorney needs a specific response or amendment quickly — often relating to a foreign priority claim or a formal requirement. Respond within the stated deadline. |
| Aug 10, 2007 | CPRA | PRIORITY ACTION WRITTEN | A priority action is a type of Office Action the USPTO treats as time-sensitive. It usually means the examining attorney needs a specific response or amendment quickly — often relating to a foreign priority claim or a formal requirement. Respond within the stated deadline. |
| Aug 2, 2007 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Apr 24, 2007 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |