USPTO serial 78048418
CLUSTERING SCIENCE
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
Status 606
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- MIZELLE HOWARD, DEZMONA JULYE
- 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 CLUSTERING SCIENCE?
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
SAN DIEGO, CA
DALLAS, TX
San Diego, CA
San Diego, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Roger S. Burleigh
MARC A HUBBARD MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR PC1445 ROSS AVE 4000 FOUNTAIN PLDALLAS, TX 75202-2790UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | Computer software for classifying complex data into groups, namely, data relating to periodic product sales, product prices and customer demographics | ACTIVE | — |
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 STICS, INC.
- Other trademarks owned by STONE INVESTMENTS, INC.
- Other trademarks owned by Stone Analytics, Inc.
- Other trademarks owned by Stone Analytics, Inc.
- Other trademarks in Class 009
- Similar marks named CLUSTERING SCIENCE
- Recently changed USPTO trademarks
- Recently filed trademarks
- Browse all trademark records
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 5, 2008 | ASCK | ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP NOT UPDATED AUTOMATICALLY | — |
| Oct 15, 2008 | ASGN | AUTOMATIC UPDATE OF ASSIGNMENT OF OWNERSHIP | — |
| Sep 15, 2004 | 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. |
| Aug 4, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jul 12, 2004 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Feb 2, 2004 | EX2G | SOU EXTENSION 2 GRANTED | — |
| Jan 8, 2004 | EXT2 | SOU EXTENSION 2 FILED | — |
| Jan 8, 2004 | 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. |
| Jun 25, 2003 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| Jun 9, 2003 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Jun 9, 2003 | 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. |
| Jan 14, 2003 | 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. |
| Oct 22, 2002 | 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. |
| Oct 2, 2002 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Aug 12, 2002 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Aug 7, 2002 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Mar 27, 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. |
| Mar 25, 2002 | PETR | PETITION TO REVIVE-RECEIVED | — |
| Mar 25, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Mar 11, 2002 | TCCA | TEAS CHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 3, 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. |
| Jun 30, 2001 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |