USPTO serial 78107139
I-VIEW
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- BUCHANAN WILL, NORA
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 116 - 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 I-VIEW?
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.
Owner
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Susan L. Crockett
SUSAN L CROCKETT CROCKETT & CROCKETT24012 CALLE DE LA PLATASTE 400LAGUNA HILLS, CA 92653Goods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | Head mounted video display unit for industrial applications where video images are viewed for use in automobile, aircraft, security and industrial applications | ACTIVE | Jan 13, 1999 |
| 010 | Head mounted video display unit for medical and surgical applications where video images are viewed for use in endoscopy, ultrasound, fluoroscopy, image guided surgery, CT (computer tomography), MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) and patient monitoring | ACTIVE | Jan 13, 1999 |
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 14, 2004 | MAB2 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE MAILED - FAILURE TO RESPOND | 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. |
| Oct 13, 2004 | 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. |
| May 19, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Feb 28, 2004 | 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. |
| Jan 23, 2004 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Jan 9, 2004 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 9, 2004 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Dec 13, 2003 | GNRT | NON-FINAL ACTION E-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. |
| Oct 4, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| Jul 19, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jul 19, 2002 | PAPER RECEIVED | — | |
| Jul 17, 2002 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jun 17, 2002 | CNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION MAILED | — |
| May 30, 2002 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |