USPTO serial 78161680
HARDWARE-SOFTWARE GAP
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- MACIOL II, EUGENE VALENTINE-JO
- Law office
- TMEG LAW OFFICE 103 - 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 HARDWARE-SOFTWARE GAP?
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.
Sarah B. Eitelbach
Sarah B. Eitelbach Sarah B. Eitelbach, P.S.2830 Cascadia Avenue S.Seattle, WA 98144UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | Computer software and/or computer hardware interface components for facilitating interaction and communication between computer hardware and software programs and components | ACTIVE | Aug 6, 2008 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| May 18, 2009 | 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. |
| May 18, 2009 | 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. |
| Sep 26, 2008 | GNRN | NOTIFICATION OF 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. |
| Sep 26, 2008 | 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. |
| Sep 26, 2008 | CNRT | SU - NON-FINAL ACTION - WRITTEN | 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 8, 2008 | SUPC | STATEMENT OF USE PROCESSING COMPLETE | — |
| Sep 8, 2008 | EX2G | SOU EXTENSION 2 GRANTED | — |
| Sep 8, 2008 | AITU | CASE ASSIGNED TO INTENT TO USE PARALEGAL | — |
| Aug 15, 2008 | IUAF | USE AMENDMENT FILED | — |
| Aug 15, 2008 | FAXX | FAX RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 13, 2008 | TPEX | SOU EXTENSION RECEIVED WITH TEAS PETITION | — |
| Aug 13, 2008 | PETG | PETITION TO REVIVE-GRANTED | — |
| Aug 13, 2008 | PROA | TEAS PETITION TO REVIVE RECEIVED | — |
| Aug 6, 2008 | 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. |
| Aug 6, 2008 | 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 27, 2008 | EXT2 | SOU EXTENSION 2 FILED | — |
| Sep 18, 2007 | EX1G | SOU EXTENSION 1 GRANTED | — |
| Aug 9, 2007 | EXT1 | SOU EXTENSION 1 FILED | — |
| Aug 9, 2007 | 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 27, 2007 | 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. |
| Dec 5, 2006 | 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. |
| Nov 15, 2006 | NPUB | NOTICE OF PUBLICATION | — |
| Oct 10, 2006 | PREV | LAW OFFICE PUBLICATION REVIEW COMPLETED | — |
| Oct 6, 2006 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Oct 2, 2006 | CNSA | APPROVED FOR PUB - PRINCIPAL REGISTER | — |
| Sep 11, 2006 | XAEC | EXAMINER'S AMENDMENT ENTERED | — |
| Sep 8, 2006 | GNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 8, 2006 | CNEA | EXAMINERS AMENDMENT -WRITTEN | — |
| Mar 3, 2006 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Aug 26, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Feb 3, 2005 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Jul 27, 2004 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Nov 14, 2003 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Sep 16, 2003 | CFIT | CASE FILE IN TICRS | — |
| Aug 28, 2003 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Aug 28, 2003 | 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. |
| Mar 11, 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. |
| Mar 7, 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. |
| Mar 7, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Feb 26, 2003 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |