USPTO serial 86009235
ZYMEFLOW
Reviewed by CopyMark Law Group
- Filing date
- Status date
- Registration date
- —
- Examiner
- LAM, HAI-LY HUYNH
- Law office
- TMO LAW OFFICE 112 - 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 ZYMEFLOW?
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
British Columbia, CA
Attorney of record
The USPTO lists this attorney as the applicant's representative for correspondence on this application.
Rochelle D. Alpert
ROCHELLE D. ALPERT MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP1 MARKET SPEAR STREET TOWERSAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105UNITED STATESGoods and services
| Class | Description | Status | First use |
|---|---|---|---|
| 009 | Software used for high performance computing in the field of molecular modeling | 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.
Prosecution history
| Date | Code | Event | What it means |
|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 20, 2020 | MAB2 | ABANDONMENT NOTICE E-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. |
| Feb 19, 2020 | 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. |
| Aug 5, 2019 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 5, 2019 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Aug 5, 2019 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Aug 1, 2019 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jan 16, 2019 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 16, 2019 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 16, 2019 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 16, 2019 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jan 16, 2019 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Jan 7, 2019 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 17, 2018 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 17, 2018 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 17, 2018 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 16, 2018 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jan 8, 2018 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 8, 2018 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 8, 2018 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 8, 2018 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jan 8, 2018 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 20, 2017 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 8, 2017 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 8, 2017 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 8, 2017 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 5, 2017 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jan 5, 2017 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 5, 2017 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jan 5, 2017 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Jan 5, 2017 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Jan 5, 2017 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Dec 13, 2016 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Jul 7, 2016 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 7, 2016 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 7, 2016 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Jul 7, 2016 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Jul 6, 2016 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Dec 19, 2015 | RCSC | REPORT COMPLETED SUSPENSION CHECK CASE STILL SUSPENDED | — |
| Dec 18, 2015 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| May 17, 2015 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 17, 2015 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| May 17, 2015 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 30, 2015 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Apr 30, 2015 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 23, 2015 | ERSI | TEAS RESPONSE TO SUSPENSION INQUIRY RECEIVED | — |
| Nov 10, 2014 | GNS2 | NOTIFICATION OF INQUIRY AS TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 10, 2014 | GNSI | INQUIRY TO SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Nov 10, 2014 | CNSI | SUSPENSION INQUIRY WRITTEN | — |
| Oct 23, 2014 | RCCK | SUSPENSION CHECKED - TO ATTORNEY FOR ACTION | — |
| Apr 15, 2014 | GNS3 | NOTIFICATION OF LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 15, 2014 | GNSL | LETTER OF SUSPENSION E-MAILED | — |
| Apr 15, 2014 | CNSL | SUSPENSION LETTER WRITTEN | — |
| Apr 10, 2014 | TEME | TEAS/EMAIL CORRESPONDENCE ENTERED | — |
| Apr 10, 2014 | CRFA | CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED IN LAW OFFICE | — |
| Apr 4, 2014 | ALIE | ASSIGNED TO LIE | — |
| Mar 24, 2014 | 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. |
| Oct 25, 2013 | 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. |
| Oct 25, 2013 | 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 25, 2013 | CNRT | 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. |
| Oct 24, 2013 | DOCK | ASSIGNED TO EXAMINER | — |
| Jul 23, 2013 | MPMK | NOTICE OF PSEUDO MARK E-MAILED | — |
| Jul 20, 2013 | NWOS | NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED | — |
| Jul 16, 2013 | NWAP | NEW APPLICATION ENTERED | — |