[E-trademarks] My "New Application Awaiting Assignment To An Examining Attorney" Search

[Ron Kadden]

Here's a search sequence that combines Ken's "awaiting assignment" search
with an SA:new search that appears to find only applications awaiting
assignment plus assigned applications with no Examiner action.  For
applications filed on August 9, 2023, it shows 1764 awaiting assignment, 29
assigned but with no Examiner action, and 334 with some Examiner action.

I'm using this sequence to determine when I should follow up for
applications that may have fallen through the cracks.

Ron Kadden

Search history exported on 2024-03-27, 7:48:04 PM GMT-4
Id Query ResultCount
5 3 NOT 2 334 Action by Examiner
4 2 NOT 1 29 Assigned but no Examiner action
3 FD:20230809 2127 Filed
2 FD:20230809 AND SA:new 1793 Assigned but no  Examiner action + awaiting
assignment
1 FD:20230809 AND (SA:"application assignment" ~5) NOT (SA:"application
assignment" ~3) 1764 Awaiting assignment


On Tue, Mar 26, 2024 at 4:50 PM Ken Boone via E-trademarks <
e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> With the announcement that the USPTO soon will be providing a new summary
> page to Trademark Search, I'm guessing it is time to reveal my *new
> application awaiting assignment to an examining attorney* search, namely
>
> *(SA:" application assignment" ~5) NOT (SA:" application assignment" ~3)*
>
> that retrieves 365,172 trademarks today, where every trademark that I've
> checked has the *new application awaiting assignment to an examining
> attorney* status on TSDR.
>
> More curious is adding a filing date range restriction or other criteria
> to the search.  For example,
>
> *FD:[* TO 20201231]** AND (SA:" application assignment" ~5) **AND OW:usa** NOT
> (SA:" application assignment" ~3)*
>
> retrieves the 182 oldest applications filed prior to calendar year 2021
> with USA owners, significantly older than the June 23, 2023 - July 07, 2023
> filing date range shown on the Current Backlog page.
>
> Assuming the new summary page to be added to Trademark Search displays the
> SA - Status field, we will see the exact status phrases used in Trademark
> Search to confirm the accuracy of my *new application awaiting assignment
> to an examining attorney* search.
>
>
> Happy Trademarking,
> Ken Boone
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf
> of Ken Boone via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, March 5, 2024 8:18 AM
> *To:* For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Ken Boone <boondogles at hotmail.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [E-trademarks] A "the mark consists" Search Curiosity
>
> Thank you, Carl and Ron, for your interest & comments.
>
> I suspect at least part of the problem is that the USPTO may not have not
> created new status codes for records under investigation for possible
> suspension (which is why I included correspondence addresses for 15 oldest
> trademarks that I listed yesterday).  Unfortunately since Trademark Search
> does not include correspondence addresses, tracking *new applications
> awaiting assignment to an examining attorney* status by correspondence
> addresses is largely a manual operation on TSDR.
>
> Comparing Ron's search (14,331 hits) to my search (13,908 hit), Ron's
> search retrieved all of my hits plus 423 additional hits, but from my quick
> review of about a dozen of those additional hits, none had the desired *new
> application awaiting assignment to an examining attorney* status on TSDR.
>
> Yesterday evening, I started a fresh search session and ran 2 version of
> my *new application awaiting assignment to an examining attorney* search,
> namely the full search and the search restricted to only OW:usa hits (as I
> figure we're more interested in USA applications than foreign applications,
> especially applications from China).  I kept that session running overnight
> and repeated those 2 searches again.  Below are the results.
>
> Id
> Query
> ResultCount
> Diff
> 1
> Full Search  on Monday
>              13,908
> 2
> Just OW:usa on Monday
>                5,581
> 3
> Full Search  Today
>              13,866
>                (42)
> 4
> Just OW:usa Today
>                5,541
>                (40)
> 5
> ( 1 ) NOT ( 3 )
> 0
> 6
> ( 2 ) NOT ( 4 )
> 0
>
> Assuming my searches are accurate, the counts of *new applications
> awaiting assignment to an examining attorney* filed before 1 Jan 2023 did
> decline slightly.  Unfortunately, since back reference in Trademark Search
> merely repeats the search, the back references in searches 5 and 6 did not
> identify the differences in the search results between Monday and today.
> To track/analyze changes in the search results over time implies
> downloading the serial numbers for the search and then checking any changes
> in status for those serial numbers.  I did download several hundred of the
> OW:usa hits yesterday, but I'm not too anxious to try to detect any status
> changes for those downloaded records.  (None of the 50 oldest hits for my
> search were updated on Trademark Search today.)
>
> Another curiosity.  I recently noticed that the descriptions of the mark
> drawing codes on TSDR were revised.  Why?  The table below summarizes the
> mark drawing code descriptions from the online help of the new Trademark
> Search System and TSDR.
>
> MDC
> Trademark Search Online Help
> TSDR
> 0
> unknown
> UNKNOWN MARK DRAWING TYPE
> 1
> typed drawing
> TYPESET WORD(S) /LETTER(S) /NUMBER(S)
> 2
> design only
> AN ILLUSTRATION DRAWING WITHOUT ANY WORDS(S)/ LETTER(S) /NUMBER(S)
> 3
> design plus words, letters, and/or numbers
> AN ILLUSTRATION DRAWING WHICH INCLUDES WORD(S)/ LETTER(S) /NUMBER(S)
> 4
> standard character mark
> STANDARD CHARACTER MARK
> 5
> words, letters, and/or numbers in stylized form
> AN ILLUSTRATION DRAWING WITH WORD(S)/LETTER(S)/NUMBER(S) IN STYLIZED FORM
> 6
> no drawing
> NO DRAWING
>
> Does anyone else find the expression *ILLUSTRATION DRAWING* redundant?
> How about the term *WORDS(S)* - is* WORDSS *supposed to be the plural of
> *WORDS*?  Are punctuation characters considered letters or numbers?
>
> Happy Trademarking,
> Ken Boone
>
> PS - My *new application awaiting assignment to an examining attorney* search
> includes two SA terms but *NOT* the term *new* used by Ron.
>
> PPS - Today the search *LD:true NOT (GS:* SN:8900* SN:81* )* retrieves
> 1151 hits, mostly newer applications with NULL goods/services entries?  Any
> guesses of why automated processing of new applications frequently fails to
> load goods/services included in the raw applications to either Trademark
> Search or TSDR?
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* E-trademarks <e-trademarks-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> on behalf
> of Carl Oppedahl via E-trademarks <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Sent:* Monday, March 4, 2024 12:24 PM
> *To:* For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek
> legal advice. <e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com>
> *Cc:* Carl Oppedahl <carl at oppedahl.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [E-trademarks] A "the mark consists" Search Curiosity
>
>
> Thank you, Ken and Ron.  This is fascinating.
>
> One wonders how it can be that the Trademark Office clearly does not do
> such "boundary condition checking" itself.  Anybody who administers any
> system that tracks tasks or production would normally incorporate a variety
> of boundary condition checks into the routine workflow.
>
> This includes things like cross-checking to see whether characters are
> rendered legibly in one part of the system but are rendered unintelligibly
> in some other part of the system.  This includes things like identifying
> entries in the database that have had no changes to the entry in more than
> X number of weeks or months.  In a system where there are easy-to-see
> starting points and end points for tasks, here for example the filing date
> and the registration date, there are simple and easy-to-do reports that
> could be generated to try to identify cases that deviate widely from the
> normal life span of the tasks.
>
> This stuff is easy to do (Ken does it, Ron does it, others on the listserv
> do it) and easy to automate.  Yet it is clear the Trademark Office snoozes
> through stuff like this.
>
> There ought to be automated reports, maybe once per month, that land on
> the desk of somebody in the office of the Commissioner for Trademarks.  And
> the reports would list stuff like this.  And somebody somewhere would
> figure out why this category of cases or that category of cases ends up
> languishing.
> On 3/4/2024 11:01 AM, Ron Kadden via E-trademarks wrote:
>
> The closest I can come is the following, which picks up unassigned
> applications and applications that have been assigned with no further
> action:
>
> 14,331 results for LD:true AND FD:[* TO 20221231] AND SA:new.
>
> Ron Kadden
>
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2024 at 11:57 AM Ken Boone via E-trademarks <
> e-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:
>
> The search *WD: "the mark consists" AND LD:true AND FD:[* TO 20221231]* retrieves
> a single pending trademark with the drawing
>
> *[image: Image for 97681714, select for more details]*
>
> Curiously, this 17 November 2022 application (approaching 16 months old)
> has yet to be assigned to an examining attorney.  Why?  Just guessing, but
> maybe Pre-Exam set this application aside for review by an attorney as a
> likely *informal application* (as the drawing does not resemble any
> portion of the specimen provided by my quick review).  There is only a
> single entry in the prosecution history, namely *NEW APPLICATION ENTERED* dated
> 4 days following the filing date.  (More typically, a second *NEW
> APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED* prosecution history entry is
> added when Pre-Exam has performed their processing.)  This is NOT a pro se
> application, though I only see 8 total trademarks by that attorney of
> record.  (The good news is that this is the only "the mark consists"
> wordmark hit over 14 month old.)
>
> My first question:  Is this an informal application?  Alternatively, could
> the filer submit a preliminary amendment with *Princess Egypt Closet* (or
> some other phrase occurring in the specimen provided) as the word mark for
> a standard character drawing?  If the latter, wouldn't the filing date have
> to be amended to the date the amended drawing was received at the USPTO?
> (No reply expected.)
>
> My usual follow-up question:  How many other new applications filed prior
> to 1 January 2023 (i.e., now over 14 months old) have yet to be assigned to
> an examining attorney for examination?
>
> Are aware of a search on the new trademark search system that answers that
> question?
>
> The two solutions that I have mentioned before: (1) add the prosecution
> histories to trademark search and (2) add the TSDR status to trademark
> search whenever a trademark is updated on trademark search, versus the
> current *SA - Status* field that is NOT displayed and whose exact content
> is unknown. (In this case, it would be nice to search the status *new
> application awaiting assignment to an examining attorney* for a
> particular filing date range to find other older applications yet to be
> assigned to an examining attorney for examination.)
>
> As it happens, I have a candidate *SA - Status* field search that appears
> to retrieve all live applications with the *new application awaiting
> assignment to an examining attorney* status.  Today, that search
> retrieves 381,616 pending trademarks.  Restricting those hits to
> applications filed prior to 1 January 2023, that search retrieves 13,908
> new applications over 14 months old that have not been assigned to a USPTO
> examining attorney for examination.  Sorry, but I'm still reviewing those
> 13,908 applications to verify that each has the *new application awaiting
> assignment to an examining attorney* status on TSDR, but here are the 15
> oldest applications retrieved by my search.
>
> #
> SN
> FD
> WM
> Comment
> 1
> 90202945
> 09/23/20
> FAT ALBERT
> Attorney Name: Mary R. Bonzagni
> 2
> 90230047
> 10/01/20
> CHUCKLECIDE
> Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com
> 3
> 90230467
> 10/01/20
> AFFAIRE BIKINIS
> Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com
> 4
> 90230590
> 10/01/20
> IGNITE
> Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com
> 5
> 90230860
> 10/01/20
> I.ANDROID.LIVE FREQUENCY BASED MUSIC
> Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com
> 6
> 90231937
> 10/02/20
> TMC TERRA METALS CORP.
> Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com
> 7
> 90235170
> 10/05/20
> M MYCHMAR
> Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com
> 8
> 90235341
> 10/05/20
> L..O. QUEINT DEFINED FASHION
> Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com
> 9
> 90235429
> 10/05/20
> MINDFUL LUNATIC
> Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com
> 10
> 90235569
> 10/05/20
> BOOKGASM
> Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com
> 11
> 90237546
> 10/06/20
> SPA BEAUTY
> Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com
> 12
> 90238108
> 10/06/20
> SPA BEAUTY NYC
> Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com
> 13
> 90238486
> 10/06/20
> NEW YORK PODIATRY GROUP
> Correspondent e-mail: tyler.ross at designproficient.com
> 14
> 90239836
> 10/07/20
> HEAVENLY VOICE GLOBAL MINISTRIES.
> Correspondent e-mail: Legal at theblitzdesign.com
> 15
> 90239912
> 10/07/20
> ENTREPRENEUR CONNECTIONS NETWORK
> Correspondent e-mail: tyler.ross at designproficient.com
>
> Hmmm ... perhaps I should generate a more random sample of those 13,908
> new applications over 14 months old that have not been assigned to a USPTO
> examining attorney for examination.  Stay tuned.
>
> Happy trademarking,
> Ken Boone
>
> PS - Below, I alerted the USPTO of another 2022 application with the *new
> application awaiting assignment to an examining attorney* status on TSDR
> that also lacks the second *NEW APPLICATION OFFICE SUPPLIED DATA ENTERED* prosecution
> history entry.  I intentionally did a copy/paste of status information from
> TSDR - that the formatting did go sideways, emphasizing the need for a full
> record display option in the new Trademark Search System.  Alas, nothing
> has happened with this *JUST BE FEARLESS APPAREL* application since I
> alerted the USPTO of the incomplete processing by Pre-Exam.  So it goes.
>
> PPS - Just for fun, try the following search:  GS:"I am not selling
> anything - just want ownership of the phrase"
> 1 results for GS:"I am not selling anything - just want ownership of the
> phrase"
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Ken Boone <boondogles at hotmail.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 25, 2023 3:45 PM
> *To:* TMFeedback <tmfeedback at uspto.gov>
> *Subject:* 97631882 - JUST BE FEARLESS APPAREL - Filed 13 Oct 2022 - No
> Valid Mark Drawing Code - Awaiting Examinating Attorney
>
> Dear USPTO,
>
> The subject application is over a year old and still has not been assigned
> to an examining attorney, perhaps because it still does not have a valid
> mark drawing code.  It looks like this application has been sitting idle in
> New Application Processing since 31 October 2022 (the status date).  It is
> my theory that without a valid mark drawing code, automated processing will
> NOT assign this application to an examining attorney.  Perhaps someone at
> the USPTO can shove this application forward by providing a valid mark
> drawing code (and a few design search codes) to help this application
> progress to examination?
>
>
>
>
> *Generated on:*
> This page was generated by TSDR on 2023-10-25 16:33:16 EDT
> *Mark:*
> JUST BE FEARLESS APPAREL
> [image: Trademark image]
> *US Serial Number:*
> 97631882
> *Application Filing Date:*
> Oct. 13, 2022
> *Filed as TEAS Plus:*
> Yes
> *Currently TEAS Plus:*
> Yes
> *Register:*
> Principal
> *Mark Type:*
> Trademark
> *TM5 Common Status Descriptor:*
> [image: TM5 Common Status image]
>
> LIVE/APPLICATION/Awaiting Examination
>
> The trademark application has been accepted by the Office (has met the
> minimum filing requirements) and has not yet been assigned to an examiner.
> *Status:*
> New application awaiting assignment to an examining attorney. See current
> trademark processing wait times
> <https://www.uspto.gov/dashboard/trademarks/application-timeline.html>for
> more information.
> *Status Date:*
> Oct. 31, 2022
>
> Mark Information
> *Mark Literal Elements:*
> JUST BE FEARLESS APPAREL
> *Standard Character Claim:*
> No
> *Mark Drawing Type:*
> -
> *Description of Mark:*
> The mark consists of just be fearless apparel color all black letters.
> *Color(s) Claimed:*
> Color is not claimed as a feature of the mark.
> Goods and Services
> Basis Information (Case Level)
> Current Owner(s) Information
> Attorney/Correspondence Information
> Prosecution History
> TM Staff and Location Information
> *TM Staff Information - None*
> *File Location*
> *Current Location:*
> NEW APPLICATION PROCESSING
> *Date in Location:*
> Oct. 31, 2022
> Assignment Abstract Of Title Information - Click to Load
> Proceedings - Click to Load
>
>
> Hope this helps,
> Ken Boone
>
> --
> E-trademarks mailing list
> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>
>
> --
> E-trademarks mailing list
> E-trademarks at oppedahl-lists.com
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20240327/466e14ff/attachment.htm>