Two months. That is the whole window to revive an abandoned trademark application, measured from the issue date of the notice of abandonment.
It is the shortest deadline in ordinary US trademark practice, it cannot be extended, and it is the one most likely to be discovered after it has closed — because by definition it arrives after something has already gone wrong.
What triggers it
Abandonment follows a missed deadline: most often an unanswered office action, sometimes a missed statement of use. The USPTO then issues a notice of abandonment, and the two months run from that notice — not from the deadline that was missed.
The gap between the two matters. An office action missed in March may not produce a notice of abandonment until June, and the petition window closes in August. A docket anchored to the original missed date will show the wrong deadline.
The standard
The delay must have been unintentional. That is deliberately a lower bar than the “unavoidable” standard used elsewhere in USPTO practice — it does not require proving that the deadline could not have been met, only that missing it was not a choice.
The petition needs the statement, the fee, and the response that should have been filed in the first place. A petition that arrives without the underlying response is incomplete.
Why it belongs at the top of a docket
Most trademark deadlines are months or years out and move slowly. A revival window is two months on an application that is already in trouble, and the consequence of missing it is total: the filing date is gone, and with it any priority claimed against anyone who filed in the meantime.
Sealvo computes revival windows from the abandonment date on the register and sorts them with everything else by urgency, which generally puts them first. On a portfolio of any size there is usually at least one.