Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on Application IL292289 dated 04/04/2022 and applicant has filed a certified copy of this application on 05/15/2023. Claim Objections Claim s 3 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 , “the two or more padding parts” is suggested to be amended to --the at least two padding parts--. Claim 10, “respective article Portions” should read --the respective potions of the article-- (see claim 9). Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 17 recites the limitation “to inhibit separation of the at least two padding parts from each other”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Because claim 1 (to which claim 17 depends on) recites “one or more padding parts”. Therefore this limitation interpreted to be -- to inhibit separation of the at one or more padding parts from each other--; or claim 17 should be dependent on claim 2 and the above limitation should read. Examination is conducted under both interpretations. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim 1, 4-7, 9- 12 , 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Airex ( Money Saving HVAC Tips and AIREX Pro System Kit Review ) , found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-5AO3VnJYk Regarding claim 1 , Airex teaches (annotated screenshots below) a removable cover kit for an elongated article ( HVAC copper line set ) , the removable cover kit comprising: a padding for removably encasing at least a portion of the article having a predetermined length, the padding comprising one or more padding parts associated with padding edges and being configurable between: a closed configuration in which: the padding defines a housing when the padding is mounted on the article, the housing having a longitudinal axis (L) extending along the length of said at least a portion of the article; and the padding edges are proximate to one another along respective lengths thereof and an inner surface of the padding extending between said edges fits that of the at least a portion of the article; and an open configuration for mounting of the padding on the article or for removal of the padding therefrom, wherein the padding edges are remote from one another; and a sleeve for sheathing over the padding when the padding is in the closed configuration and mounted to the article. Regarding claim 4 , Airex teaches (annotated screenshots above) at least in the closed configuration, the inner surface of the padding defines a channel which extends along said longitudinal axis. Regarding claim 5 , Airex teaches (annotated screenshots above) the sleeve is configurable between: an open state in which the sleeve is applicable over the padding when the padding is in the closed configuration and mounted to the article; and a closed state in which the sleeve is secured over and sheathes the padding when the padding is in the closed configuration and mounted to the article. Regarding claim 6 , Airex teaches (annotated screenshots above) the sleeve comprises two longitudinal ends connectable to one another (Velcro connection) to bring the sleeve from the open state to the closed state. Regarding claim 9 , Airex teaches (annotated screenshots above) a pair of end elements, each being removably securable to one of respective portions of the article so as to, when the kit is assembled thereon, at least partially cover lateral ends of the padding (end elements cover the article/pipe and padding protruded from the sleeve) and/or lateral ends of the sleeve from which said respective portions of the article protrude. Regarding claim 10 , Airex teaches (annotated screenshots above) each end element is removable from the respective portions of the article or movable there along and away from respective lateral ends of the sleeve to permit removal of the padding from the article. Regarding claim 11 , Airex teaches (annotated screenshots above) the padding is made of a material incapable of being stretched to such extent that if a unitary tubular casing having an inner surface of the same shape and dimensions as those of the inner surface of the padding when in the closed configuration was to be produced from such material, such casing would be incapable of being dressed over the article from an end thereof (padding can slide over the copper pipe from one end of the padding without the need to stretch the padding from inner channel of the padding; in other words the inner longitudinal channel of the padding is larger than outer diameter of the pipe) . Regarding claim 12 , Airex teaches (annotated screenshots above) padding is made of a material in the form of an expanded particle foam. Regarding claim 16 , Airex teaches (annotated screenshots above) the sleeve retains said padding edges proximate to one another. Regarding claim 17 , Airex teaches (annotated screenshots above) the sleeve has a tubular form so as to inhibit separation of the at least two one or more (see 112(b)rejection above) padding parts from each other. Regarding claim 18 , Airex teaches (annotated screenshots above) an elongated article (HVAC copper pipe) fitted with the removable cover assembled from a kit according to claim 1 . Regarding claim 20 , Airex teaches (annotated screenshots above) the article is of a kind which is incapable of being inserted from an end thereof into a casing corresponding in shape and dimensions to the padding when in the closed configuration (both ends of the HVAC copper pipe are closed, one connected to compressor and the other end inside the wall , therefore a closed tubular casing cannot cover the copper HVAC pipe/article ) . Claim s 1-4, 9 -12 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Clarke ( US 10569149 B2 ). Regarding claim 1 , Clarke teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a removable cover kit (stick handling training device 100 and s haft adapter 200) for an elongated article (elongate shaft 55 of a handle of a golf club) , the removable cover kit comprising: a padding (shaft adapter 200) for removably encasing at least a portion of the article having a predetermined length, the padding comprising one or more padding parts (two segments 202, 204 may be completely separate elements) associated with padding edges and being configurable between: a closed configuration in which: the padding defines a housing when the padding is mounted on the article (shown in Figs. 6 and 7) , the housing having a longitudinal axis (L) extending along the length of said at least a portion of the article; and the padding edges are proximate to one another along respective lengths thereof and an inner surface of the padding extending between said edges fits that of the at least a portion of the article (shown in Figs. 6 and 7) ; and an open configuration (col. 11, lines 61-67: “two segments 202, 204 may be completely separate elements”) for mounting of the padding on the article or for removal of the padding therefrom, wherein the padding edges are remote from one another (col. 11, lines 61-67: “two segments 202, 204 may be completely separate elements”) ; and a sleeve (shaft adapter 200) for sheathing over the padding when the padding is in the closed configuration and mounted to the article (Fig. 7) . Regarding claim 2 , Clarke teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the padding comprises at least two padding parts (col. 11, lines 61-67: “two segments 202, 204 may be completely separate elements”) , each formed with a recess (U shaped recess) bounded by two padding edges which, in the closed configuration of the padding, contact respective padding edges of another padding part at least along most of the respective lengths of the padding edges (shown in Figs. 6 and 7) . Regarding claim 3 , Clarke teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the two or more padding parts are configured to be brought together into the closed configuration of the padding over the at least a portion of the article for encasement thereof, the recesses of the at least two padding parts having shape and dimensions corresponding to those of the respective surfaces of the at least a portion of the article (both are U shaped as shown in Figs. 6 and 7) . Regarding claim 4 , Clarke teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) at least in the closed configuration, the inner surface of the padding defines a channel which extends along said longitudinal axis (see Fig. 6) . Regarding claim 9 , Clarke teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) a pair of end elements (131, 139) , each being removably securable to one of respective portions of the article (55) so as to, when the kit is assembled thereon, at least partially cover lateral ends of the padding and/or lateral ends of the sleeve (covers lateral ends of both the padding and the sleeve) from which said respective portions of the article protrude. Regarding claim 10 , Clarke teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) each end element is removable from the respective article portions or movable therealong and away from respective lateral ends of the sleeve to permit removal of the padding from the article (by movement of the sleeve (to which the end elements are attached) along longitudinal axis L, the padding 200 is exposed and can be removed for the article 55) . Regarding claim 11 , Clarke teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the padding is made of a material incapable of being stretched (col. 11, line 54-col. 12, line 8: “The two segments 202, 204 may each be formed of a rigid material, such as a hard plastic or metal … semi-rigid or soft materials, such as foam rubber, fabric, or soft plastics … an outer shell of the two segments 202, 204 may be formed with a hard plastic, while an inner core is either hollow or filled with a different material, like a solid foam and/or gel. ”) to such extent that if a unitary tubular casing having an inner surface of the same shape and dimensions as those of the inner surface of the padding when in the closed c onfiguration was to be produced from such material, such casing would be incapable of being dressed over the article from an end thereof (see figs. 6 and 7) . Regarding claim 12 , Clarke teaches the padding is made of a material in the form of an expanded particle foam (col. 11, line 67-col. 12, line 8) . Regarding claim 16 , Clarke teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the sleeve retains said padding edges proximate to one another (see Fig. 7) . Regarding claim 17 , Clarke teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the sleeve has a tubular form so as to inhibit separation of the at least two padding parts (see 112(b) rejection above) from each other (see Fig. 7) . Regarding claim 18 , Clarke teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) an elongated article (55) fitted with the removable cover assembled from a kit (kit comprises 100 and 200) according to claim 1. Regarding claim 19 , Clarke teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the article is a handle (elongate shaft 55 of a handle of a golf club shown in Figs. 1-4) . Regarding claim 20 , Clarke teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the article is of a kind which is incapable of being inserted from an end thereof (see larger ends of the golf club shown in Figs. 1-4) into a casing corresponding in shape and dimensions to the padding when in the closed configuration. Claims 1 , 4 -5, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kenner ( US 6419601 B1 ). Regarding claim 1 , Kenner teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a removable cover kit (snap-on/off rotatable handle grip system 11) for an elongated article (elongated tube 54 of the tool) , the removable cover kit comprising: a padding (a semi-rigid elastically deformable or resilient grip-sleeve 88) for removably encasing at least a portion of the article having a predetermined length, the padding comprising one or more padding parts associated with padding edges (an outwardly lipped slit 90) and being configurable between: a closed configuration in which: the padding defines a housing when the padding is mounted on the article, the housing having a longitudinal axis (1E-1E) extending along the length of said at least a portion of the article; and the padding edges are proximate to one another along respective lengths thereof and an inner surface of the padding extending between said edges fits that of the at least a portion of the article; and an open configuration for mounting of the padding on the article (col. 16, lines 54-65: “Slit 90 spreads open to allow the diameter of rotational glide 82 to expand to fit over tube 54, thereby creating a snug fit”) or for removal of the padding therefrom (col. 16, lines 54-65: “Slit 90 widens, thereby increasing the diameter of component 38”) , wherein the padding edges are remote from one another (col. 16, lines 54-65: when “Slit 90 widens”) ; and a sleeve (Stationary foam rubber overgrip 34) for sheathing over the padding when the padding is in the closed configuration and mounted to the article. Regarding claim 4 , Kenner teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) at least in the closed configuration, the inner surface of the padding defines a channel (cylindrical channel) which extends along said longitudinal axis (1E-1E) . Regarding claim 5 , Kenner teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the sleeve is configurable between: an open state in which the sleeve is applicable over the padding when the padding is in the closed configuration and mounted to the article (when padding 88 is encasing part of elongated article 54 and the sleeve 50 is not assembled on the padding 88) ; and a closed state in which the sleeve is secured over and sheathes the padding when the padding is in the closed configuration and mounted to the article (when padding 88 is encasing part of elongated article 54 and the sleeve 50 is assembled on the padding 88) . Note that opening and closing of edges of the sleeve is not claimed. Regarding claim 16 , Kenner teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the sleeve retains said padding edges proximate to one another (when 50 assembled on 88). Regarding claim 17 , Kenner teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the sleeve has a tubular form so as to inhibit separation of the one or more padding parts (see 112(b) rejection above) from each other. Regarding claim 18 , Kenner teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) an elongated article (54) fitted with the removable cover (11) assembled from a kit according to claim 1. Regarding claim 19 , Kenner teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. above) the article is a handle (handle 54 of the tool). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Airex in view of Pilone ( US 20210364121 A1 ). Regarding claim 1 3 , Airex is silent regarding specific material of the padding being polypropylene . Pilone teaches HVAC pipe insulating cover kit with a padding (3a) made of material in form of an expanded particle foam (par. 37: “foam insulation material”) with padding edges encasing at least a portion of the article ( inner tube 2 ) and a sleeve (3b) sheathing over the padding in a closed configuration and mounted to the article (inner tube 2); wherein the padding material is polypropylene (par. 66: “ cross-linked polyethylene”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to use polyethylene material for the padding. Doing so would increase effectiveness of the insulation, improves energy saving and performance of the HVAC system. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Airex in view of Seo ( KR 20210111109 A ). Regarding claim 14 , Airex is silent regarding specific material of the padding being leather . Seo teaches synthetic leather material for the insulating tube to reduce heat transfer. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to use leather material for the insulation. Doing so would prevent heat transfer as set forth in Seo. Claim 1 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clarke in view of Landsberger ( US 4389777 A ). Regarding claim 15 , Clarke does not teach the claimed pair of end coverings . Landsberger teaches (reproduced and annotated Fig. 4 below) a padding (removable cover 8) encasing at least a portion of an elongated article ( spoon stem 14 ) ; a sleeve (sleeve 60) for sheathing over the padding; a pair of end elements (end portions 50, 52) , each being removably securable to one of respective portions of the article so as to, when the kit is assembled thereon, at least partially cover lateral ends of the padding; a pair of end coverings ( end caps 10 and 12 ) , each being removably securable to one of respective areas of the article so as to, when the kit is assembled, substantially cover respective end elements ( end caps 10 and 12 are slipped over cylindrical end portions 50 and 52 ) and/or respective lateral ends of the sleeve. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to use end coverings on end elements of Clarke as taught by Landsberger . Doing so would snugly hold the padding on the elongated article (see col. 2, lines 52-60 of Landsberger ). Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Airex in view of A lpine Line Set Covers, found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xb4AfdSDTQE Regarding claim 8 , sleeve of Airex does not have smaller lateral ends. A lpine teaches line set sleeve with smaller lateral ends for connection to couplings. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to replace sleeve of Airex with sleeve of Alpine for better aesthetics. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Reece ( US 20190210211 A1 ) teaches (reproduced and annotated Figs. below) a cover kit for an elongated article/handle comprising: a padding (inner layer 26) comprising two padding parts (27, 29) associated with padding edges (opposed edges 36, 38, 48, 50) ; the padding configurable between: open (when not assembled on the article) and close (when assembled on the article) configurations ; and a sleeve (rubber-like pad 40) for sheathing over the padding when the padding is in the closed configuration and mounted to the article. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MAHDI H NEJAD whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-0464 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday 7:30am-4pm EST . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT David Posigian can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (313) 446-6546 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT MAHDI H. NEJAD Examiner Art Unit 3723 /MAHDI H NEJAD/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3723