DETAILED ACTION
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 .
The following correspondence is a non-final Office Action for application no. 19/183,934, for a TABLE OR CHAIR LEG PROTECTIVE SLEEVE, filed on 4/21/2025. Claims 1-5 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the first groove, second groove, middle and protective sleeve base are not identified. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application.
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 2 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 2 recites the limitation "the middle" therein. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chase (U.S. Pat. 8,037,574).
Regarding claim 1, Chase teaches a table or chair leg protective sleeve, wherein the table or chair leg protective sleeve sleeves a table or chair leg; the table or chair leg protective sleeve comprises a protective sleeve body and a protective sleeve base; the protective sleeve body is embedded into the protective sleeve base; the protective sleeve base comprises a nonwoven cloth pad (felt pad) and a hard component; a first groove is provided in the nonwoven cloth pad; and the hard component is embedded in the first groove.
PNG
media_image1.png
716
266
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (2nd cylindrical sleeve)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Table or chair leg)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (1st cylindrical sleeve)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (Protective sleeve body)]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Hard component)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (2nd groove)][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Protective sleeve base)]
[AltContent: textbox (1st groove)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: arrow]
[AltContent: textbox (Nonwoven cloth pad)]
[AltContent: arrow]
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, Chase teaches the sleeve of claim 1, wherein a second groove is provided in the middle of the hard component; and the protective sleeve body is embedded into the second groove.
Regarding claim 3, Chase teaches the sleeve of claim 1, wherein the hard component is made of a hard material; and the hard material comprises hard plastic or metal (hard plastic, high-density polyethylene (HDPE) or nylon).
Regarding claim 4, Chase teaches the sleeve of claim 1, wherein the protective sleeve body comprises a first cylindrical sleeve and a second cylindrical sleeve; the second cylindrical sleeve is fixedly arranged on the first cylindrical sleeve; and a diameter of a cross section of the first cylindrical sleeve is less than a diameter of a cross section of the second cylindrical sleeve.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chase (U.S. Pat. 8,037,574).
Regarding claim 5, Chase teaches the sleeve of claim 1, but does not teach that both the first cylindrical sleeve and the second cylindrical sleeve are made of soft rubber; and the soft rubber is silica gel, a thermoplastic elastomer (TPE), or thermoplastic rubber (TPR). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, to construct the invention of Chase where both the first cylindrical sleeve and the second cylindrical sleeve are made of soft rubber; and the soft rubber is silica gel, a thermoplastic elastomer (TPE), or thermoplastic rubber (TPR) in order to construct a lightweight foot that will prevent the bottom of the leg from scratching or marring the supporting surface, and further, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. USP 7644719, 7404232, 6155530 (protective sleeves)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NKEISHA J. SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-5781. The examiner can normally be reached Normal hours: M/Th 7-4; T 9-5; W 7-3; F 7-4.
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, Terrell McKinnon can be reached at 571-272-4797. 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.
/NKEISHA SMITH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632 June 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights