Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/614,978

BALUSTER

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Mar 25, 2024
Examiner
WALRAED-SULLIVAN, KYLE
Art Unit
3635
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
House Of Forgings LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
74%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 74% — above average
74%
Career Allow Rate
675 granted / 918 resolved
+21.5% vs TC avg
Strong +31% interview lift
Without
With
+30.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
68 currently pending
Career history
986
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
44.3%
+4.3% vs TC avg
§102
19.3%
-20.7% vs TC avg
§112
30.4%
-9.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 918 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Status of Claims Claims 1-22 are pending. 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. Claim(s) 1-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsey (US 2004/0201006) in view of Grimm et al (“Grimm”) (US 4,421,302). Re claim 1, Ramsey discloses a baluster (Fig. 4 20) comprising: a first portion (40) having a first length (length of 40) as measured along a longitudinal axis (length of 40), wherein the first portion (40) has a constant cross-sectional size (from 44 to 42) as measured in a plane perpendicular (Fig. 4) to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 4); a second portion (see examiner comments) having a second length (length thereof) as measured along the longitudinal axis (longitudinally axis thereof), wherein the second portion (see examiner comments) has a constant cross-sectional size (from the base to the chamfer) as measured in a plane perpendicular to (Fig. 4) the longitudinal axis (longitudinal axis thereof); and an intermediate portion (30) disposed between the first portion (40) and the second portion (see examiner comments), the intermediate portion (30) having an intermediate length (length of 30) as measured along the longitudinal axis (longitudinal axis of 30), wherein the intermediate portion (30) has a varied cross-sectional size (Fig. 4, tapering) as measured in a plane perpendicular to (Fig. 4) the longitudinal axis (longitudinal axis of 30) along the intermediate length (length of 30), wherein an end (42/44, end of the second portion per the examiner’s comments) of one of the first portion (40) opposite the intermediate portion (30) or the second portion opposite the intermediate portion (as this is an “or” clause) defines a dowel opening (46; 42 which receives 36), but fails to disclose the first portion with a constant cross-sectional size along the entire fist length (due to chamfering), and the second portion with a constant cross-sectional size along the entire second length (due to chamfering). However, Grimm discloses the first portion (43) with a constant cross-sectional size (Fig.1) along the entire fist length (length of 43), and the second portion (44) with a constant cross-sectional size (Fig. 1) along the entire second length (length of 44). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the baluster of Ramsey with the first portion with a constant cross-sectional size along the entire fist length and the second portion with a constant cross-sectional size along the entire second length (such as by eliminating the chamfering of Ramsey) in order to simplify manufacturing and lessen manufacturing costs by eliminating the need for machining/chamfering in favor of the simpler block-shape shown by Grimm. Re claim 2, Ramsey as modified discloses the baluster of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the second length or first length of an other of the second portion opposite the intermediate portion or the first portion opposite the intermediate portion, respectively, is 4 inches or more. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the baluster of Ramsey wherein the second length or first length of an other of the second portion opposite the intermediate portion or the first portion opposite the intermediate portion, respectively, is 4 inches or more in order to provide a desired aesthetic by increasing the size of the first/second portion and/or decreasing the size of the intermediate portion. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Re claim 3, Ramsey as modified discloses the baluster of claim 2, but fails to disclose wherein the second length or first length of the other of the second portion opposite the intermediate portion or the first portion opposite the intermediate portion, respectively, is 8 inches or more. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the baluster of Ramsey wherein the second length or first length of the other of the second portion opposite the intermediate portion or the first portion opposite the intermediate portion, respectively, is 8 inches or more in order to provide a desired aesthetic by increasing the size of the first/second portion and/or decreasing the size of the intermediate portion. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Re claim 4, Ramsey as modified discloses the baluster of claim 3, but fails to disclose wherein the first length or the second length of the one of the first portion opposite the intermediate portion or the second portion opposite the intermediate portion, respectively, is 4 inches or more. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the baluster of Ramsey wherein the first length or the second length of the one of the first portion opposite the intermediate portion or the second portion opposite the intermediate portion, respectively, is 4 inches or more in order to provide a desired aesthetic by increasing the size of the first/second portion and/or decreasing the size of the intermediate portion. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Re claim 5, Ramsey as modified discloses the baluster of claim 4, but fails to disclose, wherein the first length or the second length of the one of the first portion opposite the intermediate portion or the second portion opposite the intermediate portion, respectively, is 6 inches or more. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the baluster of Ramsey wherein the first length or the second length of the one of the first portion opposite the intermediate portion or the second portion opposite the intermediate portion, respectively, is 6 inches or more in order to provide a desired aesthetic by increasing the size of the first/second portion and/or decreasing the size of the intermediate portion. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Re claim 6, Ramsey as modified discloses the baluster of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the first length or the second length of the one of the first portion opposite the intermediate portion or the second portion opposite the intermediate portion, respectively, is 4 inches or more. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the baluster of Ramsey wherein the first length or the second length of the one of the first portion opposite the intermediate portion or the second portion opposite the intermediate portion, respectively, is 4 inches or more in order to provide a desired aesthetic by increasing the size of the first/second portion and/or decreasing the size of the intermediate portion. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Re claim 7, Ramsey as modified discloses the baluster of claim 6, but fails to disclose wherein the first length or the second length of the one of the first portion opposite the intermediate portion or the second portion opposite the intermediate portion, respectively, is 6 inches or more. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the baluster of Ramsey wherein the first length or the second length of the one of the first portion opposite the intermediate portion or the second portion opposite the intermediate portion, respectively, is 6 inches or more in order to provide a desired aesthetic by increasing the size of the first/second portion and/or decreasing the size of the intermediate portion. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Re claim 8, Ramsey as modified discloses the baluster of claim 1, wherein the dowel opening (46; 42 which receives 36) has a depth (Fig. 4) as measured along the longitudinal axis (Fig .4), but fails to disclose wherein the depth is 1.25 inches or more. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the baluster of Ramsey wherein the depth is 1.25 inches or more in order to ensure the features inserted therein are sufficiently maintained so as not to separate or fracture. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Re claim 9, Ramsey as modified discloses the baluster of claim 8, but fails to disclose wherein the depth is 2 inches or more. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the baluster of Ramsey wherein the depth is 2 inches or more in order to ensure the features inserted therein are sufficiently maintained so as not to separate or fracture. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Re claims 13-14, Ramsey as modified discloses the baluster of claim 1 [and claim 13], but fails to disclose wherein the cross-section of the first portion has a circular shape [claim 13], and wherein the cross-section of the second portion has a circular shape. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the baluster of Ramsey wherein the cross-section of the first portion has a circular shape [claim 13], and wherein the cross-section of the second portion has a circular shape in order to provide a desired aesthetic. In addition, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 Re claims 15, Ramsey as modified discloses the baluster of claim 13, wherein the cross-section (of that shown in the Examiner’s comments) of the second portion (see examiner comments) has a square shape (Fig. 4). Re claims 16, Ramsey as modified discloses the baluster of claim 11, wherein the cross-section of the second portion has a circular shape. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the baluster of Ramsey wherein the cross-section of the second portion has a circular shape in order to provide a desired aesthetic. In addition, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 Re claims 17, Ramsey as modified discloses the baluster of claim 11, wherein the cross-section (of that shown in the Examiner’s comments) of the second portion (see examiner comments) has a square shape (Fig. 4). Re claims 18, Ramsey as modified discloses the baluster of claim 11, wherein the cross-section (of that shown in the Examiner’s comments) of the second portion (see examiner comments) has a square shape (Fig. 4). Re claims 19, Ramsey as modified discloses the baluster of claim 1, wherein the baluster (20) has a total length (from 44 to 32) as measured along the longitudinal axis (Fig. 4), the total length (from 32 to 44) including a sum of the first length (of 40), the intermediate length (of 30), and the second length (of that shown in the examiner’s comments), wherein the total length is 36 inches or more ([0032] discloses 41 inches, which is measured from 38 to 32). Re claims 20, Ramsey as modified discloses the baluster of claim 18, wherein the total length is 40 inches or more ([0032] discloses 41 inches, which is measured from 38 to 32). Re claims 21, Ramsey as modified discloses the baluster of claim 19, but fails to disclose wherein the total length is 42 inches or more. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the baluster of Ramsey wherein the total length is 42 inches or more in order to increase the height of the baluster, and thus, the handrail, for situations requiring a higher handrail. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Re claims 22, Ramsey as modified discloses the baluster of claim 1, wherein the intermediate portion (30) and an other of the second portion (40) opposite the intermediate portion (30) or the first portion (see examiner comments) opposite the intermediate portion (30) are solid (Claim 4 disclosing wood). Re claims 23, Ramsey as modified discloses the baluster of claim 1, wherein the dowel opening (46; 42 which receives 36) extends parallel (Fig. 4) to the longitudinal axis (Fig. 4). Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramsey (US 2004/0201006) in view of Grimm et al (“Grimm”) (US 4,421,302) and Guerra et al (“Guerra”) (US 6,431,526). Re claim 10, Ramsey as modified discloses the baluster of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein the cross-sectional size of the first portion is different than the cross-sectional size of the second portion. However, Guerra discloses wherein the cross-sectional size (of 36) of the first portion (36) is different than (Fig. 2) the cross-sectional size (of 34) of the second portion (34). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the baluster of Ramsey wherein the cross-sectional size of the first portion is different than the cross-sectional size of the second portion as disclosed by Guerra in order to provide a desired aesthetic by increasing/decreasing the size of the first/second portion. In addition, a change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Similarly, it has been held that a mere change in shape of a component is within the level of ordinary skill in the art absent persuasive evidence that a particular configuration of the claimed shape is significant. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149. Re claim 11, Ramsey as modified discloses the baluster of claim 10, Guerra discloses wherein the cross-sectional size (of 36) of the first portion (36) is smaller than (Fig. 2) the cross-sectional size (of 34) of the second portion (34). Re claim 12, Ramsey as modified discloses the baluster of claim 11, but fails to disclose wherein the end of the second portion opposite the intermediate portion defines the dowel opening. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the baluster of Ramsey wherein the end of the second portion opposite the intermediate portion defines the dowel opening in order to reduce material used, and reduce shipping weight, as a dowel opening instead of a dowel would reduce material and/or weight. In addition, it has been held that rearrangement of parts is considered within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019. Examiner Comments PNG media_image1.png 845 586 media_image1.png Greyscale Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO 892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8838. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm. 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, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571)270-3238. 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. KYLE WALRAED-SULLIVAN Primary Examiner Art Unit 3635 /KYLE J. WALRAED-SULLIVAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 25, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 22, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12595666
PANEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594442
FALL RESTRAINT SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595662
WALL PANEL CLIP
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12595657
Formwork Panel of a Formwork System
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12577791
System of structural support framework for elevated flooring
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
74%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+30.8%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 918 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month