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 .
This final Office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 7/2/2026.
Currently, claims 1-20 are pending and examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/2/2026 was filed after the mailing date of the non-final Office action on 4/6/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 4 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.
Re claim 4, lines 1-2; a citation “wherein the body comprises zircon, chromium, or a combination thereof” is confusing and indefinite because it’s unclear whether the same or redundant limitation already cited in claim 1 (lines 3-4)? Correction is required.
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) 1-5, 7, 8, 11-14, 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US No. 2012/0082839 to Ha et al. (‘Ha’).
Re claims 1, 4: Ha discloses in Fig. 5; different shapes of a lintel block comprising: a body having a length, a width, and a height wherein the body comprises at least one corner, wherein the at least one corners (i.e. the fifth block on the left) is a chamfered corner (i.e. all , wherein the body comprises zircon, chromium (par. [0076], line 12), or a combination thereof; wherein the lintel block further comprises at least one lost edge adjacent the at least one chamfered corner (see Fig. 5).
Re claim 2: wherein the chamfered corner comprises a surface and at least edges with obtuse angles (see Fig. 5).
Re claims 3, 8, 11: wherein the body comprises a refractory material (i.e. par. [0068], lines 1-3); and wherein the at least one lost edge comprises an insulating material (par. [0068], lines 1-4); wherein the at least one lost edge is porous (see par. [0061]).
Re claims 5, 7: wherein the at least one lost edge consists of the same material as the body or chromium (see par. [0076], line 12).
Re claim 10: wherein the at least one lost edge comprises alumina (see par. [0163], line 4).
Re claim 12: wherein the side surfaces of the at least one lost edge are parallel to the side surfaces of the body (i.e. the first embodiment of a second row, Fig. 5).
Re claims 13, 14: wherein the at least one lost edge completes the chamfered corner such that a corner of the lintel block (Fig 5) comprising the chamfered corner and the lost edge comprises 3 flat orthogonal surfaces or rounded corner (Fig. 5, a block @ fourth row).
Re claims 16, 17: the lintel block of claim 1 could be used to form a furnace and a burner (par. [0163], line 5); and wherein the chamfered corner of the lintel block is a corner opposite the burner.
Re claim 20: A method of using the furnace of claim 16, further comprising heating fiberglass (par. [0056], line 14).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 6, 9, 10 18, 19are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US No. 2012/0082839 to Ha.
Re claims 6, 9: Ha discloses basic structures of the claimed invention as stated above but does not disclose expressly wherein the at least one lost edge consists of different material than the body; or comprises firebrick. However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose different material for the body and the lost edge in order to optimize structural strength purposes.
Re claims 18 and 19: Ha discloses basic structures of the claimed invention as stated above but does not discloses expressly wherein the maximum stress/MOR ratio of the body of the lintel block is no greater than 5 or at least 0.1. However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose appropriate ration between stress/MOR in order to compatible with a material strength for preventing the lintel block breakage, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14 and 16-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see attached PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to CHI Q. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7AM-5PM or email: chi.nguyen@uspto.gov. If attempt to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Brian Mattei can be reached at (571) 270-3238. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pairdirect.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866) 217-9197.
/CHI Q NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3635
PNG
media_image1.png
323
328
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Prosecution Insights