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 non-final Office action is in response to Applicant’s patent application number 18/542,297 filed on 12/15/2023. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending and examined. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/15/2023 and 5/29/2024 are being considered by the examiner. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: there are no texts or descriptions under “Background” heading. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: an abbreviation “MOR” should spelled out once in the claims . 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-20 are 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 1, line 2; a citation “the corners” does not have a proper antecedent basis. Correction is required. Claims 2-20 depending upon the rejected claim 1 are also rejected. Re claim 1, lines 4-5; a citation “the at least one chamfered corner” does not have a proper antecedent basis, unless the applicant meant “the chamfered corner”? Clarification is required. Re claims 18-19; the applicant is excessively used an alternative phrase “or” through out the claims renders the claims indefinite and confusing because it is unclear which ratio is being definitely claimed. Furthermore, any citation after the phrase “or” is alternative or optional which is not being considered and required to meet. Re claims 18-19, line 1; a citation “the maximum stress/MOR” does not have a proper antecedent basic. 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- 3, 8, 11-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US No. 10,837,145 to Lanni . Re claim 1 : Lanni discloses in Figs. 2B, 2C, 3; a lintel block 100 comprising: a body 131 having a length 125 , a width 123 , and a height (wherein 10 points to, Fig. 2B) wherein at least one of the corners of the lintel block is a chamfered corner 141 (Fig. 3) , wherein the lintel block 100 further comprises at least one lost edge 140 adjacent the at least one chamfered corner 140 . Re claim 2 : wherein the chamfered corner 141 comprises a surface and at least 2 edges with obtuse angles (near 104 and 141, Fig. 3) . Re claim s 3 , 8 : wherein the body 131 inherently comprises a refractory material ; and wherein the at least one lost edge comprises an insulating material. Re claim 11: wherein the at least one lost edge is inherently porous. Re claim 12 : wherein the side surfaces of the at least one lost edge 140 are parallel to the side surfaces of the body 131 . Re claim s 13 , 14 : wherein the at least one lost edge 140 completes the chamfered corner 141 such that a corner 60 of the lintel block 100 comprising the chamfered corner 60 and the lost edge 140 comprises 3 flat orthogonal surfaces or rounded corner (Figs. 2C and 3) . Re claim 15 : wherein the lost edge 140 inherently comprises a protrusion (i.e. wherein a protrusion is a part of a recess part at 140) and the chamfered corner 141 comprises a recess (see Fig. 3) , wherein the protrusion fits within the recess (i.e. wherein a protrusion is a part of a recess part at 140 forming a whole corner when coupled the protrusion into the recess together ) . Re claim 16 : the lintel block 100 of claim 1 could be used to form a furnace and a burner. Re claim 17 : wherein the chamfered corner 60 of the lintel block 100 is a corner opposite the burner. 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) 4 -7 , 9-10 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US No. 10,837,145 to Lanni . Re claim s 4 , 5, 6, 7, 9 , 10 and 20 : Lanni discloses basic structures of the claimed invention as stated above but does not disclose expressly wherein the body or the lost edge comprises zircon, chromium, alumina, mullite or a combination thereof ; wherein the at least one lost edge consists of the same material as the body or different material than the body ; wherein the at least one lost edge comprises firebrick or heating fiberglass . However, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose different or same materials for the body and the lost edge in order to optimize structure strength purposes. Re claim s 18 and 19 : Lanni 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. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see attached PTO-892). Contact Information 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