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 . Claim Objections Claims 1, 10, and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: in lines 2-3, claim 1 recites “at least 75 wt.% of for a total weight of the zircon body.” The combination “of for” following “75 wt.%” is nonsensical. An identical co mpound construction occurs in line 5 of claim 10 and in line 2 of claim 11. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 4, there is an unnecessary space between the letters “n” and “d” in the word “and . ” 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 s 9 and 11 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. Claim 9 introduces “a crystalline phase comprising zirconia (ZrO 2 )”; it is not immediately clear whether this crystalline phase is distinct from the “crystalline phase including zircon” introduced in line 2 of independent claim 1, from which claim 9 depends. The confusion as to which crystalline phase is intended leaves one of ordinary skill in the art uncertain as to the meaning and scope of the claim. For purposes of claim interpretation, the crystalline phase introduced in claim 9 will be treated as a secondary crystalline phase, separate from the crystalline phase including zircon introduced in claim 1, this reading appearing to agree best with the Specification (see paragraph 0080). Claim 11 introduces “a crystalline phase including zircon”; it is not immediately clear whether this crystalline phase is distinct from the “crystalline phase” introduced in claim 10, from which claim 11 depends. The confusion as to which crystalline phase is intended leaves one of ordinary skill in the art uncertain as to the meaning and scope of the claim. For purposes of claim interpretation, the crystalline phase introduced in claim 11 will be treated as a second crystalline phase so as to distinguish it from the crystalline phase introduced in line 3 of claim 10 , this reading appearing to agree best with the Specification (see paragraphs 0074 and 0077-0078). 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. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 1- 9 and 17- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pat. Pub. 2019/0169073 to Backhaus- Ricoult et al. (hereinafter “Backhaus- Ricoult ”) in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. 2016/0362342 to Sugiyama et al. (hereinafter “Sugiyama”). Regarding claim 1, Backhaus- Ricoult teaches a refractory object (see ¶¶ 0084-0086; Abstract) comprising a ceramic body (¶ 0079), which in some embodiments is a zircon body (¶ 0083). Backhaus- Ricoult teaches wherein the zircon body comprises a crystalline phase (i.e., ceramic phase) including zircon (see ¶ 0129; claims 61, 62) and an amorphous phase (i.e., a glass phase) (see ¶¶ 0009, 0088). Backhaus- Ricoult teaches that the amorphous phase (glass phase), in various embodiments, comprises from about 1 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of the zircon body (¶ 0131); one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would conclude that the remaining weight percentage of the zircon body (i.e., from 90 wt.% to 99 wt.%) is made up of the ceramic phase, i.e., the crystalline phase (see ¶ 0009; claim 1). These taught ranges fall within the claimed ranges for the weight percentages of the crystalline phase and amorphous phase recited in claim 1. Backhaus- Ricoult teaches wherein the amorphous phase comprises one or more alkaline earth materials (see ¶¶ 0090, 0113); and Backhaus- Ricoult teaches that “alkaline earth concentration in the glass phase can be less than or equal to about 2 wt %, e.g., ranging from about 0.05 wt % to about 2 wt %” (¶ 0131). H owever, Backhaus- Ricoult does not explicitly teach wherein the amorphous phase comprises an alkaline earth oxide including for a total weight of the amorphous phase CaO of at least 3.4 wt.%, BaO of at least 0.5 wt.%, SrO of greater than 0.1 wt.%, or a combination thereof. Sugiyama, in the same field of endeavor (ceramic refractory materials based on zirconium), teaches a refractory object comprising zirconium-based crystals dispersed in a glass phase ( ¶ 0010), with the glass phase including, in some embodiments, BaO , SrO , or both (see ¶¶ 0072, 105). Sugiyama teaches that the ZrO 2 content (that is, the crystalline component) of the refractory object is preferably 85 wt.% to 95 wt.% of the refractory object ( ¶¶ 0089-0090); thus, the glass phase is generally from 5 wt.% to 15 wt.% of the refractory object. Sugiyama further teaches that, when the glass phase includes SrO , the SrO is present in an amount of 0.01 wt.% to 3.0 wt.% as a percentage of the refractory object as a whole; and, when the glass phase includes BaO , the BaO is present in an amount of 0.05 wt.% to 3.0 wt.% as a percentage of the refractory object as a whole (see ¶ 0109; claim 14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Backhaus- Ricoult by including BaO and/or SrO in the amorphous phase of the zircon body , as taught by Sugiyama . Motivation to do so would come from a desire to reduce the risk of cracks developing in the refractory object from the formation of new zircon crystals from the reaction between material in the glass phase and molten glass placed in the refractory object during use (see Sugiyama at ¶¶ 0023, 0103-0107). Sugiyama teaches that the glass phase is generally from 5 wt.% to 15 wt.% of the refractory object (see above); that, when the glass phase includes SrO , the SrO is present in an amount of 0.01 wt.% to 3.0 wt.% as a percentage of the refractory object as a whole; and that, when the glass phase includes BaO , the BaO is present in an amount of 0.05 wt.% to 3.0 wt.% as a percentage of the refractory object as a whole (see ¶ 0109; claim 14). In modifying Backhaus- Ricoult , one of ordinary skill in the art, guided by the taught ranges in Sugiyama, would have found it obvious to include an amount of BaO or SrO in the amorphous phase such that, for a total weight of the amorphous phase , BaO is at least 0.5wt.% or SrO of greater than 0.1 wt.% . For instance, if BaO is 1.5 wt.% of the zircon body as a whole (see Sugiyama at ¶ 0110), and the amorphous phase is 10 wt.% of the zircon body as a whole (see Backhaus- Ricoult at ¶ 0131; Sugiyama at ¶ 0089), then BaO is (1.5/10) = 15 wt.% of a total weight of the amorphous phase . Similarly, if SrO is 1.5 wt.% of the zircon body as a whole (see Sugiyama at ¶ 0110), and the amorphous phase is 10 wt.% of the zircon body as a whole (see Backhaus- Ricoult at ¶ 0131; Sugiyama at ¶ 0089), then SrO is (1.5/10) = 15 wt.% of a total weight of the amorphous phase . Thus, in view of Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Sugiyama, a refractory object reading on every limitation of claim 1 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Regarding claim s 2 and 3 , Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Sugiyama teaches the refractory object wherein the amorphous phase comprises from about 1 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of the zircon body ( Backhaus- Ricoult at ¶ 0131) and wherein BaO is present in an amount of 0.05 wt.% to 3.0 wt.% (see Sugiyama at ¶ 0109). Within these ranges, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a content of BaO falling within the recited ranges of claim 2 or claim 3. For example, if BaO is 1.5 wt.% of the zircon body as a whole (see Sugiyama at ¶ 0110), and the amorphous phase is 10 wt.% of the zircon body as a whole (see Backhaus- Ricoult at ¶ 0131; Sugiyama at ¶ 0089), then BaO is (1.5/10) = 15 wt.% of a total weight of the amorphous phase —a value falling within the recited ranges of both claims. Regarding claim 4, Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Sugiyama teaches the refractory object wherein the amorphous phase includes silica (SiO 2 ) in an amount of 3.5 wt.% to 10.0 wt.% as a percentage of the zircon body as a whole (see Sugiyama at ¶ 0091). As set forth above, Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Sugiyama teaches wherein BaO is present in an amount of 0.05 wt.% to 3.0 wt.% (see Sugiyama at ¶ 0109). Within these ranges, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a content of BaO ( C BaO ) and a content of SiO 2 (C SiO2 ) such that a ratio of C SiO2 to C BaO is not greater than 25 and at least 2 ; for example, a C SiO2 of 4.0 wt.% (see Sugiyama at ¶ 009 1 ) and a C BaO of 1.0 wt.% (see Sugiyama at ¶ 0111) would give a ratio of C Al2O3 to C BaO equal to ( 4.0 /1.0) = 4.0 , within the claimed range. Regarding claim 5, Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Sugiyama teaches the refractory object wherein the amorphous phase comprises from about 1 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of the zircon body ( Backhaus- Ricoult at ¶ 0131) and wherein SrO is present in an amount of 0.01 wt.% to 3.0 wt.% (see Sugiyama at ¶ 0109). Within these ranges, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select a content of SrO falling within the recited range of claim 5. For example, if SrO is 1.5 wt.% of the zircon body as a whole (see Sugiyama at ¶ 0110), and the amorphous phase is 10 wt.% of the zircon body as a whole (see Backhaus- Ricoult at ¶ 0131; Sugiyama at ¶ 0089), then SrO is (1.5/10) = 15 wt.% of the total weight of the amorphous phase . Regarding claim 6, Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Sugiyama teaches the refractory object wherein the amorphous phase comprises from about 1 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of the zircon body ( Backhaus- Ricoult at ¶ 0131); wherein the combined total content of SrO and BaO is from 0.01 wt.% to 3.0 wt.% of the zircon body (Sugiyama at ¶ 0113); and wherein CaO is present in very small amounts (see Sugiyama at ¶ 0117-0119, teaching a preferred content of CaO of 0.01 to 0.10 wt.%). From these taught ranges, one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to derive an effective range for a total content of alkaline earth oxide substantially overlapping the recited range in claim 6. For instance, a zircon body comprising 10 wt.% amorphous phase, 3.0 wt.% SrO+BaO , and 0.10 wt.% CaO would have a total content of alkaline earth oxide as a percentage of the total weight of amorphous phase equal to (3.0+0.10)/10 = 3.1/10 = 31 wt.%, within the range recited in claim 6. Regarding claim 7, Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Sugiyama teaches the refractory object wherein the amorphous phase includes alumina (Al 2 O 3 ) in an amount of 0.1 to less than 1.0 wt.% as a percentage of the zircon body as a whole (see Sugiyama at ¶¶ 0093-0094). As set forth above, Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Sugiyama teaches wherein BaO is present in an amount of 0.05 wt.% to 3.0 wt.% (see Sugiyama at ¶ 0109). Within these ranges, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to select a content of BaO ( C BaO ) and a content of Al 2 O 3 (C Al2O3 ) such that a ratio of C Al2O3 to C BaO is not greater than 10 and at least 0.5; for example, a C Al2O3 of 0.8 wt.% (see Sugiyama at ¶ 0094) and a C BaO of 1.0 wt.% (see Sugiyama at ¶ 0111) would give a ratio of C Al2O3 to C BaO equal to (0.8/1.0) = 0.8, within the claimed range. Regarding claim 8, Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Sugiyama teaches the refractory object of claim 1, as set forth above. One of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would expect that the refractory object of Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Sugiyama, being compositionally equivalent to claimed invention, of necessity would possess the material properties of the claimed invention, including the creep deformation rate characteristics recited in claim 8, since products of identical composition are presumed not to have mutually exclusive properties (MPEP 2112.01(II)) . Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph). Regarding claim 9, Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Sugiyama teaches the refractory object wherein the zircon body comprises a secondary crystalline phase of about 0.001 wt . % to about 5 wt . % (see Backhaus- Ricoult at ¶ 0130) and wherein the zircon body includes zirconia (ZrO 2 ) ( Backhaus- Ricoult at ¶ 0129); therefore, it would have been obvious for the zircon body to comprise a secondary crystalline phase of zirconia (ZrO 2 ) of not greater than 5 wt.% for the total weight of the zircon body. Regarding claim 17, Backhaus- Ricoult teaches a refractory object (see ¶¶ 0084-0086; Abstract) comprising a ceramic body (¶ 0079), which in some embodiments is a zircon body (¶ 0083). Backhaus- Ricoult teaches wherein the zircon body comprises a crystalline phase (i.e., ceramic phase) including zircon (see ¶ 0129; claims 61, 62) and an amorphous phase (i.e., a glass phase) (see ¶¶ 0009, 0088). Backhaus- Ricoult teaches that the amorphous phase (glass phase), in various embodiments, comprises from about 1 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of the zircon body (¶ 0131); one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would conclude that the remaining weight percentage of the zircon body (i.e., from 90 wt.% to 99 wt.%) is made up of the ceramic phase, i.e., the crystalline phase (see ¶ 0009; claim 1); this range overlaps the recited range of at least 70 wt.% and not greater than 97 wt.% recited in claim 17. In a case where claimed ranges “ overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, ” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05) . Backhaus- Ricoult teaches wherein the refractory object has a creep rate of less than 8 E -6 h -1 at a temperature of 1300 °C and a stress of 625 psi (about 4.3 MPa) (see ¶ 0132; claim 2). However, Backhaus- Ricoult does not explicitly teach that the zircon body of the refractory object has a creep deformation rate of not greater than about 1.5 E -5 h -1 at a temperature of 1350 ° C and a stress of 2 MPa; not greater than about 7.5 E -6 h -1 at a temperature of 1325 ° C and a stress of 2 MPa; not greater than about 3.5 E -6 h -1 at a temperature of 1300 ° C and a stress of 2 MPa; or any combination thereof . Sugiyama, in the same field of endeavor (ceramic refractory materials based on zirconium), teaches a refractory object comprising zirconium-based crystals dispersed in a glass phase ( ¶ 0010), with the glass phase including, in some embodiments, BaO , SrO , or both (see ¶¶ 0072, 105). Sugiyama also teaches wherein the amorphous phase includes alumina Al 2 O 3 (see ¶¶ 0092-0094). Sugiyama teaches that the crystalline component of the refractory object is preferably 85 wt.% to 95 wt.% of the refractory object ( ¶¶ 0089-0090); thus, the glass phase is generally from 5 wt.% to 15 wt.% of the refractory object. Sugiyama teaches wherein the amorphous phase includes alumina Al 2 O 3 in an amount of 0.1 to less than 1.0 wt.% as a percentage of the zircon body as a whole (see ¶¶ 0093-0094). Sugiyama further teaches that, when the glass phase includes SrO , the SrO is present in an amount of 0.01 wt.% to 3.0 wt.% as a percentage of the refractory object as a whole; and, when the glass phase includes BaO , the BaO is present in an amount of 0.05 wt.% to 3.0 wt.% as a percentage of the refractory object as a whole (see ¶ 0109; claim 14). Sugiyama teaches that the glass phase includes CaO in very small amounts (see ¶ 0117-0119, teaching a preferred content of CaO of 0.01 to 0.10 wt.%) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Backhaus- Ricoult by including Al 2 O 3 and alkaline earth oxides ( CaO along with BaO and/or SrO ) in the amorphous phase of the zircon body, as taught by Sugiyama. Motivation to do so would come from a desire to reduce the risk of cracks developing in the refractory object from the formation of new zircon crystals from the reaction between material in the glass phase and molten glass placed in the refractory object during use (see Sugiyama at ¶¶ 0023, 0103-0107). Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Sugiyama teaches a refractory object compositionally equivalent to claimed invention (compare to Applicant’s Specification at paragraphs 0039, 0053-0054; Abstract) . One of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would expect that the refractory object of Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Sugiyama of necessity would possess the material properties of the claimed invention, including the creep deformation rate characteristics recited in claim 17 , since products of identical composition are presumed not to have mutually exclusive properties (MPEP 2112.01(II)) . Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of obviousness has been established (see MPEP 2112.01(I), first paragraph). Regarding claim 18, Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Sugiyama teaches wherein the zircon body comprises a content of alumina (Al 2 O 3 ), C Al2O3 , of 0.1 wt.% to less than 1.0 wt.% for a total weight of the zircon body (see Sugiyama at ¶¶ 0093-0094), which is very close to the lower end of the claimed range in claim 18. A prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap but are merely close (see MPEP 2144.05(I), second paragraph) . Regarding claim 19, Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Sugiyama teaches ranges for Al 2 O 3 and alkaline earth oxides (see above, p. 11) such that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select proportions of Al 2 O 3 and alkaline earth oxides such that a ratio of C Al2O3 to C AKO is at least 6 and not greater than 20. For instance, an embodiment in which Al2O3 is 1.0 wt.%, BaO is 0.05 wt.%, SrO is 0.01 wt.%, and CaO is 0.01 wt.% would have a ratio C Al2O3 / C AKO equal to 1.0/(0.05+0.01+0.01) = 1.0/(0.07) = 14.3. Regarding claim 20, Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Sugiyama teaches the refractory object wherein the zircon body comprises an alkaline earth oxide including BaO in a range of 0.05 wt.% to 3.0 wt.% for the total weight of the zircon body (see Sugiyama at ¶ 0109), a range which substantially overlaps the claimed range of at least 0.1 wt.% and not greater than 4 wt.%. In a case where claimed ranges “ overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, ” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05). Claim(s) 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Backhaus- Ricoult in view of Sugiyama and in view of U.S. Pat. Pub. 2009/0295045 to Akash et al. (hereinafter “Akash”). Regarding claim 10, Backhaus- Ricoult teaches a refractory object (see ¶¶ 0084-0086; Abstract) comprising a ceramic body (¶ 0079), which in some embodiments is a zircon body (¶ 0083). Backhaus- Ricoult teaches wherein the zircon body comprises a crystalline phase (i.e., ceramic phase) including zircon (see ¶ 0129; claims 61, 62) , and Backhaus- Ricoult teaches wherein the zircon body comprises “ at least one secondary crystalline phase ” of about 0.001 wt . % to about 5 wt . % ( see ¶ 01 30) ; this range for the secondary crystalline phase overlaps the recited range of at least 0.01 wt.% to not greater than 20 wt.% recited in claim 10. In a case where claimed ranges “ overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, ” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05) . Backhaus- Ricoult teaches wherein the zircon body comprises an amorphous phase (i.e., a glass phase) (see ¶¶ 0009, 0088). Backhaus- Ricoult teaches that the amorphous phase (glass phase), in various embodiments, comprises from about 1 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of the zircon body (¶ 0131) . Backhaus- Ricoult teaches wherein the ceramic body of the refractory object comprises mullite (see ¶¶ 0045, 0129). However, Backhaus- Ricoult does not explicitly teach that the secondary crystalline phase (i.e., the crystalline phase comprising about 0.001 wt.% to about 5 wt.% of the zircon body) comprises mullite, sillimanite, andalusite, or any combination thereof. Akash, in the closely related field of endeavor of processes for making insulation and refractory components (Abstract), teaches a ceramic material that includes a second phase material comprising mullite (see ¶¶ 0038, 0050; claims 1, 39, 47). Akash teaches that the second phase material, such as mullite, may be included in the ceramic material as a reinforcement phase , added for “ strength enhancement, improved toughness, shrinkage control, thermal expansion control, or superior damage tolerance ” ( ¶ 0039). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Backhaus- Ricoult by including mullite as a secondary crystalline phase in the zircon body, as taught by Akash. Design incentives—including a desire to improve the toughness and damage tolerance of the refractory object—would prompt one of ordinary skill in the art to look to the teachings of Akash and to adapt the mullite reinforcement phase of Akash to the zircon body of Backhaus- Ricoult . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to implement the modification with predictable results and a high probability of success in producing a satisfactory refractory object. See MPEP 2143(I)(F). Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Akash teaches that the zircon body of the refractory object includes an amorphous phase (see Backhaus- Ricoult at ¶¶ 0009, 0088), with the amorphous phase comprising from about 1 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of the zircon body (Backhaus- Ricoult at ¶ 0131). Further, Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Akash teaches wherein the amorphous phase comprises silicon (see Backhaus- Ricoult at ¶ 0 128 ) . Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Akash teaches wherein the amorphous phase comprises one or more alkaline earth materials (see Backhaus- Ricoult at ¶¶ 0090, 0113) and wherein “alkaline earth concentration in the glass phase can be less than or equal to about 2 wt %, e.g., ranging from about 0.05 wt % to about 2 wt %” ( see Backhaus- Ricoult at ¶ 0131). However, Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Akash does not explicitly teach wherein the amorphous phase comprises silica (SiO 2 ) of at least 20 wt.% for a total weight of the amorphous phase and an alkaline earth oxide including BaO , SrO , CaO , or a combination thereof, wherein a ratio of C SiO2 to C AKO of not greater than 16 and at least 2, wherein C SiO2 is a content of silica relative to the total weight of the amorphous phase, and C AKO is a total content of alkaline earth oxide relative to the total weight of the amorphous phase . Sugiyama, in the same field of endeavor as Backhaus- Ricoult (ceramic refractory materials based on zirconium), teaches a refractory object comprising zirconium-based crystals dispersed in a glass phase (¶ 0010), with the glass phase including silica (SiO 2 ) (see ¶ 0091) and including , in some embodiments, BaO , SrO , or both (see ¶¶ 0072, 105). Further, Sugiyama teaches that the glass phase includes CaO in very small amounts (see ¶ 0117-0119, teaching a preferred content of CaO of 0.01 to 0.10 wt.%). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Akash by including SiO 2 and an alkaline earth oxide including CaO together with BaO and/or SrO in the amorphous phase of the zircon body, as taught by Sugiyama. Motivation to do so would come from a desire to reduce the risk of cracks developing in the refractory object from the formation of new zircon crystals from the reaction between material in the glass phase and molten glass placed in the refractory object during use (see Sugiyama at ¶¶ 0023, 0103-0107). Sugiyama teaches that the ZrO 2 content (that is, the crystalline component) of the refractory object is preferably 85 wt.% to 95 wt.% of the refractory object (¶¶ 0089-0090); thus, the glass phase is generally from 5 wt.% to 15 wt.% of the refractory object. Sugiyama teaches that SiO 2 is a “main component” of the glass phase (i.e., the amorphous phase), with in an amount of 3.5 wt.% to 10.0 wt.% as a percentage of the refractory object as a whole (¶ 0091). Sugiyama further teaches that, when the glass phase includes SrO , the SrO is present in an amount of 0.01 wt.% to 3.0 wt.% as a percentage of the refractory object as a whole; and, when the glass phase includes BaO , the BaO is present in an amount of 0.05 wt.% to 3.0 wt.% as a percentage of the refractory object as a whole (see ¶ 0109; claim 14). Sugiyama teaches CaO is present in a preferred amount of 0.01 to 0.10 wt.% as a percentage of the refractory object as a whole (see at ¶ 0117-0119). Within these ranges taught by Sugiyama, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select proportions of SiO 2 and alkaline earth oxides such that SiO 2 is at least 20 wt.% for a total weight of the amorphous phase and such that a ratio of C SiO2 to C AKO of not greater than 16 and at least 2, wherein C SiO2 is a content of silica relative to the total weight of the amorphous phase, and C AKO is a total content of alkaline earth oxide relative to the total weight of the amorphous phase. For example, a zircon body with an amorphous phase comprising (as percentages of the zircon body as a whole) 6.6 wt.% SiO 2 , 0. 51 wt.% BaO , 0.45 wt.% SrO , 0. 05 wt.% CaO , and 1.6 9 wt.% other components (for a total amorphous phase of 9.3 wt.%) (see , for comparison, Sugiyama at p. 11, Table 1, Example 1 2 ) would have an amorphous phase in which C SiO2 is (6.6/9.3) = 71 wt.% for a total weight of the amorphous phase (much higher than the 20 wt.% lower limit recited in claim 10) and C AKO is (0.51+0.45+0.05)/9.3 = (1.01)/9.3 = 11 wt.% for a total weight of the amorphous phase , such that a ratio of C SiO2 to C AKO is (71/11) = 6.5 (which is within the range of not greater than 16 and at least 2 recited in claim 10). Thus, in view of Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Akash and Sugiyama, a refractory object reading on every limitation of claim 10 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 11, Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Akash and Sugiyama teaches wherein the amorphous phase (glass phase), in various embodiments, comprises from about 1 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of the zircon body (see Backhaus- Ricoult at ¶ 0131). Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Akash and Sugiyama also teaches wherein the at least one secondary crystalline phase comprises about 0.001 wt.% to about 5 wt.% (see Backhaus- Ricoult at ¶ 0130) . One of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would conclude that the remaining weight percentage of the zircon body (i.e., from 85 wt.% to about 9 8.999 wt.%) is made up of the ceramic phase, i.e., the crystalline phase including zircon (see Backhaus- Ricoult at ¶ 0009; claim 1) ; this range falls within the claimed range of at least 75 wt.%. Regarding claim s 12 and 13 , Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Akash and Sugiyama teaches wherein the zircon body comprises from about 1 wt.% to about 10 wt.% of amorphous phase for the total weight of the zircon body (see Backhaus- Ricoult at ¶ 0131 ); this range heavily overlaps the recited ranges of 0.5-20 wt.% in claim 12 and 2-15 wt.% in claim 13. In a case where claimed ranges “ overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, ” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05) . Regarding claim 1 4 , Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Akash and Sugiyama teaches wherein the amorphous phase further comprises alumina (Al 2 O 3 ) (see Sugiyama at ¶¶ 0092-0094). Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Akash and Sugiyama teaches wherein the amorphous phase includes alumina (Al 2 O 3 ) in an amount of 0.1 to less than 1.0 wt.% as a percentage of the zircon body as a whole (see Sugiyama at ¶¶ 0093-0094). Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Akash and Sugiyama teaches wherein , when the glass phase includes SrO and BaO , the combined amount of SrO and BaO is in the range of 0.01 wt.% to 3.0 wt.% as a percentage of the refractory object as a whole (see Sugiyama at ¶ 01 13 ). Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Akash and Sugiyama also teaches wherein CaO is present in the amorphous phase in a preferred amount of 0.01 to 0.10 wt.% as a percentage of the refractory object as a whole (see at ¶ 0117-0119). Within these taught ranges , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select proportions of Al 2 O 3 and alkaline earth oxides such that a ratio of C Al2O3 to C AKO is not greater than 13 and at least 0.5, wherein C Al2O3 is a content of alumina relative to the total weight of the amorphous phase, and C AKO is a total content of alkaline earth oxide relative to the total weight of the amorphous phase . For instance, a zircon body with an amorphous phase comprising (as percentages of the zircon body as a whole) 6.6 wt.% SiO 2 , 0.65 wt.% Al 2 O 3 , 0.51 wt.% BaO , 0.45 wt.% SrO , 0.05 wt.% CaO , and 1. 04 wt.% other components (for a total amorphous phase of 9.3 wt.%) (see, for comparison, Sugiyama at p. 11, Table 1, Example 12) would have an amorphous phase in which C Al2O3 is ( 0.65 /9.3) = 7 .0 wt.% for a total weight of the amorphous phase and C AKO is (0.51+0.45+0.05)/9.3 = (1.01)/9.3 = 11 wt.% for a total weight of the amorphous phase , such that a ratio of C Al2O3 to C AKO is (7 .0 /11) = 0.64, which is within the range of not greater than 1 3 and at least 0.5 recited in claim 1 4 . Regarding claim 1 5 , Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Akash and Sugiyama teaches wherein the amorphous phase comprises the alkaline earth oxide including BaO (see Sugiyama at ¶¶ 0105, 0109). Regarding claim 16, Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Akash and Sugiyama teaches wherein the amorphous phase further comprises alumina (Al 2 O 3 ) (see Sugiyama at ¶¶ 0092-0094). Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Akash and Sugiyama teaches wherein the amorphous phase further comprises alumina (Al 2 O 3 ) (see Sugiyama at ¶¶ 0092-0094). Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Akash and Sugiyama teaches wherein the amorphous phase includes alumina (Al 2 O 3 ) in an amount of 0.1 to less than 1.0 wt.% as a percentage of the zircon body as a whole (see Sugiyama at ¶¶ 0093-0094). Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Akash and Sugiyama teaches wherein , when the glass phase includes SrO and BaO , the combined amount of SrO and BaO is in the range of 0.01 wt.% to 3.0 wt.% as a percentage of the refractory object as a whole (see Sugiyama at ¶ 01 13 ). Backhaus- Ricoult as modified by Akash and Sugiyama also teaches wherein CaO is present in the amorphous phase in a preferred amount of 0.01 to 0.10 wt.% as a percentage of the refractory object as a whole (see at ¶ 0117-0119). Within these taught ranges , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select proportions of Al 2 O 3 and alkaline earth oxides such that a total content of Al 2 O 3 and alkaline earth oxide is at least 22 wt.% for the total weight of the amorphous phase. For example, an embodiment comprising 0.8 wt.% Al 2 O 3 , 1.5 wt.% BaO , 1.5 wt.% SrO , and 0.1 wt.% CaO , for a refractory object comprising 10 wt.% amorphous phase as a whole, would have a total content of Al 2 O 3 and alkaline earth oxide of 0.8+1.5+1.5+0.1=3.9 wt.% of the refractory object as a whole, or 39 wt.% of the total weight of the amorphous phase. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : U.S. Pat. Pub. 2018 / 0093924 to Fourcade et al. (“Fourcade”) teaches a refractory object includ ing a zircon body that may include at least about 0.1 wt. % and not greater than about 5.5 wt. % of an Al 2 O 3 containing component for a total weight of the zircon body (Abstract) . The zircon body may further include at least about 25 wt. % and not greater than about 35 wt. % of a SiO 2 component for a total weight of the zircon body (Abstract). Fourcade teaches embodiments of the zircon body exhibiting a creep deformation rate of not greater than about 4.0 E−5 h −1 as measured using a three point bend test at a temperature of 1300 °C and a stress of 2 MPa (see ¶ 0110; claim 4). U . S. Pat. Pub. 2010/0028665 to Lu (“Lu”) teaches a composite material consisting essentially of zircon and sintering additives, with the sintering additives in some embodiments comprising alumina and alkaline earth oxides (Abstract). Lu teaches that the composite material exhibits a low creep rate at a high temperature (¶ 0032). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT PAUL A. FORSYTH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703) 756-5425 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M - Th 8:00 - 5:30 EDT and F 8:00 - 12:00 EDT . 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 AMBER R. ORLANDO can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-3149 . 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. /P.A.F./ /JENNIFER A SMITH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1731 Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1731