DETAILED ACTION The claims 1-15 are pending and presented for the examination. 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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/23/2023, 12/04/2024, and 01/30/2025 are 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Clai ms 1- 15 are r ejected 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 1 is drawn to a body that contains an aggregate, and the claim states that the aggregate comprises “a larger particle” and “a smaller particle.” Said larger and smaller particles are given average particle diameters. Because the larger and smaller particles are referred to in the singular, and average is a property of multiple larger/smaller particles, it is unclear if the aggregate is meant to contain multiple of each size particle, or just one particle. If the former, the claim should likely read that the secondary aggregate comprises a larger particle portion and a smaller particle portion, each portion having the respective average particle diameters. Claim 1 is also indefinite because the claim states that the aggregate comprises zirconia and a stabilizer, and when read in light of the remainder of the claim, it is not clear if the larger and smaller particles are meant to separately be the zirconia and stabilizer (i.e. the larger particle being only zirconia and the smaller particle being only stabilizer), or if the claim is also mean to cover situations wherein each size of particle can be constituted of both compositional components. Because of these ambiguities, the metes and bounds of claim 1 are unclear and the claim is indefinite under USC 112. Claims 2-8 are indefinite as depending from claim 1 and containing the indefinite limitations thereof. Claim 9 is indefinite because the method claim states that a powder (A) is used to produce a pre-sintered body, but there are not further active method steps recited in the claim. Thus, it is indefinite how said powder (A) is used in the process intended to be covered by the claim, and the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear. Claims 10-15 are also indefinite under USC 112 as depending from claim 9 and containing the indefinite limitations thereof. Claim 11 states that the stabilizer is the powder (a1). This language is not clear in indicating that all of the stabilizer component is represented by the powder with the particle size limitations of powder (a1), if this is the intended meaning. The language of the claim would seem to also potentially cover situations wherein powder (a1) contains some portion of stabilizer but is not exclusively the stabilizer component, and this lack of definitive bounds present in the claim limitation renders unclear the scope of the claim coverage. 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 . 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 , 3 -9, and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita et al (US 8722555) in view of Brodkin et al (US 7655586) . Regarding claim 1 , Yamashita et al teaches a high-strength transparent zirconia body and process for producing the same. Yamashita et al teaches that the inventive zirconia body is formed from a powder containing zirconia with a yttria stabilizer, and wherein the powder has an average crystallite size of 10-50 nm and an average secondary particle size of 100-500 nm (see columns 6-7, lines 65-3). The zirconia thus comprises a secondary aggregate (particle) that has a size range overlapping the range of the instant claim, and this secondary particulate comprises a smaller particle having a size falling within the corresponding range of claim 1. Because the secondary particle of Yamashita is equivalently sized to that of the instant claim in that it overlaps the 100-200 nm size range, the Yamashita particulate also comprises a larger particle having a size range that renders obvious the range of claim 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have selected from the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. See MPEP 2144.05. While Yamashita teaches a zirconia body formed from a zirconia particulate meeting the size range limitations of the instant claim, it differs from claim 1 in that Yamashita does not teach a pre-sintered body comprising said particulate, only a sintered body made therefrom. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yamashita et al in view of Brodkin et al in order to use the pre-sintering process taught in the latter in forming the Yamashita zirconia body. Brodkin et al teaches a sintered zirconia body prepared for the same dental restoration purposes as that taught by Yamashita et al, and formed from a zirconia particulate having equivalent nano-sized particles (see claim 1). Brodkin et al teaches that pre-sintered blanks may be formed from the zirconia particle prior to final sintering (see column 9, lines 18-22 and column 11, lines 40-45), and that doing so allows for subsequent milling into frameworks (see column 11, lines 50-55). One of ordinary skill would, from this teaching, have understood that pre-sintering the Yamashita zirconia particulate prior to firing would have the advantageous effect of allowing for such shaping by milling, and as such would have had motivation to prepare a pre-sintered body from said Yamashita particulate. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in the modification because of the aforementioned equivalence in zirconia composition and dental use of the Yamashita and Brodkin bodies. The prior art of record therefore teaches a pre-sintered body comprising zirconia particles meeting each size limitation of the instant claim 1, and the claim is not patentably distinct over the prior art of record. Regarding claim 3 , Yamashita et al teaches that the inventive body comprises yttria-stabilized zirconia. Regarding claim 4 , Yamashita et al teaches a content of yttria of 6-15 mol% (see claim 1). Per MPEP 2144.05, overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. Yamashita further teaches that it is preferred that the yttria and titania be in a state of solid solution with the zirconia. However, because this is a preferred state, the Yamashita teachings also encompass embodiments wherein the yttria is not entirely in said solid state, and as such, encompass embodiments meeting the further limitation of the instant claim 4. The claim is thus not patentably distinct. Regarding claim 5 , Brodkin et al teaches a pre-sintered body with a density of 50% theoretical. As theoretical density is approximately 5.84 g/cm 3 , this density of 2.9 g/cm 3 meets the further limitation of the instant claim. Regarding claim 6 , as shown above, Yamashita in view of Brodkin teaches a pre-sintered body having equivalent particle size properties and a density equivalent to that of the instant claims. The Yamashita body is also compositionally equivalent. It necessarily follows, therefore, that sintering the pre-sintered body taught by Yamashita in view of Brodkin according to the conditions of the instant claim would lead to a body having equivalent average crystal grain size. It is well settled that when a claimed composition appears to be substantially the same as a composition disclosed in the prior art, the burden is properly upon the applicant to prove by way of tangible evidence that the prior art composition does not necessarily possess characteristics attributed to the CLAIMED composition. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Circ. 1990); In re Fitzgerald, 619 F.2d 67, 205 USPQ 594 (CCPA 1980); In re Swinehart , 439 F.2d 2109, 169 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971). The body taught by the prior art of record would therefore have an average grain size of less than 0.70 µm, and claim 6 is not patentably distinct over the prior art of record. Regarding claim 7 , Yamashita does not teach firing at temperatures up to 1500 °C for compositions meeting each limitation of the instant claims. However, as discussed above, Yamashita renders obvious such compositions through routine optimization and experimentation with the overlapping compositional ranges. As also shown above, the equivalent pre-sintered body taught by Yamashita in view of Brodkin would necessarily result in a sintered body having equivalent density when sintered according to the conditions of the instant claim. The equivalent pre-sintered body must be understood to behave equivalently during sintering, and as such the further property limitations of claim 7 are met by the teachings of the prior art of record. Regarding claim 8 , as discussed above, Yamashita teaches a zirconia body formed from a powder having primary crystallites with a size of 10-50 nm and secondary particles with a size of 100-500 nm. It is not specified which would be prominent (most frequent particle diameter) in a pre-sintered body produced through obvious modification with Brodkin et al. However, the choice of the crystallite as most frequent diameter is one of only two possibilities of the mixture, and as such it would be a matter of routine optimization and experimentation with the Yamashita teachings for one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at a pre-sintered body having a particle size distribution meeting the peak limitations of instant claim 8. Regarding claim 9 , as discussed above for claim 1, Yamashita et al teaches a zirconia particulate used to form zirconia bodies that meets each particle size limitation of the instant claim. As also discussed above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify Yamashita et al in view of Brodkin et al to use the inventive particulate is a method to form a pre-sintered body. This method of the combined prior art therefore meets each limitation of process claim 9, and the claim is obvious and not patentably distinct over the prior art of record. Regarding claim 11 , Yamashita teaches that the larger particulate having size 100-500 nm comprises a yttria portion. Regarding claim 12 , Yamashita et al teaches a content of yttria of 6-15 mol% (see claim 1). Per MPEP 2144.05, overlapping ranges have been held to establish prima facie obviousness. Yamashita further teaches that it is preferred that the yttria and titania be in a state of solid solution with the zirconia. However, because this is a preferred state, the Yamashita teachings also encompass embodiments wherein the yttria is not entirely in said solid state, and as such, encompass embodiments meeting the further limitation of the instant claim 12. The claim is thus not patentably distinct. Regarding claim 13 , Yamashita et al teaches that the inventive body comprises yttria-stabilized zirconia. Regarding claim 14 , Brodkin teaches that the inventive nano-particulate starting powder is prepared by spray drying granulation (see column 5, lines 55-60 and column 7, lines 40-45). Thus , when modifying Yamashita in view of Brodkin , one would have used such a method to form the called for combined zirconia and yttria powders . This would constitute a slurry of the zirconia 10-50 nm powder and the titania component having a size of 500 nm or less. Each limitation of the claim is therefore met by the prior art of record and the claim is patentably indistinct. Regarding claim 15 , Yamashita teaches producing a sintered body through firing, and thus in the modified method discussed above one would have fired the pre-sintered body obviously produced through modification in view of Brodkin . Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 2 and 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art, either alone or in combination, fails to teach or suggest a pre-sintered body meeting each limitation of instant claim 1, and wherein the body comprises 15-85 wt % of the larger particle portion and 15-85 wt % smaller particle portion. The prior art also fails to teach or suggest a method meeting each limitation of instant claim 9, and wherein the powder (A) comprises 15-85 wt % of powder (a1) and 15-85 wt % powder (a2). Conclusion 1 2 . No claim is allowed. 1 3 . The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1 4 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT NOAH S WIESE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3596 . The exam iner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 7:30am-4:30pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Orlando can be reached on 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 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://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /NOAH S WIESE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1731 NSW 12 December 2025