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. DETAILED ACTION This Office A ction is in response to the application filed on 10 /2 5 /202 3 . Currently claims 1- 15 are pending in the application. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Regarding claim 4, the claim recites “during the heat treatment, the sintered body is held at a heat treatment temperature of 600° C or higher and 1200° C or lower”. However, this limitation already exists in claim 1. Therefore, it fails to further limit the subject matter. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. 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 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. 103 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made 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 non-obviousness. 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. Claims 1- 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Sakamoto et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 202 2 /0 267215 A1), hereafter, referred to as “ Sakamoto ” . Regarding claim 1, Sakamoto teaches in (para . [ 004 9 ]) indicat ing that "NORTTAKE KATA N A (registered trademark) zirconia'' ( manufactured by Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc.), including yttria as the stabilizer ) used in example 1 is a commercially available zirconia pre-sintered body that contains yttria as a stabilizer. I n addition, Sakamoto teaches the firing of this pre-sintered body in an air furnace (para. [0020]) , and table 1 disclos ing a firing schedule of example 1 . Therefore, Sakamoto teaches a method for producing a zirconia sintered body by sintering a zirconia pre - sintered body that contains yttria in an air furnace. Her e , in view of the term "air furnace" , it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the firing is carried out at atmospheric pressure in an oxidizing atmosphere. Furthermore , in view of table 1 , a temperature of 1 560 ° C is maintained during the period between 32 minutes and 39 minutes after the start of firing, and it is therefore considered that firing is carried out for 7 minutes at 1 560 ° C . But Sakamoto fails to explicitly teach a coloring clement, however, Sakamoto indicates that "color formation by a composite oxide included in the zirconia molded body or the zirconia pre-sintered body is promoted" (para . [00 14 ]), and therefore , it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that this commercially available zirconia pre-sintered body contains a coloring e lement. Additionally, Sakamoto fails to explicitly teach in Example 1 a heat treatment step. However, t he description of the instant application indicates that ''in the heat treatment, the heat treatment temperature is maintained at any temperature between 600 ° C and 1200°C", indicat ing that "the heat treatment temperature may be a fixed temperature, but may have a temperature range", indicates that the temperature range of the heat treatment t e mperat ur e is "± 50°C" (para . [00 08 ] [0 076 ]) , and indicates t hat ''the holding time at the heat treatment temperature is , for example, 1 minute or longer" (see paragraph [0 078 ]). Therefore, in view of these statements, the “ heat treatment step" in the instant application involves maintaining a firing temperature and then gradually cooling. However, as Sakamoto teaches firing the pre-sintered body at 1560 ° C and then lowering the temperature to 1 100°C at a rate of 50°C/min, it is understood that the temperature is gradually lowered from 1200°C to 1100°C over a period of 2 minutes, and that this is a heat treatment in which a tempera tu re of 11 50 ° C±50 ° C is maintained. Therefore, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that Sakamoto teaches a heat treatment process, wherein the heat treatment is at 600 ° C or higher, and 1200° C or lower. Regarding claim 2 , as has been explained in rejection of claim 1, based on Sakamoto teach ing, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the sintered body of the zirconia containing the coloring element (para. [0014]) is a sintered body in the state of having been sintered by atmospheric pressure sintering (equivalent to an air furnace (para. [0020])) . Regarding claim 3 , as has been explained in rejection of claim 1, based on Sakamoto teaching, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the sintered body of the zirconia containing the coloring element (para. [0014]) is a sintered body in the state of having been sintered in an oxidizing atmosphere (equivalent to an air furnace (para. [0020])) . Regarding claim 4 , as has been explained in rejection of claim 1, based on Sakamoto teaching, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that during the heat treatment, the sintered body is held at a heat treatment temperature of 600° C or higher and 1200° C or lower (Table 1). Regarding claim 5 , as has been explained in rejection of claim 1, based on Sakamoto teaching, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the temperature range of the heat treatment is within a temperature range of ± 50° C (Table 1). Regarding claim 6 , as has been explained in rejection of claim 1, based on Sakamoto teaching, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that a holding time at the temperature of the heat treatment is shorter than 2 hours (Table 1). Regarding claim 7 , as has been explained in rejection of claim 1, based on Sakamoto teaching, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the atmosphere of the heat treatment is an oxidizing atmosphere. Regarding claim 8 , as has been explained in rejection of claim 1, based on Sakamoto teaching, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the heat treatment includes placing the sintered body of the zirconia containing the coloring element in a firing furnace heated to the temperature of the heat treatment to thereby subject the sintered body to the heat treatment (Table 1). Regarding claim 9 , as has been explained in rejection of claim 1, based on Sakamoto teaching, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the method further comprising, before the heat treatment, sintering colored zirconia in an oxidizing atmosphere to thereby obtain the sintered body of the zirconia containing the coloring element (Table 1). Regarding claim 10 , as has been explained in rejection of claim 1, based on Sakamoto teaching, it would have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the heat treatment includes cooling the sintered body held at a sintering temperature to the temperature of the heat treatment and holding the sintered body at the temperature o f the heat treatment to perform the heat treatment (Table 1). Regarding claim 1 1 , Sakamoto teaches a method for producing a zirconia sintered body by sintering a zirconia pre - sintered body ( "NORTTAKE KATA N A (registered trademark) zirconia'' (manufactured by Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc.), including yttria as the stabilizer) ) in example 1 in an air furnace . But Sakamoto fails to explicitly teach the difference in lightness or the difference in chroma bet w een a sintered body obtained in a heat treatment step and a coloring element-containing zirconia sintered body supplied to this step. However, Sakamoto teaches that it is possible to obtain a zirconia sintered body which exhibits suitable translucency, has excellent color tone, is suitable for use as a dental product, and suppresses an increase in lightness compared to sintered bodies obtained by general filing (a total firing time of 373 minutes; T able 6) despite having a short total firing time of 50 minutes or less (para . [006 5 ]; tables 6 and 8) , thereby teaching to optimize the lightness and chroma at desired level for the article. Therefore, the difference in lightness to be 5 or less and the chroma is at least 0.3 higher" or "the difference in lightness to be more than 5 and the difference in chroma is 10 or less" would be a matter of optimization performed under regular experimentation . Regarding claim 1 2 , Sakamoto teaches a method for producing a zirconia sintered body by sintering a zirconia pre - sintered body ( "NORTTAKE KATA N A (registered trademark) zirconia'' (manufactured by Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc.), including yttria as the stabilizer)) in the Examples. Although Sakamoto fails to explicitly teach a coloring clement, however, indicates that "color formation by a composite oxide included in the zirconia molded body or the zirconia pre-sintered body is promoted" (para . [00 14 ]) . Additionally, Sakamoto also teaches that oxides of Ti, Cr, Mn, Fe, Co, Ni, Ce, Pr, Tb, Er, and the like, as pigments ( para . [00 44 ] ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, that based on the teaching of Sakamoto, the coloring element is at least one selected from the group consisting of iron (Fe), cobalt (Co), manganese (Mn), nickel (Ni), copper (Cu), titanium (Ti), chromium (Cr), cerium (Ce), praseodymium (Pr), neodymium (Nd), erbium (Er), terbium (Tb) and ytterbium (Yb). Regarding claim s 1 3-14 , Sakamoto teaches that the zirconia contains a stabilizing element ; by teaching in (para . [ 004 9 ]) that "NORTTAKE KATA N A (registered trademark) zirconia'' (manufactured by Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc.), including yttria (yttrium oxide) as the stabilizer) used in example 1 is a commercially available zirconia pre-sintered body that contains yttria (yttrium oxide) as a stabilizer. Regarding claim 1 5 , Sakamoto teaches that the sintered body of the zirconia containing the coloring element contains alumina (Al2O 3) (para. [0042]) . Examiner’s Note The examiner included a few prior arts which were not used in the rejection but are relevant to the disclosure. JP 201 8 002495 A ( Yamashita et al.): Yam a shita teaches in Example 1 of mixing a zirconia powder containing 3 mo l %, of ytt r ia with neodymium oxide (para . [ 0077]), teaching to carrying out primary sintering at 1450°C in air and then carrying out a hot isostatic pressing ( HIP ) treatment at I 750°C (para . [0080]), and teaching lowering the temperature to room temperature and then heat treating the HIP-treated body for 1 hour at 1000 ° C in air to obtain a zirconia sintered body (para . [0082 ] - [ 0083]). US 2021/0061717 A1 (Ito et al.): Ito teaches a zirconia sintered body in which a transparent raw material and an opaque raw material are laminated (claims; ex a mple 1), indicates that the transparent raw material is a mixtu r e of a zirconium powder containing 10 mo l %, of yttria an d a zirconia powder containing titania (para . [01 42 ] ), and indicates that the opaque raw material comprises an alumina powder, a cobalt aluminate powder, a nickel oxide powder and a zirconia powder that contains 3 mol% of yttria (para . [0143]). In addition, Ito teaches sint e ring a molded body, in w hich a transparent raw material and an opaque raw material are laminated, for 2 hours at 1350 ° C in air at atmospheric pressure, then carr ying out a hot isostatic pressing (HIP) treatment at 1500°C, an d then annealing for 8 hours at 900°C in air to obtain a zirconia sintered body (para . [0145]). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M AMEEN whose telephone number is (469) 295 9214. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9.00 am to 6.00 pm (Central Time). 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, Christina Johnson can be reached on (571) 272-1176 . 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. /MOHAMMAD M AMEEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742