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. Drawings The drawings are objected to because in figure 4, the meaning of “glass ceramic material for dental” is unclear . The word after “dental” appears to be missing. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph [0026], the conjunction between “NiO” and “Fe 2 O 3 ” is missing. It is unclear from the statements in paragraph [0026] if both a colorant and a fluorescent agent is required in the disclosed glass ceramic or if at least one can be present. This is because not all of the oxides listed in this paragraph act as both a colorant and a fluorescent agent . The meaning of the phrase “glass ceramic material for dental” in paragraphs [0015] and [0046] is unclear . The word after “dental” appears to be missing. The specification teaches the vacuum packaged first green body is subjected to a warm isostatic pressing treatment. This treatment is non-conventional in the art and thus the art does not have a definition, as to what heating temperatures are considered as “warm”. It is unclear what temperature range, besides the 50-150 o C range taught in the specification would be a warm temperature range. Appropriate correction is required. The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: The genus of claim 2, where the glass ceramic contains 1-6 mass% of any colorant and fluorescent agent. Paragraph [0026] teaches , in order to make the color of the glass ceramic similar to that of natural teeth, the glass ceramic needs to introduce colorants and fluorescent agents which are mainly one or a combination of TiO 2 , La 2 O 3 , V 2 O 5 , CeO 2 , NiO, Er 2 O 3 , Y 2 O 3 , Nd 2 O 3 , Pr 2 O 3 , Mn 2 O 3 , and Fe 2 O 3 . This teaching does not provide proper antecedent basis for the subject matter of claim 2, where the colorant and fluorescent agent can be any colorant and fluorescent agent ; not just those that make the color of the glass ceramic similar to that of natural teeth . Claim Objections Claim s 3 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 3, t he conjunction between “NiO” and “Fe 2 O 3 ” is missing. In addition, the phrase “more of ” in “combination of more of” should be deleted as it is grammatically incorrect. The phrase “a formula of claim 1” in claim 4 should be “the formula of claim 1” since claim 4 is referring back to the teachings in claim 1. 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 1-10 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. Claims 1-8 are indefinite as to what is the composition of the ceramic/crystals in the claimed and produced glass ceramic. Claims 9 and 10 are also indefinite since they include the glass ceramic of claim 1. It is noted that the specification teaches the claimed glass ceramic is a lithium silicate based glass ceramic in paragraph [0017]. Claims 2 and 3 are indefinite since it is unclear from the wording of the claims if both a colorant and a fluorescent agent is required in the disclosed glass ceramic or if at least one can be present. This is because not all of the oxides listed in claim 3 act as both a colorant and a fluorescent agent. Claims 4 and 8 are indefinite as to what is meant by “glass ceramic material for dental”. The word after “dental” appears to be missing. The term “ warm ” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ warm ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Th e claimed warm isostatic pressing treatment is non-conventional in the art and thus the art does not have a definition, as to what heating temperatures are considered as “warm”. It is unclear what temperature range, besides the 50-150 o C range taught in claim 7 would be a warm temperature range. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1 and 2 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6 of copending Application No. 18/475,632 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the glass ceramic having the composition of copending claim 1 and having the compositional limitations of copending claims 2-5 suggests the glass ceramic of claim 1 in this application. One of ordinary skill in the art would realize that the colorant and/or fluorescent agent of claim 6 could be added to any of the glass ceramics of copending claims 1-5. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to add the colorant and/or fluorescent agent of claim 6 to a glass ceramic having the composition of copending claim 1 and having the compositional limitations of copending claims 2-5 . The resulting glass ceramic suggests that of claim 2. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by CN 113264684 . The glass ceramic of examples 1, 3 and 5 of the reference has a composition that falls within the composition of claims 1 and 2 and meets the compositional requirements of claim 1. The glass ceramic of example 4 of the reference has a composition that falls within the composition of cla i ms 1 -3 and meets the compositional requirements of claim 1. 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. Claim s 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 113264684 . This reference teaches a glass-ceramic material comprising 60-80 mass% SiO 2 , 0.1-6 mass% Al 2 O 3 , 0.1-5 mass% of at least one of Na 2 O and B 2 O 3 , 0.1-6 mass% K 2 O, 10-20 mass% Li 2 O, 0.1-6 mass% of a nucleating agent such as P 2 O 5 , 0.5-5 mass% ZnO, 0.5-5 mass% ZrO 2 and 0-5 mass% of a coloring and fluorescent agent. The taught coloring and fluorescent agent can be at least one of CeO 2 , V 2 O 5 , NiO, Er 2 O 3 , Nd 2 O 3 , and Pr 2 O 3 . The amount and composition of the taught coloring and fluorescent agent overlaps and suggest the composition of claims 2 and 3. Product claims with numerical ranges which overlap prior art ranges were held to have been obvious under 35 USC 103. In re Wertheim 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Malagari 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974); In re Fields 134 USPQ 242 (CCPA 1962); In re Nehrenberg 126 USPQ 383 (CCPA 1960). Also see MPEP 2144.05. The taught glass ceramic composition overlaps that of claim 1, meets the requirements that the total percentage of silica, alumina and zirconia is greater than that of the alkali metal oxides and that the mass percentages of lithium oxide is greater than the mass percentage of phosphorous pentoxide, and calculated ratios and differences overlap those of claim 1. The reference suggests the claimed glass ceramic material. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4-10 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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. There is no teaching or suggestion in the cited art of record of producing a lithium silicate based glass ceramic by the process which includes the step of vacuum-packing a green body of dry molded glass particles and the n isostatic pressing the packaged green body at 50-1 50 o C and 100-200 MPa for 6-20 min. The art either teaches cold isostatic pressing a green body of dry molded glass particles or hot isostatic pressing a green body of dry molded glass particles , where the temperature is 500 o C or more. The crystal structure of the lithium silicate based glass ceramic produced by the processes of claims 4 using the conditions of claims 7 and 8 is different from the crystal structure of lithium silicate based glass ceramics produced by the method taught in the prior art. This means the glass ceramic material used to make dentures by sintering, as claimed in claim 9, is different from the prior art glass ceramic material used to make denture s. Thus means the sintered glass ceramic denture of the claims would also be different from prior art dentures. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT C. MELISSA KOSLOW whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1371 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Tues:7:45-3:45 EST;Thurs-Fri:6:30-2:00EST; and Wed:7:45-2:00EST . 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 Jonathan Johnson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1177 . 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. /C Melissa Koslow/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734 FILLIN "Examiner Stamp" \* MERGEFORMAT cmk 3/27/26