DETAILED ACTION An Office Action was mailed on 06/26/2025. Applicant filed a Response on 08/25/2025. Claims 1-16 are pending. 1-14 are rejected. Claims 15-16 are withdrawn from consideration. 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. Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-14, in the reply filed on 08/25/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Claims 15-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 08/25/2025. Claim Objections Claims 1 and 10 -11 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 3, it is suggested to amend the term “the ozone treated” to “an ozone treated” in order to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claims. Claim 1, line 7, it is suggested to amend the term “the ball-milled” to “a ball-milled” in order to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claims. Claim 10, line 3, it is suggested to amend the term “the ozone treated” to “an ozone treated” in order to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claims. Claim 10, line 6, it is suggested to amend the term “the ball-milled” to “a ball-milled” in order to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claims. Claim 10, line 7, it is suggested to amend the term “the ball-milled” to “a ball-milled” in order to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claims. Claim 11, line 13, it is suggested to amend the term “the ball-milled nano-zirconium” to “a ball-milled nano-zirconium” in order to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claims. Claim 11, line 14, it is suggested to amend the term “the ball-milled silane” to “a ball-milled silane” in order to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claims. Claim 11, line 14, it is suggested to amend the term “the ball-milled resin” to “a ball-milled resin” in order to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claims. Claim 11, line 14, it is suggested to amend the term “the ball-milled organic” to “a ball-milled organic” in order to ensure proper antecedent basis in the claims. Claim 11, line 15, it is suggested to amend the term “the ball-milled curing” to “a ball-milled curing” in order to ensure proper antecedent basis 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 4-9 and 11-14 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 4 recites the limitation "the ozone-treated nano-zirconium oxide dispersion" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 recites the limitation "the ozone-treated nano-zirconium oxide dispersion" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Amending the term “wherein the ozone-treated nano-metal oxide dispersion includes the ozone-treated nano-zirconium oxide dispersion” in claims 4 and 11 to “wherein the ozone-treated nano-metal oxide dispersion comprises an ozone-treated nano-zirconium oxide dispersion” can overcome these rejections. Regarding dependent claims 5-9 and 1 2 -1 4 , these claims do not remedy the deficiencies of parent claim s 4 and 11 respectively noted above, and are rejected for the same rationale. 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. Claims 1 -3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito et al, US 2021/0094301 (Ito) in view of Mise et al, US 6,123,759, taken in view of evidence by Meunier et al, US 3,591,248 (Meunier) . Regarding claims 1 and 10 , Ito teaches an ink composition for ink jet recording which contains a disperse colorant, and at least one organic solvent with an SP of 9 or more in an amount of 10.0% by mass or more (Ito; [0021]). The disperse colorant has an average particle diameter on a volume basis (D50) of 110 .0 nm or more and 200 .0 nm or more or less, more preferably 110 .0 nm or more and 170.0 nm or less, most preferably 115. 0 nm or more and 140.0 nm or less, as measured in the ink composition . With such a volume-average diameter, the particles of the disperse colorant do not easily precipitate in the ink composition, which helps achieve a stable dispersion for ink jet printing. Such a volume-average diameter also helps prevent clogging of the nozzles of the ink jet apparatus. In addition, the color density of the resulting image will be quite satisfactory (Ito; [0037-0038]. Suitable disperse colorants include inorganic pigments such as iron oxide, titanium oxide and zinc oxide (i.e., metal oxides as claimed), as well as carbon black (Ito; [0023]). Examples of white pigments include metal oxides such as titanium dioxide, zinc oxide, silica, alumina, and magnesium oxide (Ito; [0031]). As is evidenced by Meunier, titanium dioxide has a high refractive index, in excess as 2 (col. 3, lines 68-69). Therefore, Ito teaches high refractive inks as claimed. Preferably, the disperse colorant reaches stable dispersion in the ink. The pigment may be rendered self-dispersible through surface treatment of the pigment particles, such as by surface oxidation with ozone or hypochlorous acid (i.e., performing ozone-treatment on metal oxide pigments) (Ito; [0035]). The use of a self-dispersible colorant helps further reduce the possibility of the ink forming aggregates at a gas-liquid interface, thereby helping the performance of the ink in intermittent printing. Self-dispersant colorants are also superior in color strength for a given particle diameter (Ito; [0036]). The disperse colorants are obtained by pulverizing, for example using a bead mill , and then dispersing again (Ito; 0037]). Ito teaches a method of dispersing powdered furnace carbon black (primary particle diameter 250nm) in water. The mixture was heated to 50 o C with stirring. The powder was then pulverized in a sand mill using zirconia beads, and an aqueous solution of sodium hypochlorite was added dropwise over 3.5 hours while heating to 50-60 o C and while pulverizing (i.e., simultaneous surface oxidation, heating and bead milling) . The powder was then pulverized for another 60 minutes in the sand mill , giving a self-dispersible black pigment (i.e., the pigment is subjected to surface oxidation treatment, followed by bead milling) (Ito; [0096-0097]). The resulting self-dispersed pigment had a volu m e-average particle diameter of 115nm (Ito; [0092], Table 1, Example 1). Then 6% by mass of the pigment dispersion was mixed with 10 mass% glycerol, 5.0 mass% triethylene glycol, 2 mass% 1,2-hexane diol, 1.0 mass% Surfynol 104, and the balance water to form an ink (i.e., mixing the oxidation-treated nano-pigment containing dispersion with a plurality of preset solutions according to a determined weight ratio to form a mixed solution) (Ito; [0092], Table 2, Example 1, and [0098]). In light of the motivation provided by Ito to perform oxidation treatment with ozone on pigments, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform an ozone oxidation treatment on the pigments of Ito, followed by bead milling, heating, and mixing with preset ink solutions, in order to obtain a self-dispersing pigment with superior color strength, reduced ink forming aggregates at a gas-liquid interface, and improve d performance of the inks in intermittent printing. Further, i n light of the disclosure of Ito of the equivalence and interchangeability of using sodium hypochlorite oxidation on carbon black as exemplified by Ito, with using ozone oxidation on metal oxide pigments, such as, e.g. titanium dioxide, as presently claimed, it would therefore have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform ozone surface oxidation on the metal oxide pigments of Ito in order to obtain a self-dispersing pigment with superior color strength, reduce d ink forming aggregates, and improve d performance during intermittent printing. Although Ito teaches heating during milling rather than heating after ball-milling as claimed ( claims 1 and 10 ), i t has been held that the order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious , absence a showing of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.C. Ex parte Rubin , 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans , 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson , 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform heating of the final ink mixture of Ito (i.e., after ozone-treatment and ball milling), such as to help with dispersion of the ink components, absent a showing of new or unexpected results. Regarding claims 1 and 10 , Ito does not explicitly teach providing a nano-metal oxide dispersion as claimed . Regarding claim 1 , Ito does not explicitly teach performing ball milling on the mixed solution of ozone-treated nano-metal oxide and preset solutions (emphasis added) . Regarding claim 10 , Ito does not specifically teach separately ball milling the ozone-treated metal oxide dispersion and the plurality of preset solutions (i.e., ink components), followed by mixing in a predetermined weight ratio to form a mixed solution. With respect to the difference s , Mise teaches that the dispersibility of carbon black is poor, likely causing nozzle clogging and aggregates formed during storage (Mise; col. 1, lines 49-54). By reacting carbon black with ozone in the presence of water, it is possible to obtain a carbon black dispersion with extremely good water dispersibility (Mise; col. 3, lines 39-41). It is considered that if the ozone dissolves in water such that the oxidizing force is weakened, an oxidized carbon black is formed with excellent properties. Further, the presence of water enables the temperature to not rise, and results in functional groups with a good affinity for water, whereby dispersion stability will be obtained (Mise; col. 5, lines 36-48). Mise teaches that from the viewpoint of storage stability, discharge stability and printing density, the particle size is at most 100nm, preferably at most 20nm, most preferably at most 15nm (Mise; col. 10, lines 50-56). As the particle size distribution, the carbon black preferably has a cumulative mean diameter (volume cumulative diameter) of from 10 to 500nm, more preferably from 40 to 300nm (Mise; col. 10, lines 59- 62). Mise teaches that the ozone-treated carbon black may be used in as a water-based ink by adding various additives, for example by adding a dispersant. Alternatively, the dried , ozone-treated may be dispersed in water using, e.g., a bead mill or ball mill (Mise; col. 12, lines 27-35). Mise teaches that it is customary, at the time of producing a water- or solvent-based in, to add the carbon black to a bead mill (i.e., ball mill) , followed by dispersion to obtain an ink (Mise; col. 3, lines 4-8). Mise is analog ou s art as it teaches ozone treatment of pigment nano-particle dispersions in order to improve dispersibility , followed by ball milling . In light of the motivation provided by Mise to perform ozone treatment on a pigment dispersed in water, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide an aqueous dispersion of the pigment of Ito prior to ozone treatment , in order to obtain a pigment modified with functional groups that have a good affinity for water, thereby resulting in dispersion stability and excellent properties. Because the average particle diameter on a volume basis (D50) range of 110-200nm of Ito falls completely within the volume cumulative mean diameter range of from 40 to 300nm as disclosed by Mise, wherein Mise teaches the that such particle size distributions include particles sizes of at most 100nm, it is clear that metal oxide dispersions of Ito would comprise nano-metal oxide dispersions as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform ball milling on the ozone treated nano-metal oxide dispersion of Ito in view Mise after mixing with the preset solutions to form an ink ( claim 1 ) because Mise teaches that bead milling of the pigment and ink components is conventional in the ink art. Although Ito in view of Mise teaches ball milling of the ozone-treated nano-metal oxide dispersions both before and after addition to the ink components (i.e., the plurality of preset solutions), Ito in view of Mise do es not explicitly teach ball-milling of the ink components (i.e., p reset solutions) separately from the ozone-treated nano-oxide dispersion as claimed ( claim 10 ). However, i t has been held that the order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious , absence a showing of new or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.IV.C. Ex parte Rubin , 128 USPQ 440 (Bd. App. 1959) (Prior art reference disclosing a process of making a laminated sheet wherein a base sheet is first coated with a metallic film and thereafter impregnated with a thermosetting material was held to render prima facie obvious claims directed to a process of making a laminated sheet by reversing the order of the prior art process steps.). See also In re Burhans , 154 F.2d 690, 69 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1946) (selection of any order of performing process steps is prima facie obvious in the absence of new or unexpected results); In re Gibson , 39 F.2d 975, 5 USPQ 230 (CCPA 1930) (Selection of any order of mixing ingredients is prima facie obvious.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to separately ball-mill the ozone-treated nano-metal oxide dispersions and preset ink solutions of Ito in view of Mise, absent a showing of new or unexpected results. Regarding claim 2 , Ito in view of Mise are relied as teaching the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Ito does not explicitly teach feeding ozone gas into the nano-metal oxide dispersion over a predetermined time; and stirring the nano-metal oxide dispersion and the ozone gas as claimed. With respect to the difference, Mise teaches that the ozone treatment comprises feeding ozone gas into an aqueous dispersion of nano-carbon black while stirring with a stirrer for 1.5-2 hours (i.e., a predetermined time ) as claimed (Mise; col. 13, lines 44-67; col. 15, lines 25-40; col. 15, line 64-col. 16, line 13). The resulting ozone-treated carbon black has excellent properties. Further, the presence of water enables the method temperature to not rise, and results in functional groups with a good affinity for water, whereby dispersion stability will be obtained (Mise; col. 5, lines 36-48). In light of the motivation provided by Mise to perform ozone oxidation to surface -treat a pigment, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to feed ozone gas into the aqueous nano-metal oxide dispersions of Ito in view of Mise while stirring, in order to obtain an ozone-treated nano-metal oxide dispersion with functional groups having a good affinity for water, thereby resulting in dispersion stability and excellent properties. Regarding claim 3 , Ito in view of Mise are relied as teaching the limitations of claim 2 as discussed above. Ito does not explicitly teach wherein the stirring is performed for 10-60 minutes as claimed. With respect to the difference, Mise teaches that the oxidation treatment is carried out until the total number of acid groups of the carbon black becomes at least 3 µequ/m 2 by the oxidation treatment with ozone in the presence of water (Mise; col. 5, line 66-col. 2, line 2). If the total amount of acid groups is less than 3 µequ/m 2 , dispersion in an aqueous medium tends to be difficult (Mise; col. 6, lines 29-31). While Ito in view Mise do not explicitly disclose stirring of the ozone gas and nano-metal oxide dispersion for 10-60 minutes as presently claimed, it has long been an axiom of United States patent law that it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges of result-effective variables by routine experimentation. In re Peterson , 315 F.3d 1325, 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages."); In re Boesch , 617 F.2d 272, 276 (CCPA 1980) ("[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the art."); In re Aller , 220 F.2d 454, 456 (CCPA 1955) ("[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation."). "Only if the 'results of optimizing a variable' are 'unexpectedly good' can a patent be obtained for the claimed critical range." In re Geisler , 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (quoting In re Antonie , 559 F.2d 618, 620 (CCPA 1977)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to vary the stirring time of the ozone gas and nano-metal oxide dispersion, i.e., the time of the ozone oxidation step , including over the presently claimed, in order to obtain an oxidized nano-metal oxide pigment with excellent dispersibility . Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Hano , US 2022/0169882A1, teaches an ink composition which may contain inorganic pigments, including color pigments or white pigments (Hano; [0007] and [0113]). Examples of white pigments include titanium dioxide, titanium dioxide containing metal oxides, and magnesium oxide, with C.I. Pigment White (titanium dioxide) being preferred (Hano; [0118]). The white pigment may be a self-dispersing pigment obtained by modifying the surface of the pigment by oxidizing or sulfonating the pigment surface with, for example, ozone (Hano; [0123]). Hano teaches the preparation of a white pigment dispersion wherein titanium dioxide is mixed with a plurality of preset solutions , followed by dispersion treatment in a ball mill (Hano; [0248] . Nagawa et al, JP 2009 - 114008A (see provided machine English translation for citations), teaches a zirconium oxide powder with high specific surface area, thereby having excellent dispersibility in a resin (page 1, lines 56-58). The particle size is 30nm or less (page 3, line 16). Various treatments are disclosed, including hydrothermal treatment (page 5, lines 49-50). The treated zirconium oxide is dispersed in a resin, and ball milled (page 9, lines 54-58 and page 10, lines 20-22). In Example 2 , a zirconium oxide/resin dispersion contains other premixed solutions (xylene and butanol) and is shaken/mixed, coated, and baked (page 18, line 59-page 19, line 6) . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CAROLINE D LIOTT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-1836 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8:30-5 . 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, Coris Fung can be reached at (571)-270-5713 . 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. /CDL/ Examiner, Art Unit 1732 /STEFANIE J COHEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 1732 4/5/26