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 action is in response to the applica tion filed on 11 /2 2 /202 3 . Currently claims 1-1 5 are pending in the application. 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 4- 5, 7, and 12-1 5 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Regarding claim 4 , the phrase "preferably" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear what the limitation actually would be. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Regarding claim 5 , a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Alkaline pH range is considered within a range of 7-14. Regarding claim 7 , the phrase “such as”, and " e.g. " renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the limitation actually would be. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Additionally , a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Regarding claim 1 2 , the phrase " such as " , and “e.g.” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the limitation actually would be. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Additionally , a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Regarding claim 13 , the phrase “such as”, and " e.g. " renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear what the limitation actually would be. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Additionally , a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Regarding claim 1 4 , the phrase “such as”, and " e.g. " renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear what the limitation actually would be. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). Additionally , a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) is considered indefinite, since the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). Regarding claim 15 , the phrase "preferably" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear what the limitation actually would be. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). 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. Claim s 1 , 4-7, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Miller et al. ( M iller J ames B. et al. : "Control of Pre - hydrolysis Ratio for Sol-Gel Preparation of Homogeneous Zirconia-Silica Aerogels", JOURNAL OF CATALYSIS, vol. 153, 01 January 1995, pages 194-196 ), hereafter, referred to as “ Miller ” . Regarding claim 1, Miller teaches a process for the preparation of silica-zirconia aerogels (equivalent to nanocomposite material) . Miller teaches that t he process comprises of step of m ixing a silica compound with one or more metal compounds in an aqueous solution providing a homogenous mixture , where the mixture undergo a gelation process resulting in a hydrogel formation that comprises of aqueous phase and a porous solid structure ; and a step of d rying the hydrogel at a temperature and pressure combination that avoids boiling of the aqueous phase, providing the nanocomposite ; by teaching the steps of : pre - hydrol y sis of a TEOS solution in 1-propanol in the presence of water and nitric acid followed by the addition of zirconium n-propoxide as zirconium precursor to form the gel, and then a step of drying . The final gel was dried under supercritical conditions (343 ° K and 2.2 x 10 4 kPa). Miller also teaches that the prepared aerogels (which is extremely porous) containing 50% of silica and having a BET specific surface areas of 244, 262, 268 and 186 m 2 /g (page 194, right-hand column, paragraph 2 – right - hand column, para . 5; T able 1). But Miller fails to explicitly teach the step of adjusting pH of the mixture. However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, that the gelation process would require to optimize sol-gel parameters. Additionally, Miller teaches that opportunities exist for optimization of other common sol-gel parameters, such as temperature, pH, and concentration. The optimization of the parameters would result in an optimized process that would result in a product with desired chemical, mechanical, thermal and electrical properties. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to optimize the pH of the solution by adjusting the ingredients, so that desired properties of the final article (aerogel nanocomposite) is obtained. Regarding claim s 4 and 6 , Miller teaches a process for the preparation of silica-zirconia aerogels (equivalent to nanocomposite material) . Miller also teaches that pre - hydrol y sis of a TEOS solution in 1-propanol in the presence of water and nitric acid followed by the addition of zirconium n-propoxide as zirconium precursor to form the gel . Miller teaches to use of nitric acid for the solution to be in acidic state. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the mixing time and gelation time would be optimized to form the proper gel. Therefore, mixing time and gelation time would be considered a result effective variable. Additionally, the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Therefore, maintaining the mixing time for a period of 10-500 minutes (as claimed in claim 4), and gelation time for a period of 10-500 minutes (as claimed in claim 6) , would be a matter of optimization that would be performed under routine experimentation. Please see In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). Regarding claim 5 , Miller teaches a process for the preparation of silica-zirconia aerogels (equivalent to nanocomposite material) . But Miller fails to explicitly teach the adjustment of the pH of the mixture to an alkaline pH or to a pH-value in the range of pH 6-10 . However, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, that the gelation process would require to optimize sol-gel parameters. Additionally, Miller teaches that opportunities exist for optimization of other common sol-gel parameters, such as temperature, pH, and concentration. The optimization of the parameters would result in an optimized process that would result in a product with desired chemical, mechanical, thermal and electrical properties. Therefore, pH of the mixture would be considered a result effective variable. Additionally, the CCPA held that a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. Therefore, maintaining the pH of the mixture to an alkaline pH or to a pH-value in the range of pH 6-10, would be a matter of optimization that would be performed under routine experimentation. Please see In In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). Regarding claim 7 , Miller teaches a process for the preparation of silica-zirconia aerogels (equivalent to nanocomposite material) . Miller teaches that the process comprises of a step, wherein the aqueous phase in the hydro gel may be dried at a temperature less than 100° C. at atmospheric pressure (at about 1 bar pressure), such as at a temperature of 95° C or less, e.g. at a temperature of 90° C or less ; by teaching that the final gel was dried under supercritical conditions (343 ° K and 2.2 x 10 4 kPa) ( page 194, right-hand column, fourth paragraph) . Regarding claim 10 - 11 , Miller teaches a nanocomposite and a process for the preparation of silica-zirconia aerogels (equivalent to nanocomposite material) that forms an aerogel nanocomposite . Miller teaches a nanocomposite comprising a porous solid structure having a porous monolithic inorganic gel structure compris ing a silica compound and one or more metal compounds ; by teaches to use zirconium n-propoxide as a zirconium precursor , and tetraethylorthosilicate (TEOS), as a silicon precursor to form a silica zirconia aerogel nanocomposite. Aerogels are inherently highly porous, and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the porosity is varied by controlling precursor concentration, gelation, aging, and drying techniques (such as supercritical drying ) etc. Therefore, forming a nanocomposite, wherein the nanocomposite comprises an internal porous volume and wherein the internal porous volume is in the range of 40-90% (as claimed in claim 10), would be a matter of optimization that would be performed under routine experimentation. Regarding claim 1 2 , Miller teaches a nanocomposite and a process for the preparation of silica-zirconia aerogels (equivalent to nanocomposite material) that forms an aerogel nanocomposite . Miller teaches a nanocomposite comprising an porous solid structure having a porous monolithic inorganic gel structure comprising a silica compound and one or more metal compounds ; by teaching that t he process comprises of step of pre - hydrol y sis of a TEOS solution in 1-propanol in the presence of water and nitric acid followed by the addition of zirconium n-propoxide as zirconium precursor to form the gel, and then a step of drying . The final gel was dried under supercritical conditions (343 ° K and 2.2 x 10 4 kPa). Miller also teaches that the prepared aerogels (which is extremely porous) containing 50% of silica and having a BET specific surface areas of 244, 262, 268 and 186 m 2 /g (page 194, right-hand column, paragraph 2 – right - hand column, para. 5; Table 1). Additionally, a erogels are inherently highly porous, and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the porosity is varied by controlling precursor concentration, gelation, aging, and drying techniques (such as supercritical drying ) etc. Therefore, forming a nanocomposite, wherein the nanocomposite comprises of a porous solid structure with an internal porous volume in the range of 40-90%, such as in the range of 50-80%, e.g. in the range of 60-7 5%, such as about 70% ( as claimed in claim 1 2 ), would be a matter of optimization that would be performed under routine experimentation. Regarding claim 1 3 , Miller teaches a nanocomposite , wherein the porous solid structure comprises a surface area in the surface areas of 244, 262, 268 and 186 m 2 /g (page 19 5 , Table 1) Claims 2 - 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Miller et al. (Miller James B. et al.: "Control of Pre-hydrolysis Ratio for Sol-Gel Preparation of Homogeneous Zirconia-Silica Aerogels", JOURNAL OF CATALYSIS, vol. 153, 01 January 1995, pages 194-196), in view of Evans et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 20 07 /0 272902 A1), hereafter, referred to as “ Evans ”. Regarding claim 2-3 , Miller teaches a process for the preparation of silica-zirconia aerogels (equivalent to nanocomposite material) . Miller teaches to use zirconium n-propoxide as a zirconium precursor. But miller fails to explicitly teach the use of one or more metal compound that are metal oxide compounds or metal hydroxide compounds , and wherein, metal compound comprises a divalent metal ion, a trivalent metal ion, a tetravalent metal ion. However, Evans teaches the formation of aerogel composites with enhanced performance (tile). Evans teaches the use of metal oxide such as but not limited to zinc oxide, aluminum oxide, antimony oxide, hydrates and derivatives thereof. The iron oxides which can be used Fe 2 O 3 , Fe 3 O 4 , FeO, yellow iron oxide, red iron oxide, derivatives and hydrates thereof. These oxides when used should be finely divided so as to insure substantially uniform dispersal of the same throughout the gel precursor solution. Evans also teaches the use of magnesium-zinc blends such as magnesium - zinc- antimony are used. It is noted that aluminum and antimony is trivalent, and zinc, magnesium is divalent, whereas iron can be both divalent and trivalent. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Evans and combine the use of one or more metal compound that are metal oxide compounds or metal hydroxide compounds , and wherein, metal compound comprises a divalent metal ion, a trivalent metal ion, a tetravalent metal ion ; because that would allow to form aerogel nanocomposites with enhanced performance. Since both the references deal with formation of aerogel nanocomposites, one would have reasonable expectation of success from the combination. Claims 8 - 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Miller et al. (Miller James B. et al.: "Control of Pre-hydrolysis Ratio for Sol-Gel Preparation of Homogeneous Zirconia-Silica Aerogels", JOURNAL OF CATALYSIS, vol. 153, 01 January 1995, pages 194-196), in view of Voss (US Patent Number 8,282,939 ), hereafter, referred to as “ Voss ”. Regarding claim s 8-9 , Miller teaches a nanocomposite and a process for the preparation of silica-zirconia aerogels (equivalent to nanocomposite material) that forms an aerogel nanocomposite . But Miller fails to explicitly teach a step of removing salts and/or ions before drying the hydrogel , wherein the step of removing salts and/or ions includes dialysis. However, Voss teaches a process of removal of salts by electrodialysis process. Voss teaches that the s alts of polybasic low molecular weight acids are removed from aqueous solutions containing anionic organic compounds by electrodialysis by acidifying the aqueous solution before or during salt removal (abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Voss, and combine the step of removing salts and/or ions before drying the hydrogel , wherein the step of removing salts and/or ions includes electrodialysis ( equivalent to a dialysis process), because that would allow any unwanted salts to be removed from the aqueous solution. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Miller et al. (Miller James B. et al.: "Control of Pre-hydrolysis Ratio for Sol-Gel Preparation of Homogeneous Zirconia-Silica Aerogels", JOURNAL OF CATALYSIS, vol. 153, 01 January 1995, pages 194-196), in view of DeSantis et al. (US Patent Number 5,069,816 A1), hereafter, referred to as “ DeSantis ”. Regarding claim 1 4 , Miller teaches a nanocomposite, wherein the porous solid str u cture comprises 50 mol% silica, 50 mol% zirconia, which is equivalent to 32.8 % silica, 67.2 % zirconia (Table 1). But Miller fails to explicitly teach the porous solid str u cture compris ing 50-90 wt . % silica compound . However, DeSantis teaches a Zirconia-Silica hydrogel, that comprise of silicon and zirconium, including silicon as SiO 2 in an amount of between about 60 and 99 wt.% of the hydrogel and zirconium as Zr O 2 in an amount of between about 1 and 40 wt. % of the hydrogel (claim 11). Miller teaches that the hydrogel exhibits improved stability showing that having a high weight percentage (wt . %) of silica in a silica-zirconia system generally improves thermal and hydrothermal stability . Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention , to incorporate the teaching of DeSantis use a known technique, and formulate a nanocomposite with 50-90 wt . % silica compound, because that would provide improved stability (KSR Rationale C, MPEP 2143) . Claim 1 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious over Miller et al. (Miller James B. et al.: "Control of Pre-hydrolysis Ratio for Sol-Gel Preparation of Homogeneous Zirconia-Silica Aerogels", JOURNAL OF CATALYSIS, vol. 153, 01 January 1995, pages 194-196), in view of Craig ( CN 102224106 A), hereafter, referred to as “ Craig ”. Regarding claim 1 5 , Miller teaches a nanocomposite and a process for the preparation of silica-zirconia aerogels (equivalent to nanocomposite material) that forms an aerogel nanocomposite . But Miller fails to explicitly teach the use of the nanocomposite as a filler in paint; or as a coating of a medical device; or as a dental filling. However, Craig teaches the use of nanoparticles of zirconia and silica in the form of fillers (title). Craig teaches that the fillers may be prepared by mixing a sol of silica nanoparticles with a sol of preformed, crystalline nano - zirconia particles. The fillers provide desirable optical properties, such as opalescence, and are useful in dental compositions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Craig, and use the silica-zirconia nanocomposite dental filling because that would provide desirable optical properties, such as opalescence, and are useful in dental compositions . Examiner’s Note The examiner included a few prior arts which were not used in the rejection but are relevant to the disclosure. Ikoma et al. ( I koma S huji et al. : "Surface Properties of Silica- Tit ania and Silica - Zirconia Mixed Oxide Gels", STUDIES IN SURFACE SCIENCE AND CATALYSIS, vol. 132, 1 January 2001, pages 765-768 ) teaches a process for the preparation of silica-zirconia gels that can be applied as fillers. The process comprises the following steps: a zirconyl chloride solution was added dropwise to silica gel beads, and the resultant solution was aged over 24 h at room temperature, washed with methanol and dried at 180°C. The aqueous suspension of each gel was adjusted to pH 7 by the addition of ammonia, and filtered. The gel was washed once more with water and methanol, and finally dried at 180°C (page 765, paragraph 1 – page 766, paragraph 1; table 1). 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