DETAILED ACTION 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. Preliminary amendment filed 8/17/2023 is made of record. Claims 2-9, and 11-12 are amended; and claims 1-12 are currently pending in the application. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement filed 8/17/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered. Specifically, a copy of foreign patent document JP 2013-178551 A is not provided. Election/Restriction REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art. The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e). When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions: As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories: (1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or (2) A product and a process of use of said product; or (3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or (4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or (5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process. Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c). Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372. This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1. In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted. Group I , claim(s) 1-8 , drawn to photocurable liquid composition . Group II , claim(s) 9-10 , drawn to cured product of photocurable liquid composition . Group III, claim(s) 11-12, drawn to method for producing a cured product comprising photocurable liquid composition. The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons : Groups I to III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of photocurable liquid composition comprising (A) photopolymerizable monomer, (B) metal oxide nanoparticles, and a photopolymerization initiator , wherein the photopolymerizable monomer has an ethylenically unsaturated double bond, and comprises a polyfunctional monomer (A1) having 3 or more ethylenically unsaturated double bonds , this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Henry et al (US 2019/0233556 A1) . Specifically, Henry et al teach curable composition comprising sulfated compounds that are liquid at room temperature (abstract). The sulfated compound has formula: (paragraph 0045). The sulfated compound can be polymerized in the presence of additional comonomers (paragraph 0052). The comonomer has at least one ethylenically unsaturated group (paragraph 0054). Additional components such as metal oxide nanoparticle may be included (paragraphs 006 2 -006 3 ). A photoinitiator may be added prior to polymerization (paragraph 0065). The composition is photocurable and monomers are photopolymerizable is implicit in the inclusion of photoinitiator in the curable composition During a telephone conversation with Neil Bartfeld on 3/4/2026 a provisional election was made WITHOUT traverse to prosecute the invention of group I , claim s 1-8 . Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim s 9-12 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species or invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention. The election of an invention or species may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected invention or species. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions have unity of invention (37 CFR 1.475(a)), applicant must provide reasons in support thereof. Applicant may submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. Where such evidence or admission is provided by applicant, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i). The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined. In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01. 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- 8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-13 of copending Application No. 18/546,848 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both are drawn to photocurable liquid composition including a photopolymerizable monomer comprising a polyfunctional monomer having 3 or more ethylenicaly unsaturated, photopolymerization initiator and metal oxide nanoparticles. The species of photopolymerizable monomer and polyfunctional monomer are similar and metal oxide nanoparticles are modified with an ethylenically unsaturated double-bond containing group. Copending claims are silent with respect to the mass% of polyfunctional monomer in dependent claim 6 of present application. However, Applicant ’ s attention is drawn to MPEP 804 where it is disclosed that “the specification can always be used as a dictionary to learn the meaning of a term in a patent claim.” Toro Co. v. White Consul. Indus., Inc., 199 F.3d 1295, 1299, 53 USPQ2d 1065, 1067 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Further, those portions of the specification which provide support for the patent claims may also be examined and considered when addressing the issue of whether a claim in an application defines an obvious variation of an invention claimed in the patent . (underlining added by examiner for emphasis) In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438,164 USPQ 619,622 (CCPA 1970). Consistent with the above underlined portion of the MPEP citation, attention is drawn to general disclosure of copending application wherein it teaches that mass of polyfunctional monomer relative to the photopolymerizable monomer A is not particularly limited as long as the desired effect such as dispersibility of the metal oxide nanoparticles is not impaired. The polyfunctional monomer is included in a ratio of 20 mass% or more and 70 mass% or less relative to the photopolymerizable monomer (paragraph 0031). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in art to include the polyfunctional monomer in the photocurable composition, of copending application to arrive at the present claims, in amounts of 20 to 70% by mass as long as the dispersibility of the metal oxide nanoparticles is not impaired. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim Objections Claim s 5 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 5 recites “formular” (line 7) and should read “formula”. Claim 7 recites “wherein the photopolymerizable monomer (A) comprises a compound represented by following formula (a-1)” (lines 2-3). For clarity and since photopolymerizable monomer (A) comprises polyfunctional monomer (A1), applicant is advised to rephrase it as “wherein the photopolymerizable monomer (A) further comprises a compound represented by following formula (a-1)”. Appropriate correction and/or clarification are 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- 5 and 8 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 1 recites “photopolymerizable monomer (A) has an ethylenically unsaturated double bond, and the photopolymerizable monomer (A) comprises a polyfunctional monomer (A1) having 3 or more ethylenically unsaturated double bonds” (lines 3-5). It is not clear if the photopolymerizable monomer (A) having an ethylenically unsaturated double bond is the same as the polyfunctional monomer (A1) having 3 or more ethylenically unsaturated double bonds or these are two different monomers i.e., photopolymerizable monomer (A) can have any number of ethylenically unsaturated double bonds including only 1 while polyfunctional monomer (A1) which is a photopolymerizable monomer must have 3 or more ethylenically unsaturated double bonds. Hence, metes and bounds of present claims cannot be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in art prior to the filing of present application. However, in light of the recitation in claim 6, wherein wt % of polyfunctional monomer A1 is relative to the wt % of photopolymerizable monomer A, it appears that photopolymerizable monomer (A) comprises monomer having an ethylenically unsaturated double bond that is different from the polyfunctional monomer (A1) having 3 or more ethylenically unsaturated double bonds. Applicant is advised to amend claim 1 to provide clarity in terms of what is included in the photopolymerizable monomer “A”. Claims 2-5 and 7-8 are subsumed by this rejection because of the dependence either directly or indirectly on independent claim 1. Claim 6 recites “ratio of the polyfunctional monomer (A1) is 20% by mass or more and 70% by mass or less relative to a mass of the photopolymerizable monomer (A)”. Ratios are mathematical expressions in the form of A : B. In contrast “% by mass” are not ratios. Hence, metes and bounds of present claims cannot be ascertained by one of ordinary skill in art prior to the filing of present application. For examination purposes, term “ratio” is interpreted as “amount”. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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- 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Yashiro et al (US 2003/0105189 A1). Regarding claim 1, Yashiro et al disclose a liquid curable resin composition (i.e., reads on the curable liquid composition in present claim 1) comprising (A) polyfunctional (meth)acrylic compound having at least three (meth)acryloyl groups in the molecule (i.e., reads on polyfunctional monomer having 3 or more ethylenically unsaturated double bonds in present claim 1), metal oxide particles (i.e., reads on metal oxide particles in present claim 1) and radiation polymerization initiator (abstract) which reads on photopolymerization initiator in present claim 1. The resin composition is photocurable is implicit in the utilization of radiation polymerization initiator in present claim 1. See example 1, wherein the composition comprises dispersion of ZnO particles (Table 1) having a particle size of 0.01 microns (paragraph 0079) which is equivalent to 10 nm (i.e., reads on metal oxide nanoparticles in present claim 1) The composition can comprise polymerizable monomers having a vinyl group or (meth)acryloyl group other than the compound A (paragraph 0069). Examples of monofunctional monomers are vinyl group-containing monomers such as preferably N-vinyl pyrrolidone, acryloyl morpholine and isobornyl (meth)acrylate (paragraph 0071) which reads on photopolymerizable monomer A having an ethylenically unsaturated double bonds in present claim 1. Regarding claim 2, Yahsiro et al teach that particles of component B comprises a radiation curable group linked by a silyl group to a metal (paragraph 0023). The reaction product used as component B is obtained by the reaction of an organosilicon compound having a polymerizable unsaturated group and alkoxysilyl group in the molecule and me t al oxide particles (paragraph 0029 ). Preferably the organosilicon compound possesses a polymerizable unsaturated group such as acrylic group, vinyl group and styryl group (paragraph 0031) which reads on metal oxides are modified with an ethylenically unsaturated double bond-containing group in present claim 2. Regarding claims 3-5, see example 1, of Yashiro et al, wherein the composition comprises dipentaerythritol hexacrylate (Table 1). It is noted that dipentaerythritol hexacrylate is represented by formula: (i.e., reads on polyfunctional monomer (A1) is an aliphatic compound having no aromatic group in present claim 3; polyfunctional monomer (A1) has 6 ethylenically unsaturated double bonds in present claim 4, and compound of formula A1 in present claim 5 , wherein R a2 = -X-(R a1 -O) na1 -MA, na2 = 1, na1 = 0, and X = oxygen atom. Regarding claim 8, examples of radiation polymerization initiators include bis-(2,6-dimethoxybenzoyl)-2,4,4-trimethylphenyl phosphine oxide (paragraph 0065). Claim s 1- 4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Henry et al (US 20190233556 A1) . Regarding claim s 1 , and 3-4 , Henry et al disclose curable composition comprising sulfated compounds that are liquid at room temperature (abstract) which reads on liquid curable composition in present claim 1. The sulfated compound has formula: (paragraph 0045) which reads on polyfunctional monomer (A1) having 3 ethylenically unsaturated double bonds in present claim s 1 and 4, and the polyfunctional monomer is an aliphatic compound having no aromatic group in present claim 3 . The sulfated compound can be polymerized in the presence of additional comonomers (paragraph 0052). The comonomer has at least one ethylenically unsaturated group (paragraph 0054) which reads on polymerizable monomer (A) in present claim 1. Additional components such as metal oxide nanoparticle may be included (paragraphs 0061-0062) which reads on the metal oxide nanoparticle in present claim 1. A photoinitiator may be added prior to polymerization (paragraph 0065) which reads on the photopolymerization initiator in present claim 1. The composition is photocurable and monomers are photopolymerizable is implicit in the inclusion of photoinitiator in the curable composition. Regarding claim 2, Henry et al teach that nanoparticles can be functionalized with a silane coupling agent having one or more ethylenically unsaturated groups (paragraph 0063). Regarding claim 6, Henry et al teach that the weight ratio of sulfated compound to comonomers is 7:1, 6:1, 5:1 or 4:1 where any ratio can form a lower and upper endpoint of a range (paragraph 0053) which reads on mass% of polyfunctional monomer in present claim 6. Regarding claim 7, examples of high refractive index comonomers include (paragraph 0055) which reads on photopolymerizable monomer of formula (a-1) wherein R 1 and R 2 = methyl group, p and q = 0 in present claim 7. Regarding claim 8, example of photoinitiators include 2,4,6-trimethyl benzoyldiphenylphosphine oxide (paragraph 0066) which reads on phosphine oxide compound in present claim 8. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KARUNA P REDDY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6566 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM M-F . 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 Arrie (Lanee) Reuther can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-7026 . 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. /KARUNA P REDDY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764