DETAILED ACTION Summary Th is is a non-final office action for application 18/547,836 filed on 24 August 2023. The preliminary amendment filed on the same date is acknowledged. 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. Claim Interpretation In Claims 2-5 , the “solid content” of the composition is interpreted as being the components that constitute a cured product when cured. It excludes volatile components such as solvents but includes polymerizable components of the resin. This interpretation is motivated by par. [0021] of the specification. 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. Claims 1 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KUBO (US-20170101538-A1). The KUBO (US-20170101538-A1) reference is in the IDS dated 24 August 2023. Regarding Claim 1 , KUBO teaches nanoparticles of a metal oxide ([0028]) complexed with a resin ([0029]) . KUBO teaches that its metal oxide can be zirconium oxide ([0038]) and that the particle size is particularly preferably 1-20 nm ([0051]). KUBO exemplifies zirconium oxide particles with a particle diameter of 3 nm ([0224]) which satisfies the requirement of zirconium-containing metal oxide particles of diameter of 20 nm or less. KUBO teaches a phosphoric acid ester with the general formula ([0031]): w here R1 is an alkyl group having 8-13 carbon atoms or an allyl group, R2 is H or methyl, n is 1-30 and (a, b) are either (1,2) or (2,1). This overlaps with the formula (1) recited by the claim where R1 has 1-8 carbons, R2 is H, n is 1-5 and ( a,b ) are either (1,2), (2,1), or (0,3). KUBO exemplifies Plysurf A208F ([0224]) where R1=octyl (8 carbons) , R2=H, n=1-30 and ( a,b ) are (1,2) or (2,1). The n=1-30 range for Plysurf A208F encompasses the 1-5 recited by the claim. It is presumed some of the phosphate ester molecules in Plysurf A208F have ethylene oxide chains within the range of n=1-5 that is recited by the claim. KUBO does not teach a silane coupling agent, which satisfies the requirement that the amount of silane coupling agent is less than 30 parts per 100 parts of the formula (1) compound. KUBO teaches a polymerizable resin ([0021], [0101]) and exemplifies a polymerizable resin ([0227], [0228]). Regarding Claim 6 , KUBO teaches the invention of Claim 1. KUBO teaches that its composition may contain a curing agent ([0128]). KUBO exemplifies curing the nanoparticle-containing resin ([0228]). 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 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KUBO (US-20170101538-A1). Regarding Claim 2 , KUBO teaches the invention of Claim 1 above. KUBO generally teaches that its composition contains 1-80wt% of the metal oxide nanoparticles ([0103]) which overlaps the 70-100 parts by mass per 100 parts of solid content recited by the claim. KUBO does not exemplify an amount of zirconium oxide nanoparticles above 70wt% (Table 2), but it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the examples of KUBO and include amounts of zirconium oxide particles within the range taught in its specification that are also within the range recited by the claim. It is well settled that where the prior art describes the components of a claimed compound or compositions in concentrations within or overlapping the claimed concentrations a prima facie case of obviousness is established. See In re Harris, 409 F.3d 1339, 1343, 74 USPQ2d 1951, 1953 (Fed. Cir 2005); In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1329, 65 USPQ 2d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578 16 USPQ2d 1934, 1936-37 (CCPA 1990); In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1303, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974). For more discussion see MPEP 2144.05-I. Regarding Claim 3 , KUBO generally teaches that its phosphoric acid ester component i s part of a hydrophobic treatment agent ([0054]). KUBO generally teaches that its hydrophobic treatment agent is present in amounts of 10-50wt% relative to the nanoparticles of metal oxide ([0093]). KUBO further teaches that its phosphoric acid ester makes up 5-70% of its hydrophobic treatment agent ([0088]). This calculates to an amount of phosphoric acid per 100 parts of metal oxide of 0.05*10 to 0.7*50, or 0.5-35 parts of phosphoric acid ester per 100 parts of metal oxide. This overlaps the 2-20 parts per 100 recited by the claim. KUBO exemplifies 81 g of Plysurf A208F phosphoric acid ester and 3 g of 30% zirconium oxide particles ([0224]). This calculates to 81/0.3*3000 = 9 parts Plysurf A208F phosphoric acid ester per 100 parts zirconium oxide. This appears to be within the 2-20 parts per 100 parts zirconium that is recited, but KUBO teaches examples using the Plysurf A208F phosphoric acid ester that matches formula (1) with n = 1-30 which encompasses the 1-5 range recited by the claim. It is not clear how much of Plysurf A208F represents phosphoric acid esters within the recited range. KUBO generally teaches phosphoric acid esters with a range of n= 1-30 ([0033]). It would be obvious to modify the examples of KUBO, if needed, and use phosphoric acid esters in the amounts taught by KUBO with ethylene oxide repeat counts within the range taught by KUBO that are also within the range s recited by the claim. Regarding Claim 4 , KUBO teaches the invention of Claim 1. KUBO generally teaches that its composition contains 1-80wt% of the metal oxide nanoparticles ([0103]). KUBO further teaches that its hydrophobic treatment agent is present in amounts of 10-50wt% relative to the nanoparticles of metal oxide ([0093]) which calculates to 0.1-33 wt% of the treatment agent. KUBO further teaches that its phosphoric acid ester makes up 5-70% of its hydrophobic treatment agent ([0088]). This calculates an amount of phosphoric acid ester of 0.05*0.1 to 0.7*33, or 0.005-23.1wt% of the phosphoric acid ester which encompasses the 1-15wt% that is recited by the claim. KUBO teaches in Example 2 a composition which is 70wt% nanoparticle dried body ([0229]) where the dried body contains 3000 *0.3 parts zirconium, 81 parts phosphoric acid ester and 189 parts of a reactive carboxylic acid ([0224]). This calculates to a dried body which contains 81 /( 900+81+189) ≈ 6.87 wt% phosphoric acid ester, which when applied to the 70wt% of the dried body in the composition and 30wt% monomers ([0229]) calculates to 0.687*70 ≈ 4.81 parts phosphoric acid ester per 100 parts of the solid content of the composition. This appears to be within the 1-15 parts per 100 parts solid content which is recited, but KUBO teaches examples using the Plysurf A208F phosphoric acid ester that matches formula (1) with n = 1-30 which encompasses the 1-5 range recited by the claim. It is not clear how much of Plysurf A208F represents phosphoric acid esters within the recited range. KUBO generally teaches phosphoric acid esters with a range of n = 1-30 ([0033]). It would be obvious to modify the examples of KUBO, if needed, and use phosphoric acid esters in the amounts taught by KUBO with ethylene oxide repeat counts within the range taught by KUBO that are also within the range s recited by the claim. Regarding Claim 5 , KUBO teaches the invention of Claim 1. KUBO generally teaches that its composition contains 1-80 wt% of the metal oxide nanoparticles ([0103]) and further teaches a hydrophobic treatment agent (including the phosphoric acid ester recited in Claim 1) in amounts of 10-50wt% relative to the amount of the metal oxide nanoparticles ([0093]). This calculates to 1.1-88wt% for the particles an d hydrophobic treatment agent combined. This leaves the remaining 12-98.9 wt% for the polymerizable resin which overlaps the 10-25 parts per 100 parts solid content recited by the claim. KUBO does not exemplify amounts of polymerizable resin within the recited range, but it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the current invention to modify the examples of KUBO and use amounts of polymerizable resin taught in its specification that are also within the range recited by the claim. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT DAVID R FOSS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4821 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:00 . 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 L 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. /D.R.F./ Examiner, Art Unit 1764 /KREGG T BROOKS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764