DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Response to Amendment s Status of Claims The amendment, filed on 9 January 2026 , is acknowledged. Claim s 1, 7, 9, 11, 34, 49, 51, 77-78, and 81-82 have been amended. Claim s 5-6, 8, 14-33, 36, 39-44, 48, 52, and 55-74 have been cancelled. New claim s 83-98 have been added. In view of applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 9, the species election requirement for the specific plant extract is withdrawn. Claim s 1-4, 7, 9-13, 34-35, 37-38, 45-47, 49-51, 53-54, and 75-98 are pending and under consideration in the instant Office Action, to the extent of the following previously elected species: the specific natural humectants are sodium hyaluronate, propanediol, erythritol, and ectoine ; the specific vitamin is d-panthenol (pro-vitamin B5); the specific buffers are sodium phosphate dibasic and sodium citrate dihydrate; and the specific antimicrobial agent is alexidine chloride. Objections Withdrawn Objections to Claims Applicant’s amendment s to claims 77-78 and 81-82 , submitted on 9 January 2026, ha ve overcome the objection s to the claims set forth in the Office Action mailed on 5 September 2025 . Accordingly, the relevant objectio n s are withdrawn. Rejections Withdrawn Rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 112 The rejection s of claim s 77-78 and 81-82 under 35 U.S.C. § 112 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims . Rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 102 The rejection of claim s 1, 3-4, and 79-80 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims . Rejections pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103 The rejection of claim s 1-4, 7, 9-13, 34-35, 37-38, 45-47, 49-51, 53-54, and 75-82 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims and in favor of the new grounds of rejection below . The rejection of claims 5-6, 8, 36, 39-44, 48, and 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are rendered moot in view of Applicant’s cancellation of the claims. New Grounds of Rejection 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. 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 . Claims 1, 3-4, 9-11, 34, 37-38, 49-51, 75-89, and 94 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Booker et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0069148 A1, published on 10 April 2003 , hereafter referred to as Booker) in view of O’Lenick , Jr . (U.S. Patent No. 8,268,766 B1, published on 18 September 2012) , Guangzhou Yixuan Fine Chemical Co . Ltd . (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. CN 111214429 A, published on 2 June 2020, references to English translation, hereafter referred to as GYFC) , and Graf et al. ( Clinics Dermat . 2008 , 26 (4), 326., hereafter referred to as Graf) . Booker teaches a mild cleansing composition, which produces a stable foam, comprising at least one glycoside nonionic surfactant, at least one betaine surfactant, and at least one amphoteric surfactant (Abstract). The composition may be used with “any personal cleansing implement known in the art such as a wipe, a washcloth, a mesh or apertured film…and the like” (para. [0097]). The personal cleansing implement, such as a wipe or washcloth, is interpreted to be analogous to the wipe of the eye area recited in instant claim 1. Booker teaches that anionic surfactants , commonly used in cosmetic and personal care compositions to produce foam, can be irritants to the skin and eyes (para. [0005-0007]). To overcome this drawback, Booker teaches the use of amphoteric and nonionic surfactants, which are not as irritating to users (para. [0009-0010]). However, these surfactant types are taught to generally produce poor, unstable foams, which Booker teaches as a “critical property of cleansing compositions” due to the ability of foam to aid removal of dirt and oil (para. [0006] and [0009]). Glycoside nonionic surfactants are taught to be capable of producing a stable foam and “do so with a low degree of skin and ocular irritation” (para. [0011-0012] and claims 1-2). In some embodiments, the preferred glycoside nonionic surfactant is taught to be decyl glucoside (para. [0013], Examples 1-2, and claims 3 and 16). The quantity of decyl glycoside in the composition is taught to be 0.1-20.0% w/w (para. [0013] and claim 4). Additional surfactants are also taught to be useful in the invention of Booker, including esters between a fatty acid and a polyol, which in some embodiments is sorbitan, methyl glucoside, and/or polyglucose , and are taught to be present in amounts from 0.5-5.0% w/w (para. [0019]). Further components of the invention taught by Booker include “benefit agents”, which are active ingredients that are appropriate for treating, providing nutrients, and or conditioning the hair and/or skin (para. [0046]). Among the benefit agents taught by Booker are humectants, antimicrobial agents, inflammation inhibitors, vitamins, antifungals, and herbal extracts (para. [0047]). Humectants are taught to be present from 0-10% w/w , one example of which is propylene glycol, another name for 1,2-propanediol (para. [0056]). Examples of suitable vitamins include vitamin B complex, which includes biotin, nicotinic acid, vitamin B6, and vitamin B12, vitamin C, vitamin E, and panthenol (para. [0062]). Booker further teaches that vitamin B and its derivatives and plant extracts such as aloe can act as anti-aging agents and that suitable quantities of the species are from 0.01-10% w/w (para. [0088]). The plant extract licorice is taught to act as both a depigmentation agent and an anti-acne agent and when present is in quantities from 0.01-10% w/w (para. [0089-0090]). Finally, Booker teaches that the pH of mild cleansing compositions is “typically maintained in the range from about 3 to about 7.5” (para. [0094]) and can use alpha hydroxy acids to reach this pH range, which in one embodiment is citric acid (Example 2, para. [0118]). Guidelines on the obviousness of similar and overlapping ranges, amounts, and proportions are provided in MPEP § 2144.05. With respect to claimed ranges which “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim , 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff , 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). These guidelines apply to the quantities of surfactants, humectants , and plant extracts; in each instance, the ranges taught by Booker either encompass or significantly overlap with the ranges recited in the instant claims. Booker does not teach the composition of their invention to comprise the specific surfactant species sorbitan oleate decylglucoside crosspolymer nor the specific humectant species sodium hyaluronate, ectoine , or erythritol. These deficiencies are offset by the teachings of O’Lenick Jr . , GYFC , and Graf . O’Lenick Jr . teaches a surfactant formed by cross linking polyglycoside derivatives with sorbitan esters to “increase oil solubility and provide outstanding emulsifiers” (Abstract). By crosslinking alkyl polyglycosides , which are produced via commercial processes, and sorbitan esters, O’Lenick Jr. found that the products were excellent emulsifiers and usable in many applications (col. 2, line 56 - col. 3, line 6). Specifically, the emulsifiers are taught to be useful for conditioning the hair and skin of users when used in a product at concentrations of 0.1-25% w/w (col. 6, lines 63-67 , col. 8, lines 47-50 , and claims 11-13 ). A preferred saccharide in the polyglycosides is taught to be glucose (col. 3, lines 10-16 and col. 9, lines 25-30), a preferred alcohol for forming the alkyl polyglycoside is an alkyl monohydric alcohol with 11-18 carbon atoms, such as dodecyl alcohol (col. 9, line 59 - col. 10, line 6 and Examples 1-2), and a preferred sorbitan ester is a commercially available material with a C7-21 alkyl chain connected to the carbonyl of the sorbitan ester , such as sorbitan monooleate (commercially available as Span® 80 ) (col. 11, lines 34-44 and col. 12, lines 1-8). GYFC teaches a repair essence, interpreted as a cosmetic composition for topical application, which moisturizes skin, improves skin “immunity” against the external environment, relieves dryness, sensitivity, and inflammation , and can repair skin barriers (Abstract and pg. 2, Disclosure of Invention, lines 1-2). To achieve these positive effects on users’ skin, GYFC teaches their composition to comprise water, humectants, thickeners, and skin conditioning agents (pg. 2, Disclosure of Invention, lines 4-5 and claim 1). The humectants are taught to be any one or more of erythritol, sodium hyaluronate, glycerol, propylene glycol, butylene glycol, and caprylyl glycol, with preferred species being erythritol and sodium hyaluronate (pg. 3, lines 3-4 and claims 5-6). GYFC further teaches that erythritol and sodium hyaluronate are used as base humectants in all of their example compositions in Table 1 (pg. 3-4, Table 1 and pg. 4, line 1). Graf teaches the utility of ectoine as a natural cell protectant on human skin (Abstract). Ectoines are taught to be a class of small organic molecules which occur widely in aerobic, chemoheterotrophic, and halophilic organisms and enable them to survive in extreme conditions by protecting their biopolymers (pg. 326, Introduction, para. 1). This protection is due in part to the amphoteric, water-binding properties of the molecules, which maintain water in the area of proteins, minimizing undesirable denaturation of said proteins (pg. 326, right column, final para. - pg. 327, left column, para. 3). Graf theorized that these protective, water-binding properties could be transferred to human skin via topical application of ectoine (pg. 327, left column, final para. - right column, para. 1). Human skin is particularly susceptible to water loss due to the “absence of an optimal skin barrier”, which can lead to minor issues such as dryness or larger issues such as “accelerated skin aging” and heightened damage from UVA radiation (pg. 327, left column, final para. - right column, para. 3). Graf teaches that ectoine is a possible agent for protecting skin from premature aging, water loss, and oxidative damage due to ultraviolet light exposure (pg. 327, right column, para. 1-2). Using topical application studies, cell studies, and molecular dynamic simulations, Graf determined that ectoine was effective at preventing water loss from human skin, a more potent moisturizer than glycerol, and has utility in “the recovery of skin viability and prevention of skin aging” (pg. 327, right column, para. 4 and pg. 332, Conclusions). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing of the instant application, to combine the teachings of O’Lenick Jr., GYFC, and Graf with the teachings of Booker to arrive at the invention of claims 1, 3-4, 9-11, 34, 37-38, 49-51, 75-89, and 94 because combining prior art elements according to known methods to impart known benefits yields predictable results. Booker teaches a cosmetic composition , which may be applied to the skin via a wipe, comprising decyl glucoside, propanediol, licorice extract, panthenol, and aloe extract in amounts that overlap with or encompass the quantities recited in the instant claims, as well as additional vitamins, plant extracts, and citric acid. In view of the teachings of O’Lenick Jr., an ordinary artisan would be motivated to select the ester of sorbitan, methyl glucoside, and/or polyglucose to be a sorbitan oleate decylglucoside crosspolymer because O’Lenick Jr. teaches the species to be useful for conditioning the hair and skin of users when used in a product at concentrations of 0.1-25% w/w, which significantly overlaps with the quantity of 0.5-5.0% w/w taught by Booker , and the ordinary artisan would recognize the conditioning property as a beneficial property in their cosmetic compositions. In addition, O’Lenick Jr. teaches that the crosspolymer can be obtained using commercially available reagents, would one of ordinary skill would recognize as fiscally desirable. In view of the teachings of GYFC, a person of ordinary skill would be motivated to include sodium hyaluronate and erythritol as additional humectants in the composition of Booker because GYFC teaches that the species are vital to all of their example compositions and produce multiple positive effects on the skin of users when applied topically, such as moisturizing, relieving dryness and inflammation, and repairing skin barriers, which the ordinary artisan would recognize as desirable in a topically applied cosmetic composition. In addition, GYFC uses the humectants in quantities of 0.1-6% w/w (GYFC, Table 1), which falls within the humectant quantity ranges taught by Booker of 0-10% w/w. Finally, in view of the teachings of Graf, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use ectoine as a humectant in the composition of Booker because Graf teaches the effectiveness of ectoine in protecting skin from dryness and UVA radiation damage , which an ordinary artisan would be recognize as desirable in a cosmetic application intended for topical application. The teachings of Booker, O’Lenick Jr., GYFC, and Graf have rendered obvious the compositions recited in instant claims 1 and 34. The references above are silent regarding the stability of the compositions on the shelf, the change of the pH over time during storage, and the change of the osmolality over time during storage. However, these properties are considered inherent to claimed the composition and because the composition has been rendered prima facie obvious, the claimed properties are necessarily also present. See MPEP § 2112.01. “ Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. ” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). As a result, there is a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the invention of instant claims 1, 3-4, 9-11, 34, 37-38, 49-51, 75-89, and 94 in view of the teachings of Booker, O’Lenick Jr., GYFC, and Graf . Claims 2 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Booker (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0069148 A1, published on 10 April 2003 ) in view of O’Lenick , Jr . (U.S. Patent No. 8,268,766 B1, published on 18 September 2012) , GYFC (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. CN 111214429 A, published on 2 June 2020, references to English translation) , and Graf ( Clinics Dermat . 2008 , 26 (4), 326.) as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 9-11, 34, 3 7 -38, 49-51, 75- 89 , and 94 above, and further in view of El- Bazza et al. ( Egypt. J. Microbiol . 2010 , 45 , 131., hereafter referred to as El- Bazza ). Booker , O’Lenick Jr., GYFC , and Graf teach the above. Booker , O’Lenick Jr., GYFC , and Graf do not teach the formulation in their invention to be sterilized. This deficiency is offset by the teachings of El- Bazza . El- Bazza teaches the need to control contamination from microorganisms in food, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and toiletries (pg. 131, para. 1). Contamination can reduce the shelf life of products and infect consumers, demonstrating the need for hygiene control systems that decontaminate products without altering product properties (pg. 131, para. 1 - pg. 132, para. 1). Ionizing radiation is taught to be a practical method of sterilizing products without noticeably changing the products’ appearance or structure (pg. 134, Results and Discussion, para. 1). El- Bazza teaches the use of gamma irradiation to sterilize eye makeup, achieving “an acceptable level of sterility” (pg. 134, Results and Discussion, para. 2) against the bacterial strains in the study, which are S. aureaus , S. epidermidis , B. megaterium , and B. cereus (pg. 134, Results and Discussion, para. 2 and Table 1). El- Bazza concludes that gamma radiation can safely sterilize cosmetics at relatively low doses and the technology should be considered beneficial to manufacturers pg. 143-144, Conclusion). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing of the instant application, in view of the teachings of El- Bazza to use gamma irradiation to sterilize the invention rendered obvious by the teachings of Booker , O’Le nick Jr., GYFC, and Graf because the use of a known technique to improve a similar product in a known manner yields predictable results. The ordinary artisan would be motivated to use gamma irradiation to sterilize the composition rendered obvious above because El- Bazza teaches microbial contamination to spoil cosmetics and possibly infect consumers, which can be prevented via gamma irradiation of the cosmetic. El- Bazza further teaches that gamma irradiation does not negatively impact the properties of the cosmetic and that the technique is suitable for cosmetics that will be applied to the skin of users , which a person of ordinary skill would recognize as being relevant to the invention rendered obvious above. As a result, there is a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the invention of instant claims 2 and 35 in view of the teachings of Booker , O’Lenick Jr., GYFC, and Graf and further in view of the teachings of El- Bazza . Claims 7 , 45-47 , 91-92, and 96-97 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Booker (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0069148 A1, published on 10 April 2003 ) in view of O’Lenick , Jr . (U.S. Patent No. 8,268,766 B1, published on 18 September 2012), GYFC (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. CN 111214429 A, published on 2 June 2020, references to English translation), and Graf ( Clinics Dermat . 2008 , 26 (4), 326.) as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 9-11, 34, 37-38, 49-51, 75- 89 , and 94 above , and further in view of Schwarz et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,149,522 A, published on 22 September 1992 , hereafter referred to as Schwarz ). Booker, O’Lenick Jr., GYFC, and Graf teach the above , and particularly relevant to claims 7, 45-47, 91-92, and 96-97, Booker teaches that the pH of their compositions is “typically maintained in the range from about 3 to about 7.5” (para. [0094]) and can use alpha hydroxy acids to reach this pH range, which in one embodiment is citric acid (Example 2, para. [0118]). Booker also teaches that sodium chloride is added to their composition (para. [0118]) , but does not teach its purpose nor a quantity , and that thickening agents may be included (para. [0047]) . Booker , O’Lenick Jr., GYFC, and Graf do not teach the buffer system used to maintain the pH of their composition , the quantities of its components, the species potassium chloride, nor the quantities of the chloride salts . Th ese deficienci e s are offset by the teachings of Schwarz . Schwarz teaches a clear, aqueous cleansing composition for the hair and body which produces a soft, natural feel (Abstract). In addition to water and two surfactants (Abstract and claim 1), Schwarz teaches that a number of additional conventional cosmetic additives may be included in the ir compositions (col. 3, lines 51-53). Among the conventional cosmetic additives are buffers, which include sodium citrate and sodium phosphate (col. 3, line 60) and physiologically tolerated salts such as potassium chloride and sodium chloride (col. 3, lines 41-43). The buffers are taught to be present in an amount from 0.1-1.0% w/w (col. 3, lines 60-61), which encompasses the quantities recited in instant claims 91 and 96. Finally, Schwarz teaches that the chloride salts can be used to adjust viscosity without cloudiness or precipitation and should be used in amounts from 0.1-6.0% w/w (col. 3, lines 44-50 and claims 13-14). While the citrate and phosphate buffer s taught by Schwarz are sodium “ citrate ” or “phosphate” rather than sodium citrate dihydrate or sodium phosphate dibasic, respectively , the term s may refer to mono-, di-, or in the case of citrate, trisodium. Further, when maintaining a citrate buffer at a pH of 6 .0-8.0 as in instant claims 7 and 45-47, the same species would be present whether the buffer s w ere made from any of the sodium salts specified above. The MPEP provides guidance on chemical compounds that have very close structures and similar utilities. See MPEP § 2144.09. "An obviousness rejection based on similarity in chemical structure and function entails the motivation of one skilled in the art to make a claimed compound, in the expectation that compounds similar in structure will have similar properties." In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303, 313, 203 USPQ 245, 254 (CCPA 1979). Because one skilled in the art would expect a phosphate and/or citrate buffer at a given pH to behave in a similar manner whether the constituent salts contained one, two, or , in the case of citrate, three sodium cations, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing of the instant application, in view of the teachings of Schwarz to use a citrate-phosphate buffer in the composition rendered obvious by Booker , O’Lenick Jr., GYFC, and Graf because the use of a known technique to improve a similar product in the same manner yields predictable results. Booker teaches that a suitable pH for their composition is 3.0-7.5 and that an alpha hydroxy acid such as citric acid may be used to adjust the pH, but does not teach specific quantities nor a buffer system . Schwarz teaches that sodium citrate and sodium phosphate buffers may be used to control the pH in cosmetic compositions that produce a soft, natural feel, which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as desirable . The ordinary artisan would be motivated to use citrate and phosphate buffers to maintain the taught pH because they would want to impart users with a desirable feeling and because Booker teaches that citric acid is suitable for use in their compositions, which Schwarz has taught to be compatible with citrate and phosphate buffers . In view of the teachings of Schwarz, o ne of ordinary skill in the art would further be motivated to use sodium and potassium chloride salts in the invention rendered obvious above because Booker teaches that sodium chloride is included in their composition, but not its quantity or purpose, and that thickening agents may be used. Schwarz provides missing information than an artisan would need to complete the invention above, teaching that both inorganic salts are physiologically compatible and can be used to modify viscosity without undesirable cloudiness or precipitation in amounts from 0.1-6.0% w/w. As a result, there is a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the invention of instant claims 7, 45-47, 91-92, and 96-97 in view of the teachings of Booker , O’Lenick Jr., GYGC, and Graf, and further in view of the teachings of Schwarz . Claims 12-13 , 53-54, 93, and 98 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Booker (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0069148 A1, published on 10 April 2003 ) in view of O’Lenick , Jr . (U.S. Patent No. 8,268,766 B1, published on 18 September 2012), GYFC (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. CN 111214429 A, published on 2 June 2020, references to English translation), and Graf ( Clinics Dermat . 2008 , 26 (4), 326.) as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 9-11, 34, 37-38, 49-51, 75- 89 , and 94 above , and further in view of Mamouei et al. ( mSphere 2018 , 3 (5), e00539-18., hereafter referred to as Mamouei ). Booker , O’Lenick Jr., GYFC, and Graf teach the above , and particularly relevant to instant claims 12-13 and 53-54, Booker teaches that antimicrobial agents , as well as the narrower genus of antifungal agents, are ingredients that are desirable to include in a cosmetic composition for their beneficial properties (para. [0046-0047]). Booker, O’Lenick Jr., GYFC, and Graf do not teach the antimicrobial agent alexidine chloride. This deficiency is offset by the teachings of Mamouei . Mamouei teaches fungal pathogens that are responsible for invasive fungal infections (IFIs) to be a leading cause of human mortality, resulting in ~1.5 million deaths per year “despite treatment with antifungal drugs” (pg. 1, para. 1). A majority of IFIs are taught be caused by species belonging to the Cryptococcus , Candida , or Aspergillus families, some of which are resistant to drugs and subsequently are becoming more difficult to treat (pg. 1, para. 1 - pg. 2, para. 1). Three classes of antifungal agents are taught to be commonly used in treatments: polyenes, azoles, and echinocandins (pg. 2, para. 2). Drugs in these classes have been found to have drawbacks, including limited spectra of activity and toxicity to humans, demonstrating the need for an alternative, effective antifungal agent (pg. 2, para. 2). Using high-throughput screening, Mamouei identified alexidine dihydrochloride (AXD), which is interpreted as being the same antimicrobial agent elected by Applicant, as an effective antifungal agent against three invasive and drug-resistant human-pathogenic fungi: Candida albicans , C. auris , and Aspergillus fumigatus (pg. 2, para. 3). AXD is known in the art to be safe for human use, as demonstrated by its use as an antiplaque agent and in mouthwash, and was found by Mamouei to have toxicity towards humans that is much lower than its toxicity toward fungi (pg. 5, para. 1 and pg. 6, para. 2). Mamouei further teaches AXD to not only treat the above species of fungus, but also to demonstrate synergism with other antifungal agents to treat otherwise resistant fungal strains (pg. 2, para. 3). Finally, Mamouei teaches that AXD has activity against Rhizopus , Lichtheimia corymbifera , and S apiospermum , which are clinically difficult to manage and/or lead to “devastating infections and very poor outcomes in patients” (pg. 7, final para.). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the filing of the instant application, in view of the teachings of Mamouei to include alexidine dihydrochloride as an antimicrobial agent in the composition rendered obvious by the teachings of Booker , O’Lenick Jr., GYFC, and Graf because combining an element known in the prior art with a product to impart known benefits yields predictable results. Booker teaches that antimicrobial agents may be added to cosmetic formulations to impart beneficial properties. One of ordinary skill would be motivated by the teachings of Mamouei to include an antimicrobial agent in the cosmetic formulation because Mamouei teaches that invasive fungal infections can be deadly and it would be obvious to the ordinary artisan that a component that helps to prevent said infections would be beneficial. The person of ordinary skill would further be motivated to select alexidine dihydrochloride as the specific antimicrobial agent because Mamouei teaches the compound to be safe for human use and particularly effective against fungi, even species that have previously been identified as drug-resistant. As a result, there is a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the invention of instant claims 12-13 , 53-54 , 93, and 98 in view of the teachings of Booker , O’Lenick Jr., GYFC, and Graf, and further in view of the teachings of Mamouei . Claims 90 and 95 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Booker (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2003/0069148 A1, published on 10 April 2003 ) in view of O’Lenick , Jr . (U.S. Patent No. 8,268,766 B1, published on 18 September 2012), GYFC (Chinese Patent Application Publication No. CN 111214429 A, published on 2 June 2020, references to English translation), and Graf ( Clinics Dermat . 2008 , 26 (4), 326.) as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 9-11, 34, 37-38, 49-51, 75- 89 , and 94 above, and further in view of Martinez et al . ( J. Ethnopharmacology 2015 , 169 , 244., hereafter referred to as Martinez). Booker, O’Lenick Jr., GYFC, and Graf teach the above. Booker , O’Lenick Jr., GYFC, and Graf do not teach their composition s to contain the specific plant extract species dandelion root. Th is deficienc y is offset by the teachings of Martinez . Martinez teaches a review of the traditional uses and pharmacological properties of the Taraxacum genus, in particular in its use as an herbal medicine (Abstract). Among the >2500 species within the genus, Martinez teaches that T. officinale and T. erythrospermum are invasive and available worldwide (pg. 251, right col., para. 1) , but are not particularly well studied (pg. 245, Background, para. 1 -2 and Fig. 1 ). T. officinale in particular, otherwise known as the common dandelion (pg. 247, right col., para. 2), has been used medicinally for centuries (pg. 248, left col., para. 3). Recent studies have found that extracts from T. officinale exhibit anti-inflammatory properties due to the presence of triterpene alcohols and taraxasterol (pg. 253, left col., para. 3-4), hepatoprotective properties due to the presence of certain polysaccharides, antibacterial properties against Escherichia coli, Bacillus subtilis, and Staphylococcus aureus , and antioxidants properties (pg. 253, right col., para. 1). Traditional uses of T. officinale include use as an anti-inflammatory treatment in the Himalayas, Peru, Bolivia, and Italy, swelling treatment in Pakistan, and general pain treatment in Bolivia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Pakistan, among other uses (Table 2). Martinez notes that T. officinale is one of the only species in the genus that has “references in ethnopharmacology and pharmacology studies that preliminarily support their traditional use” and is “recognized by the scientific community as a strong candidate for the study of its medicinal properties derived from its extensive traditional knowledge and its worldwide presence” (pg. 253, right col., para. 3). Martinez concludes that T. officinale is one of the few species within the genus that is considered to have great applicability in food, cosmetics, and medicine (pg. 258, Conclusions, para. 2). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art , prior to the filing of the instant application, in view of the teachings of Martinez to use common dandelion extract ( T. officinale ) as a plant extract in the composition rendered obvious by the teachings of Booker, O’Lenick Jr., GYFC, and Graf because combining elements known in the prior art according to known methods to impart a known benefit yields predictable results. The ordinary artisan would be motivated to use common dandelion extract in the formulation rendered obvious above because Martinez teaches that the plant extract imparts many beneficial properties, such as anti-inflammation, antioxidant, and antibacterial properties, and is suitable for use in cosmetic applications. Martinez further teaches that extracts from T. officinale have been used in traditional medicines for centuries and are safe to users. Booker teaches that plant extracts should be included in their composition and teaches species, but does not specifically teach dandelion extract. A person of ordinary skill would recognize the benefits taught by Martinez as being beneficial in the cosmetic composition rendered obvious above , particularly in view of Booker teaching antioxidants and antimicrobial agents are beneficial in their composition, and would therefore be motivated to include T. officinale as a plant extract . Martinez does not teach a specific quantity of dandelion extract to use, but Booker teaches that plant extracts should be used in their invention in quantities of 0.01-10% w/w, and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill to include T. officinale extract in an amount within that range. As a result, there is a reasonable expectation of success in arriving at the invention of instant claims 90 and 9 5 in view of the teachings of Booker, O’Lenick Jr., GYFC, and Graf and further in view of the teachings of Martinez . Response to Arguments The Applicant’s arguments, filed on 9 January 2026 , have been fully considered but are not persuasive. I n para. 2 of pg. 14, Applicant argues that the Burt’s Bees reference does not teach the amount of the components in their invention and that the Booker, Traynor, and Graf references do not remedy this deficiency. This argument is considered moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above. From the final para. of pg. 14 to para. 2 of pg. 16, Applicant argues that the Office has not provided reason for selection of the four humectants recited in the instant claims, stating that “[t]he Office has cherry picked three of these examples…for no apparent reason”. The referenced rejection presented in the non-final Office Action, mailed on 5 September 2025, has been withdrawn and the argument against those references is rendered moot . Conclusion No claims are allowed. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL . See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sean J. Steinke , Ph.D. , whose telephone number is (571) 272-3396. The examiner can normally be reached Mon . - Fri . , 09:00 - 17:00 ET. 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, David Blanchard, can be reached at (571) 272-0827. 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. /S.J.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 1619 /DAVID J BLANCHARD/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1619