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. Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-20 (should be Group I, claims 1-19) in the reply filed on 26 September 2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the relationship between the two groups is such that examination of one necessarily facilitates examination of the other. Search and examination of composition claims will necessarily identify prior art most relevant to the method claim, and searching for method of using such compositions will reveal the same or overlapping body of prior art. Applicant’s arguments are persuasive. Group II, claim 20 is rejoined with Group I, claims 1-19 for examination. Priority This application claims foreign priority to FRANCE FR 2200821 filed 01/31/2022 , under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d). The certified copy of the priority document has been filed in the instant application. This application claims the benefit of 63273963 filed 10/31/2021. The parent application 63273963 to which priority is claimed is seen to provide adequate support under 35 U.S.C. 112 for claims 1-20 of this application. Claim Objections Claim s 18 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: In claim 18, the limitation after part (h) should be (i), not (a). In claim 20, the recitation ‘ in a human’ should be inserted after the term ‘skin’ at line 1. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 4 recites the limitation "non-ionic surfactants" in claim 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim s 6 , 9 and 14 recite components followed by chemical names within parentheses. It is not clear if the chemical names recited within parentheses are part of the limitations of the claim. Moreover, such recitations also raise the issue of broad and narrow recitations. A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 6 recites the broad recitations alkylpolyglycosides, polyglycerol-based emulsifiers, sorbitan fatty esters, and the claim also recites cetearyl glucoside, polyglyceryl-3-methylglucose distearate, and polysorbate-60 which are the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. This rejection also applies to claim 9 for the broad recitations fatty acid esters, polyolefins, plant and/or vegetable oil, hydrocarbon based oils and the narrow recitations isononyl iso nonanoate, petrolatum, polybutene, pentahydrosqualene, , soybean oil and isohexadecane; and applies to claim 14 for the broad recitation polyols and the narrow recitation, glycerin. 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. Claim (s) 1-2, 4-1 6 and 18 -20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LaRosa et al (US 2021/ 0093539 A1) as evidenced by Proksch (Journal of Dermatology, 2018, 45, 45, 1044-1052) in view of Faig et al (US 10,449,133 B1) and further in view of Gan et al (US 10,426,723 B2) . Larosa et al teaches a cosmetic composition which has hydroxypropyl tetrahydropyrantriol, water, PEG-100 stearate (ethoxylated fatty acid) , stearyl alcohol (fatty alcohol) , cetearyl glucoside (alkylpolyglucoside) , isohexadecane (fatty compound) , ammonium Polyacryldimethyltauramide/Ammonium Polyacryloyldiemthyl taurate (thickening polymer) , glycerin (water soluble solvent) ( para 0250; components recited in claim 1, parts (a)- (b) and (d)- (h); and limitation of claims 4-10, 13-14, and components recited in claim 18, parts (a)- (b) and (d)- (g)). The emulsifier can be present in 3-8wt% of the composition (Claims 7-8 of Larosa; limitation of claim 1, parts (c)-(f) , and limitations of claim 18, parts (c)-(f) regarding percentage of the emulsifiers and fatty alcohol). The solvent, which can be water, is present in 60-80wt% (claims 5 and 6 of Larosa; limitation of claim 12 and claim 18, part (b)). The compositions can be in the form of oil-in-water emulsion (para 0040; as in claims 1 and 18). Since Larosa teaches the amounts of the emulsifiers, fatty alcohol and water, one of ordinary skill in the art can adjust the amount of hydroxypropyl tetrahydropyrantriol and the fatty compound as in claim 1, parts (a) and (h) and as in claim 18, parts (a) and (g). La rosa teaches the use of glyceryl stearate in several moisturizing compositions (see examples paras 0134, 0182, and 0184). This is also seen with the taurate polymer ammonium polyacryloyldimethyl taurate and copolymers (see paras 0130, 0177, 0182, 0192). In view of this teaching one of ordinary skill in the art will include the taurate copolymers as in claim 11 and claim 18, part (h), and the glyceryl stearate and the other glyceryl esters as in claim 2 as components in the composition of Larosa disclosed at para 0250. At para 0005 Larosa teaches that its compositions are for balancing skin’s pH level. According to Proksch, the pH of human skin surface is in the range of 4.1-5.8 and it is around 7-7.4 in the stratum corneum (page 1045, see under sub-title: pH of healthy skin). In view of this teaching of Proksch and that of Larosa at para005, the compositions of Larosa should be in the range recited in claim 16. The pH can also be adjusted to be in the range recited in claim 16 by the artisan in view of Larosa and Proksch. Larosa does not teach the limitations of claim 3, some of the ingredients recited in claim 11 and the limitations of claims 15 and 17. Faig teaches a cosmetic composition comprising one or more fatty alcohols and one or more fatty compounds that comprise in total 5 to 30% of the composition (col. 11, lines 11-18), fatty alcohols that are 12 to 22 carbon atoms long, that can be: decyl alcohol, undecyl alcohol , dodecyl, myristyl, cetyl alcohol, stearyl alcohol, isostearyl alcohol, isocetyl alcohol, behenyl alcohol, linalool, oleyl alcohol (col. 8, lines 6-19 ; as in claims 7-8 ), fatty compounds (col. 9, lines 28-56 ; as in claims 1 and 18, (f)-(g) ), mineral oils and plant/vegetable oils (col. 10, lines 43-48 ; as in claim 9 ) . F aig f urther teach es the use of taurates including the use of ammonium acryloyl dimethyl taurate/VP copolymer and sodium polyacrylate polyacryloyldimethyl taurate and the mixture thereof in amount of 0.01 to about 5% of the composition (col. 11, lines 36-45 ; as in claims 11 and 18(f) ) . A nonionic emulsifier, glyceryl stearate can be present at 1.5% weight of the composition (Example 2). T he composition is an oil in water emulsion composed of 30% to 80% water (Example 2B at col. 21 ). W ater-soluble solvents like glycerin, polyols, and glycols, and mono-alcohols can be used comprising 1 to about 25% of the composition (Example 2 B at col. 21, and col. 6, line 30 through col. 7, line 51 ; as in claim 13 ) . Faig teaches that the composition is stable by undergoing a freeze thaw cycle consisting of 3 freeze/thaw cycles that does not exhibit phase separation or visible crystallization (col. 11, lines 19-27; part of the limitation of claim 15) . Using this as starting point, the artisan can adjust the property as in claims 15. Gan, drawn to cosmetic compositions for treating skin, teaches that 4-tert-butylcyclohexanol is an anti-irritant agent useful for reducing burning and stinging of skin (col. 14, lines 1-15; component recited in claim 3). It is known to be used in combination with ingredients like emulsifiers (col 19, line 54 through col. 20, line 12), moisturizing agents like glycerin (col. 17, line 39-41), thickening agents like ammonium acryloyldimethyltaurate/VP copolymer (col. 21, lines 25-34) . All these ingredients are used in the composition of Larosa. Hence, the artisan will find it obvious to use 4-tert-butylcyclohexanol as a component and adjust its percentage as in claim 3 in order to get the beneficial effect s of 4-tert-butylcyclohexanol. According to Crane et al, water based cosmetic compositions containing thickeners like acryloyldimethyltaurate and crosspolymers and an emulsifier can be formulated to have a viscosity of about 3,000Pas to about 90,000 Pas at a shear rate of 0.1Pas to about 3Pas (para 0087 ; and claims 30-33 of Crane ) . In view of this teaching one of ordinary skill in the art can adjust the viscosity of the composition as in claim 17. The artisan will adjust the viscosity so that the composition has good glide, spreadability and comfort as taught by Crane (para 0003-0004). MPEP 2141 states, "The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. The Court quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that "[R]ejections on obviousness cannot be sustained by mere conclusatory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.'" KSR, 550 U.S. at, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; (E) " Obvious to try " choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention." According to the rationale discussed in KSR above, the rationale in ( G) above is seen to be applicable here since based on the prior art teachings, the components used in the claimed compositions are all known in the art for making cosmetic skin treating compositions. Thus, the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention over the combined teachings of the prior art. One of ordinary skill in the art will be motivated to arrive at the claimed composition as an alternative having optimal properties for skin treatment since Larosa’s compositions comprising the components in the instant composition are useful for treating skin conditions (paras 0004-0006). Larosa teaches that its compositions are for use in a method of treating skin in a subject (paras 0004-0006). This renders obvious the method of treating skin in a human by applying the composition to the skin as in claim 20. It would also be obvious from the teachings of Larosa to make the kit comprising the composition of claim 1 and one or more additional skin treatment compositions that are separately contained as in claim 19. It is obvious to combine individual compositions taught to have the same utility to form a new composition for the very same purpose. In re Kerkhoven, 626 F 2d 846, 205 USPQ 1069 (C.C.P.A. 1980). One of ordinary skill in the art would also substitute all of the other components recited in claims 2, 6-11, and claim 18, parts (e) and (h) in the composition of Larosa in view of the teachings of the prior art. The artisan would have a reasonable expectation that all the other components recited in claims 2, 6-11, and claim 18, parts (e) and (h) would provide the same beneficial effects. It has been held that it is within the skill in the art to select optimal parameters, such as amounts of ingredients in order to achieve a beneficial effect . See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). One of skill in the art would want to adjust the amounts of the components to obtain maximum beneficial effects for the uses taught in the prior art . 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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). The USPTO Internet website contains Terminal Disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/ . The 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 and 14-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,064,504 (‘504) in view of LaRosa et al (US 2021/0093539 A1) as evidenced by Proksch (Journal of Dermatology, 2018, 45, 45, 1044-1052) and further in view of Faig et al (US 10,449,133 B1) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because : Instant claim s 1 and 18 are drawn to a composition comprising hydroxypropyl tetrahydropyrantriol, non-ionic emulsifiers chosen from glyceryl esters having HLB of about 3 to about 9, non-ionic emulsifiers having HLB of about 16 to 18, non-ionic emulsifiers having HLB of about 9 to 15, one or more fatty alcohols, one or more fatty compounds, one or more thickening polymers and their concentrations, and the composition is an oil-in-water emulsion. Dependent claims 2 and 4- 17 recite limitations drawn to specific glyceryl esters, non-ionic emulsifiers , fatty alcohols, fatty compounds, thickening polymers, number of carbons in the fatty alcohol, percentage of water, one or more water-soluble solvents, properties of the composition, and pH. Claim 19 is drawn to a kit comprising the composition of claim 1 and one or more skin treatment compositions and claim 20 is drawn to a method of treating skin using the composition of claim 1. The claims of ‘504 are also drawn to compositions comprising the claimed components with overlapping percentages, its property, a kit and a method of treating skin using the composition of claim 1. The claims of ‘ 504 differ from the instant claims in that the instant claims do not include acetyl trifluoromethylphenyl valine in about 1 to about 5wt% . The teachings of Larosa as evidenced by Proksch and Faig are set forth above. Both teach compositions comprising the claimed components without acetyl trifluoromethylphenyl valine. Therefore , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention that the composition of ‘504 could be modified in view of Larosa, Proksch and Faig to arrive at the instant composition, the kit and the method of treatment of skin as claimed. The use of known members of classes of ingredients in compositions taught in the prior art is not seen to render the instantly claimed composition unobvious over the art. Once the general scheme has been shown to be old, the burden is on the applicant to present reason or authority for believing that absence of acetyl trifluoromethylphenyl valine would alter the nature of the product and thus the unobviousness of the method of using it , especially in view of Larosa and Faig . Claim s 1 -12, 15 and 17-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9-10 , 12, 17 and 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,090,224 (‘224) in view of LaRosa et al (US 2021/0093539 A1) as evidenced by Proksch (Journal of Dermatology, 2018, 45, 45, 1044-1052) and further in view of Faig et al (US 10,449,133 B1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because : Instant claim 1 is drawn to a composition comprising hydroxypropyl tetrahydropyrantriol, non-ionic emulsifiers chosen from glyceryl esters having HLB of about 3 to about 9, non-ionic emulsifiers having HLB of about 16 to 18, non-ionic emulsifiers having HLB of about 9 to 15, one or more fatty alcohols, one or more fatty compounds, one or more thickening polymers and their concentrations, and the composition is an oil-in-water emulsion. Dependent claims 2-12, 15 and 17-18 recite drawn to specific glyceryl esters, non-ionic emulsifiers, fatty alcohols, fatty compounds, thickening polymers, percentage of water, properties of the composition. Claim 9 of ‘224 is drawn to the composition of claim1 further comprising hydroxypropyl tetrahydropyrantriol and claim 10 recites the percentage of hydroxypropyl tetrahydropyrantriol. The composition of claim 1 of ‘224 comprises ceramide NP, water, polyglycerol-based emulsifiers, glyceryl esters having HLB of about 3 to about 6, one or more ethoxylated emulsifiers, one or more fatty alcohols, one or more triglyceride and non-aromatic fatty compounds and wherein the composition is an oil-in-water emulsion and does not visually phase separate for at least 8 weeks in storage at 4 o C and 45 o C. Claim 12 recites limitations drawn to thickening polymers. Claim 17 is drawn to a composition comprising ceramide NP, water, glyceryl and ethoxylated fatty acid emulsifiers, fatty alcohols having 8 to 24 carbons, fatty compounds, hydroxypropyl tetrahydropyrantriol, thickening polymers and specific water-soluble solvents and the composition in the form of oil-in-water emulsion. Claim 19 is similar to claim 17 except there is no hydroxypropyl tetrahydropyrantriol. Claim 18 is drawn to a method of treating skin and claim 20 is drawn to the viscosity of the composition of claim 19. The claims of ‘224 differ from the instant claims in that the instant claims do not include ceramide NP. The teachings of Larosa as evidenced by Proksch and Faig are set forth above. Both teach compositions comprising the claimed components without ceramide NP. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the instant invention that the composition of ‘224 could be modified in view of Larosa, Proksch and Faig to arrive at the instant composition, the kit and the method of treatment of skin as claimed. The use of known members of classes of ingredients in compositions taught in the prior art is not seen to render the instantly claimed composition unobvious over the art. Once the general scheme has been shown to be old, the burden is on the applicant to present reason or authority for believing that absence of acetyl trifluoromethylphenyl valine would alter the nature of the product and thus the unobviousness of the method of using it, especially in view of Larosa and Faig. Conclusion Pending claims 1-20 are rejected Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT GANAPATHY KRISHNAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0654 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 8.30am-5pm . 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 Scarlett Goon can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-5241 . 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. /GANAPATHY KRISHNAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1693