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. 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 . The following claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over the corresponding claims listed below of U.S. Patent No. 12,290,591 . Current claims Patent claims 1 and 3 1 2 15 Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because it is clear that all the elements of the application claim 1 are to be found in patent claim 1 (as the application claim 1 fully encompasses patent claim 1). The difference between the application claim 1 and the patent claim 1 lies in the fact that the patent claim includes many more elements and is thus much more specific. Thus the invention of claim 1 of the patent is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of the application claim 1. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman , 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since application claim 1 is anticipated by claim 1 of the patent, it is not patentably distinct from claim 1 of the patent. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Holland et al (EP 3103431) . With regards to claim 1 , Holland teaches a fragrance composition for a substrate that includes body parts (abstract) that includes human skin (001 2 ) wherein the composition contains a fragrance component at a concentration of 0.04 to 30% (0012) that contains a high volatile fragrance material having a vapor pressure of >0.1 Torr in a concentration of 1 to about 30% by weight and a moderate volatile fragrance material having a vapor pressure from 0.1 to 0.001 Torr at a concentration from about 40 to about 80% by weight (0012). Holland teaches the addition of a modulator in an amount of about 0.1 to about 20% by weight (0012). With regards to claim 2 , Holland teaches the composition to be used for imparting, intensifying, or modifying an odor on human skin (0013) . Holland teaches the composition to contain a fragrance component at a concentration of 0.04 to 30% (0012) that contains a high volatile fragrance material having a vapor pressure of >0.1 Torr in a concentration of 1 to about 30% by weight and a moderate volatile fragrance material having a vapor pressure from 0.1 to 0.001 Torr at a concentration from about 40 to about 80% by weight (0012). Holland teaches the addition of a modulator in an amount of about 0.1 to about 20% by weight (0012). With regards to claim s 3 and 4 , Holland teaches the modulator to include neopentyl glycol diethylhexanoate (0038) and isocetyl alcohol (0038). With regards to claim 5 , Holland teaches the composition to contain a high volatile fragrance material having a vapor pressure of >0.1 Torr in a concentration of 1 to about 30% . With regards to claim 6 , Holland teaches the composition to contain a moderate volatile fragrance material having a vapor pressure from 0.1 to 0.001 Torr at a concentration from about 40 to about 80% by weight (0012). With regards to claim 7 , Holland teaches the addition of more than one fragrance material reading on the claimed high volatility compounds (0109). With regards to claim 8 , Holland teaches the addition of more than one fragrance material reading on the claimed medium volatility compounds (0109). With regards to claim s 9 - 11 , Holland teaches the addition of a low volatile compound having a vapor pressure of <0.001 Torr at a concentration of 10 to 30% (abstract). With regards to claim 12 , Holland teaches the composition to be used in a consumer product (0064). With regards to claim s 13 and 14 , Holland teaches the composition to be used for a method of imparting, intensifying, or modifying an odor on human skin (0013). With regards to claim 15 , Holland teaches the modulator to include neopentyl glycol diethylhexanoate (0038). With regards to claim s 16 and 18 , Holland teaches the composition to contain a high volatile fragrance material having a vapor pressure of >0.1 Torr in a concentration of 1 to about 30% . With regards to claim s 17 and 19 , Holland teaches the composition to contain a moderate volatile fragrance material having a vapor pressure from 0.1 to 0.001 Torr at a concentration from about 40 to about 80% by weight (0012). Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Fadel et al (US 2022/0096355). The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement. With regards to claim 1 , Fadel teaches a perfumery composition (abstract) that includes a fragrance component in an amount of 0.04 to 40% (0010) that contains a high volatility component having a vapor pressure of greater than 0.08 Torr at 22°C at a concentration of 0.08 to 55% (0012) and a medium volatility having a vapor pressure from 0.0008 to 0.08 Torr at 22°C and a concentration of 0.08 to 85 wt% (0015-0016). Fadel teaches the following conditions to be met: (0019-0026). With regards to claim 2 , Fadel teaches the composition to reduce, prevent, or ameliorate the formation of a film on the consumer’s skin (0219) by contacting the composition to the body surface (0055). Fadel teaches the composition to contain a fragrance component in an amount of 0.04 to 40% (0010) that contains a high volatility component having a vapor pressure of greater than 0.08 Torr at 22°C at a concentration of 0.08 to 55% (0012) and a medium volatility having a vapor pressure from 0.0008 to 0.08 Torr at 22°C and a concentration of 0.08 to 85 wt% (0015-0016). Fadel teaches the following conditions to be met: (0019-0026). With regards to claim s 3 , 4 , and 15 , Fadel teaches the modulator to include compounds such as PPG-20 methyl glucose ether and isocetyl alcohol (0286). With regards to claim s 5 and 16 , Fadel teaches the addition of a second highly volatile compound to be optional, reading on only containing the first at a concentration of 0 to 55 wt% (0012-0014). With regards to claim s 6 and 17 , Fadel teaches the addition of a second medium volatile compound to be optional, reading on only containing the first at a concentration of 0 to 8 5 wt% (001 5 -001 7 ). With regards to claim 7 , Fadel teaches the addition of a second highly volatile compound (0014). With regards to claim 8 , Fadel teaches the addition of a second medium volatile compound (0017). With regards to claim s 9 - 11 , Fadel teaches the addition of a compound having a vapor pressure of less than 0.0008 Torr at 22°C (0026) wherein the total concentration of the low volatile compound to be 32.23% (0316). With regards to claim 12 , Fadel teaches the composition to be used for a consumer product (0050). With regards to claim 13 , Fadel teaches the composition to reduce, prevent, or ameliorate the formation of a film on the consumer’s skin (0219) by contacting the composition to the body surface (0055). With regards to claim 14 , Fadel teaches the composition to reduce, prevent, or ameliorate the formation of a film on the consumer’s skin (0219) by contacting the composition to the body surface (0055). With regards to claim 18 , Fadel teaches the amount of the highly volatile compound (the top note) to be 32.94% (0316) With regards to claim 19 , Fadel teaches the amount of the medium volatile compound to be 34.83% (0316). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The following references also teach a fragrance composition that is used on a human’s skin and contains highly and middle volatile compounds: Wong et al (WO 2013/060691) and Wong et al (US 2014/0287982) . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JESSICA WHITELEY whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5203 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 8 - 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 Joseph Del Sole can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712721130 . 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 571-272-100 0. /JESSICA WHITELEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1763