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. Priority The instant application claims foreign priority to FR2102096 filed 03/04/2021. The instant application is a 371 of PCT/FR2022/050389 filed 03/04/2022. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) dated 08/29/2023 complies with provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP §609. Accordingly, it has been placed in the application file and the information therein has been considered as to the merits. Claim Objections Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities: grammar; the term “extemporaneous” means without preparation . It is unclear what an extemporaneous preparation is intended to mean however, the language does not rise to the level of indefiniteness. 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claim s 13, 15, and 18 -19 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. Regarding claim 13, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 15, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. The term “predominately or exclusively” in claim 18 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “predominately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “exclusively” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Regarding instant claim 19, claim 19 recites “characterized in that the copper oxide powder represents from 5% to 25% by weight, relative to the weight of the Tamaris gall extract.”, which the Examiner is interpreting as from 5% to 25% by weight of the Tamaris extract rather than by the weight of the overall composition. However, there is not a percent by weight of the overall composition described for the Tamaris extract nor is there a percent by weight of the overall composition described for the copper oxide. Therefore, it is unclear what the percent weight is of the copper oxide or the Tamaris extract within the overall composition. As such, claim 19 is presently indefinite. Claim Interpretation Regarding instant claim 18, the terms predominately and exclusively are not defined by the specification. The Examiner is interpreting the term predominately to mean greater than 50%. 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. A) Claim s 12-15 and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moyal (US Patent Application Publication 20030185785A1) and Hayakawa et al.(US Patent Application Publication 20190254938A1) . Moyal teaches a composition for hair treatment comprising a mixture of gallnuts and copper oxide, each in powder form, in the ratio of about 75 gram copper oxide for each 1 kg of gallnuts, and water. It may further include one or more of the following components: cooking or olive oil and/or clove and/or almond shells and/or pomegranate shells and/or common salt and/or soap or wash paste and/or banana shells. A method for preparing a composition for hair treatment, comprising the steps: A) Taking 1 kg. gall-nuts and dividing them up into 2 equal parts. B) Mixing 150 grams of cloves with 75 grams of copper oxide C) Grinding up everything into powder D) Preparing an alcoholic liquid; E) Mixing with the alcoholic liquid ( Moyal at abstract). The teachings of Moyal differ from the instant claim insofar as they do not teach that the gallnuts are Tamaris. The teachings Hayakawa of cure this deficit. Hayakawa teaches that the composition may be shampoos, rinses, conditioners, hair colors , hair tonics, setting agents, body powders, hair growth promoters, deodorants, depilatories, soaps, body shampoos, bath preparations, hand soaps and perfumes (Hayakawa at [0191]). Hayakawa teaches the composition may include copper powder (Hayakawa at [0139]). Hayakawa teaches the use of Tamarix chinensis extract (Hayakawa at [0176]) and further teaches it’s whitening properties (Hayakawa at [0179]). Hayakawa teaches the use of water (Hayakawa at [0157]). Hayakawa teaches the use of olive oil (Hayakawa at [0155]). Hayakawa teaches the use of clove (Hayakawa at [0160]). The teachings of Hayakawa differ from the instant claims insofar as they do not specifically teach how the tamarix chinensis extract is produced. The teachings of Moyal cure this deficit. It would be prima facie obvious to have used the method of preparing an extract taught by Moyal to produce the botanical extract of Hayakawa as Hayakawa does not specify how the extracts are produced. One would have a reasonable expectation of success because both compositions teach hair colors comprising copper, clove, olive oil and water. One would have been motivated to have used the tamarix chinesis as the gallnut of Moyal for the benefit to whitening or lightening the hair as taught by Hayakawa. It would be prima facie obvious to have used the tamarix chinensis as the gallnut of the composition of Moyal as it is taught to be a botanical extract used in preparations with the benefit of whitening or lightening by Hayakawa. One would have a reasonable expectation of success because both compositions teach hair colors comprising copper, clove, olive oil and water. Regarding instant claim 12, Moyal teaches a hair treatment that is a mixture of gallnut, copper oxide, and water ( Moyal at abstract). Hayakawa teaches the use of Tamarix chinensis extract (Hayakawa at [0176]) Regarding instant claim 13, Hayakawa teaches the use of Tamarix chinensis extract (Hayakawa at [0176]) Regarding instant claim 14, Moyal teaches that the gallnuts are cooked in olive oil and then ground ( Moyal at Figure 3 and abstract). Regarding instant claim 15, Moyal teaches the use of olive oil ( Moyal at abstract). Regarding instant claim 19, Moyal teaches a ratio of about 75 gram copper oxide for each 1 kg of gallnuts which would be about 7.5% copper oxide by weight of the gallnut( Moyal at abstract) , which overlaps the instantly claimed range of range of between 5% and 25% . Regarding instant claim 20, Moyal teaches a method of using the composition in Figure 2; . Regarding instant claim 21, Moyal teaches a method of preparing the composition in Figure 3; . Regarding instant claim 22, Moyal teaches a method of making a composition with the inclusion of cloves in Figure 5; . B) Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moyal (US Patent Application Publication 20030185785A1) and Hayakawa et al.(US Patent Application Publication 20190254938A1) as applied to claim s 12-15 and 19-22 above, and further in view of Landa et al ( US Patent Application Publication 20180263864 A1 ) . The teachings of Moyal and Hayakawa are discussed above. The teachings of Moyal and Hayakawa differ from the instant claim insofar as they do not specifically teach the use of argan oil. Landa teaches a hair care product ( Landa at [0084]). Landa teaches the use of olive oil and argan oil ( Landa at [0196]). Landa teaches the use of copper oxide ( Landa at [0050]). Landa teaches the use of clove leaf oil ( Landa at [0197]). The teachings of Landa differ from the instant claims insofar as they do not specifically teach the use of Tamaris extract. The teachings of Moyal and Hayakawa cure this deficit. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have combined the argan oil with the olive oil of Moyal and Hayakawa for its benefit as an oil used in hair care as taught by Landa . See MPEP 2144.06(I). One would have a reasonable expectation of success as all of the compositions are hair care compositions comprising oils. C) Claim s 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moyal (US Patent Application Publication 20030185785A1) and Hayakawa et al.(US Patent Application Publication 20190254938A1) as applied to claim s 12-15 and 19-22 above, and further in view of Wempe ( US Patent Application Publication 20090163449 A1 ) . The teachings of Moyal and Hayakawa are discussed above. The teachings of Moyal and Hayakawa differ from the instant claim insofar as they do not specifically teach the use of copper II oxide. The teachings of Wempe cure this deficit. Wempe teaches that the composition may be sun care/skin care applications (i.e. creams, lotions and sprays), perfume applications (i.e. flavors, fragrances, essential oils, etc), hairstyling applications (i.e. hair gel and hairspray), color makeup and hairstyling applications ( Wempe at [0021]). Wempe teaches the use of copper (II) oxide and copper (I) oxide ( Wempe at [0036]). Wempe teaches the use of plant extracts ( Wempe at [0035]). Wempe teaches the use of water ( Wempe at [0036]). Wempe teaches the use of olive oil and other vegetable based oils ( Wempe at [0046]). Wempe teaches the use of clove bud oil ( Wempe at [0032]). The teachings of Wempe differ from the instant claims insofar as they do not specifically teach the use of Tamaris extract as the plant extract . The teachings of Moyal and Hayakawa cure this deficit. It would be prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have used the copper II oxide as the copper oxide of Moyal and Hayakawa as they do not denote specific copper oxides and Wempe teaches that copper II oxide is an acceptable copper oxide to use in a hair care or hair coloring composition . See MPEP 2144.07. One would have a reasonable expectation of success because both are copper oxides used in hair compositions comprising water, olive oil, clove, plant extracts, and copper. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect that copper II oxide and copper I oxide would be expected to be chemically pure copper II oxide and copper I oxide as they are listed independently within Wempe and do not denote the addition of other salts, metals or silicones within their formula ( Wempe at [0036]). Conclusion No claims are presently allowable. Correspondence Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT AMANDA MICHELLE PETRITSCH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6812 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 08:30-17:00 EST ALT Fridays . 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 Sahana S. Kaup, can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-6897 . 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. /AMANDA MICHELLE PETRITSCH/ Examiner, Art Unit 1612 /SAHANA S KAUP/ Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1612