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 .
Acknowledgements
This Office Action is in response to the RCE filed on 09/22/2026.
Claim 5 was amended.
Claim 7 was canceled.
Claims 5 and 8 are pending.
Claims 5 and 8 were examined.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
According to MPEP 2106 II, It is essential that the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim be established prior to examining a claim for eligibility. Further, MPEP 2103 I C establishes that the subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit the scope of the claim when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. It is this subject matter that must be examined. Regarding the independent claims, claim 5 recites “footprint… comprising carbon emissions which occur during raw hide acquisition, leather material production, and transportation of raw materials”; “footprint… comprising carbon emissions which occur during leather production activities, in-plant transportation, and waste disposal”; “footprint... comprising carbon emissions which occur during transportation and distribution of the finished leather product to other manufacturers or to a place of sale”; “wherein the carbon footprint of the raw material transportation and production stage is as follows…”; “what each variable "represent(s)"”; “wherein: the leather product process comprises a preparation process, a tanning process, wet processing after tanning, and a finishing process; carbon emissions of the leather product process are from energy consumption and a waste disposal process”; “the carbon emission accounting model for the leather production process is as follows”; language directed to non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05. In addition, claim 5 recites “use of accurately measurable electric power from a renewable energy source is not included in the calculation of Eelectric power” , a statement of intended use or field use. See MPEP 2114 II. Lastly, claim 5 recites “upon the total carbon footprint of the leather product exceeding a first predetermined value, checking respective carbon footprints in the carbon emission accounting models for the three stages to determine a carbon footprint exerting a largest influence on the total carbon footprint of the leather product;”; “when the carbon footprint exerting the largest influence is the carbon footprint of using purchased heat, reducing an opening of a steam valve or a hot water valve” , language directed to contingent limitations. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. See also MPEP 2111.04.
With respect to the Eligibility Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo two-part test of the subject matter eligibility analysis (see MPEP 2106), in the instant case, claims 5 and 8 are directed to a method. Therefore, these claims fall within the four statutory categories of invention.
Following step 2A, prong one of the analysis, the language of the independent claims reciting an abstract idea are marked in bold below:
determining a system boundary for the carbon footprint over a life cycle of the leather product;b. dividing the carbon footprint into three stages within the system boundary, the three stages comprising: a raw material production and transportation stage; a leather product production stage; and a leather product transportation and distribution stage;c. collecting data from each of the three stages, according to a production process of the leather product;d. determining carbon emission source inventories and corresponding emission factors for each of the three stages;e. constructing carbon emission accounting models for each of the three stages, according to the emission source inventories and emission factors;f. obtaining a total carbon footprint of the leather product using the carbon emission accounting models for the three stages, wherein the total carbon footprint of the leather product is equal to the sum of: a carbon footprint of the raw material production and transportation stage (Eraw material acquisition), comprising carbon emissions which occur during raw hide acquisition, leather material production, and transportation of raw materials; a carbon footprint of the leather product production stage (Eproduct production), comprising carbon emissions which occur during leather production activities, in-plant transportation, and waste disposal; and a carbon footprint of the leather product transportation and distribution stage (Eproduct transportation), comprising carbon emissions which occur during transportation and distribution of the finished leather product to other manufacturers or to a place of sale;g. wherein the carbon footprint of the raw material transportation and production stage is as follows:(Eraw material acquisition) =∑(Ci x RFi) +∑(Di x Ei x Fi);wherein:i represents different raw material types of an acquired raw hi3de and a prepared leather material;Ci represents a consumption of an ith raw material, in units of kg;RFi represents an emission factor of greenhouse gas of the ith raw material, in units of kg CO2e/kg;Di represents a transport mileage of the ith raw material, in units of km;Ei represents a mass of the ith raw material transported, in units of t; andFi represents an emission factor of greenhouse gas corresponding to a mode of transportation of the ith raw material, in unites of kg CO2e/tkm;
h) wherein: a leather production process comprises a preparation process, a tanning process, wet processing after tanning, and a finishing process;carbon emissions of the leather product process are from energy consumption and a waste disposal process;the carbon emission accounting model for the leather production process is as follows:Eproduct production = (Eenergy + Ewaste wherein:Eenergy represents a carbon footprint of energy consumption for the production process, in units of kg CO2e;Ewaste disposal represents a carbon footprint of the waste disposal process, in units of kg CO2e;Wherein:Eenergy =(Efuel + Eelectric power + Eheat ), where:Efuel represents a carbon footprint of fuel combustion, in units of kg CO2e, and is calculated as: Efuel=∑(Ck X Hk), and where:k represents a different fuel type;Ck represents a consumption of a kth fuel, in units of kg; andHk represents an emission factor of greenhouse gas of the kth fuel, in units of kg CO2e/kg;Eelectric power represents a carbon footprint of using purchased electric power, in units of kg CO2e, and is calculated as:Eelectric power = EA X EF, and where:EA represents activity level data of the purchased electric power, in units of GJ (kwh);EF represents an emission factor of greenhouse gas of the purchased electric power, in units of kcCO2e/kwh; anduse of accurately measurable electric power from a renewable energy source is not included in the calculation of Eelectric power; andEheat represents a carbon footprint of using purchased heat (steam and hot water), in units of kg CO2e, and is calculated as:Eheat = HA X FA, and where:HA represents activity level data of the purchased heat, in units of GJ; andFA represents an emission factor of greenhouse gas of the purchased heat in units of CO2e/GJ; andEwaste disposal= (WA X WF), where:WA represents activity level data of waste disposal, in units of kg; andWF represents an emission factor of greenhouse gas of waste disposal, in units of kg CO2e/kg;
i) wherein the accounting method further comprises: upon the total carbon footprint of the leather product exceeding a first predetermined value, checking respective carbon footprints in the carbon emission accounting models for the three stages to determine a carbon footprint exerting a largest influence on the total carbon footprint of the leather product; when the carbon footprint exerting the largest influence is the carbon footprint of using purchased heat, reducing an opening of a steam valve or a hot water valve.
Therefore, in view of the established BRI of the claim, the portions highlighted in bold above recite accounting, which is an abstract idea grouped within the certain methods of organizing human activity, mathematical concepts and mental processes grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A. The claims are grouped within certain methods of organizing human activity because the steps recited describe the commercial or legal interaction of using an accounting algorithm for determining carbon footprints, the claims are also grouped within mathematical concepts because the steps recited describe adding individual stages to obtain an overall result, which is represented by a formula. Additionally, the claims are also grouped within mental processes because the steps recited describe collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, making a selection, which is a concept that can be performed in the human mind or by pen and paper. In situations like this where a series of steps recite judicial exceptions, examiners should combine all recited judicial exceptions and treat the claim as containing a single judicial exception for purposes of further eligibility analysis. See MPEP 2106.04 and 2106.05(II). Thus, the language identified in the certain methods of organizing human activity, mathematical concepts and mental processes groupings were considered as a single abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2A, prong two of the analysis, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Examiner notes no additional elements are recited by the claim, therefore the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, following the analysis of step 2A, prong two, the claims are still directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B of the analysis, no additional elements are recited by the claims. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of accounting. Therefore, the independent claims are not eligible.
Dependent claim 8 further recites the following additional language, in which elements which merely define the identified abstract idea are marked in bold below:
j) wherein: the leather product transportation and distribution stage is a process of transporting the leather product from a manufacturer to a warehouse, a seller, and a distribution place;; the carbon emission accounting model for the leather product transportation and distribution stage takes carbon footprint data for different modes of product transportation (vehicle type), transport mileages, and masses of transported goods into account; andthe carbon emission accounting model for the leather product transportation and distribution stage is as follows:Eproduct transportation =(DA X EA X FA); wherein:DA represents a transport mileage of the product, in units of km;EA represents a mass of the product transported, in units of t; andFA represents an emission factor of greenhouse gas corresponding to a mode of product transportation, in units of kg CO2e/tkm.
With respect to claim 8, the claim recites item j) above, language which does not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what the leather product process "comprises" and what a carbon emission accounting model "is". Those statements are insufficient to significantly alter the eligibility analysis. This language further elaborates the abstract idea of accounting identified in the analysis of independent claim 5. Therefore, this language does not significantly alter the analysis with respect to the independent claim 5. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements/functions do not pertain to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology. The additional elements/functions, alone or in combination, do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea, because the additional elements/functions merely further recite additional instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Therefore, while the additional language j) of dependent claim 8 slightly modifies the analysis provided with respect to independent claim 5, these additional elements/functions are insufficient to render the dependent claims eligible, as detailed above. Therefore, the dependent claim is also ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 5 was amended to recite “upon the total carbon footprint of the leather product exceeding a first predetermined value, checking respective carbon footprints in the carbon emission accounting models for the three stages to determine a carbon footprint exerting a largest influence on the total carbon footprint of the leather product”. The specification as filed does not appear to describe the algorithm for performing this function. Therefore, the specification as filed does not provide sufficient written description for the claimed language (see MPEP 2161.01). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. Dependent claim 8 is also rejected since it depends on claim 5.
Claim 5 was amended to recite “when the carbon footprint exerting the largest influence is the carbon footprint of using purchased heat, reducing an opening of a steam valve or a hot water valve.” The specification as filed recites, inter alia:
“[0029] Here, Efuel represents a carbon footprint of fuel combustion, in unit of kg CO2e,Eelectric power represents a carbon footprint of using purchased electric power, in unit of kg CO2e, and Eheat represents a carbon footprint of using purchased heat (steam and hot water), in unit of kg CO2e.
[0064]Eheat represents a carbon footprint of using purchased heat (steam and hot water), in unit of kg CO2e; ”
Therefore, the specification as filed does not recite a "valve" or the algorithm for performing the conditional function of "when the carbon footprint exerting the largest influence is the carbon footprint of using purchased heat, reducing an opening of a steam valve or a hot water valve". Therefore, the specification as filed does not provide sufficient written description for the claimed language (see MPEP 2161.01). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. Dependent claim 8 is also rejected since it depends on claim 5.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 5 is rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brugnoli et al. (NPL 2012, listed in PTO-892 dated 03/06/2026 as reference "U"), hereinafter Brugnoli, in view of Fang et al. (US 2018/0276679 A1), hereinafter Fang, and in view of Solomon et al. (WO 2024/147794 A1), hereinafter Solomon.
With respect to claim 5, Brugnoli teaches an accounting method of determining a carbon footprint of a leather product (Life Cycle Assessment, Carbon Footprint in Leather Processing ) comprising:
determining a system boundary for the carbon footprint over a life cycle of the leather product (see page 9, system boundaries; pages 11 and 12: "As a partial response to this situation, the scientific community, together with some industries has developed interest in estimating the total amount of GHG produced during the different stages in the life cycle of products — i.e. their production, processing, transportation, sale, use and disposal. The outcome of these calculations based on the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of the products is referred to as Product Carbon Footprints (PCFs). PCFs are becoming important in orientating choices both of companies and of consumers around the world. In particular, the fashion and leather sector has recently increased its activeness in this field. "; page 12: "Since LCA calculations are, by definition, to be implemented on all the processes that concur to the realization of the product, from raw material extraction, until the end of life of the product itself (the so called “cradle to grave” approach), one of the most important factors on which international agreement has to be reached is on the definition of the so called “System boundaries”.”);
dividing the carbon footprint into three stages within the system boundary, the three stages comprising: a raw material production and transportation stage; a leather product production stage; and a leather product transportation and distribution stage (see page 29: Methodological Approach to system boundaries, upstream module, core module, downstream module; page 30, upstream processes including raw material extraction, core processes including production of finished leather, production of leather based products, production of packaging and external and internal transportation of raw materials an energy wares to the core process, and downstream processes including transportation and distribution. See also Fig. 3, page 31. Examiner notes that classifying transportation as an upstream process or a core process is merely a design choice.);
collecting data from each of the three stages, according to a production process of the leather product (see page 43, "In order to be able to quantify the CF defined above, the ISO DIS 14067, in chapter 6.1 specifies that: ‘‘A CFP study assesses the GHG emissions and removals in the life cycle of a product. The unit processes comprising the product system shall be grouped into life cycle stages; e.g., raw material acquisition, production, distribution, use and end-of-life. GHG emissions and removals from the product’s life cycle shall be assigned to the life cycle stage in which the GHG emissions and removals occur. Partial CFPs may be added together to quantify the CFP, provided that they are performed according to the same methodology’’13. According to the described “Modular approach”, the methodology is based on the quantification of CO2e content of all the different products and material entering the tannery (upstream processes), summing them to the CO2e produced in the tannery itself (core processes), and the CO2e produced for water purification, waste recycling/disposal and air purification (downstream processes)." See pages 60-66, data collection, "LCI is the phase of LCA involving the compilation and quantification of inputs and outputs for a product throughout its life cycle. After the goal and scope definition phase, the LCI of a CFP study shall be performed, which consists of the following steps, for which the following pertinent provisions, adapted from ISO 14044:2006, listed below shall apply. If CFP-PCR are adopted for the CFP study, the LCI shall be conducted following the requirements in the CFP-PCR. § Data collection");
determining carbon emission source inventories and corresponding emission factors for each of the three stages (see page 55: "As said before, having identified all specific indicators from Upstream and Downstream processes, it is important to be able to quantify all physical KPIs that can characterise site specific leather production in the core processes. The suggested way of proceeding is to identify all key performance indicators that may result useful for the calculation of CO2 calculations during the production process. In order to do this, following a step by step approach all process consumptions and emissions shall be identified both for phases up to beamhouse, and for the following (up to finished leather). ");
constructing carbon emission accounting… for each of the three stages, according to the emission source inventories and emission factors (see page 55, As said before, having identified all specific indicators from Upstream and Downstream processes, it is important to be able to quantify all physical KPIs that can characterize site specific leather production in the core processes. The suggested way of proceeding is to identify all key performance indicators that may result useful for the calculation of CO2 calculations during the production process. In order to do this, following a step by step approach all process consumptions and emissions shall be identified both for phases up to beamhouse, and for the following (up to finished leather).); and
obtaining a total carbon footprint of the leather product using the carbon emission accounting models for the three stages, wherein the total carbon footprint of the leather product is equal to the sum of: a carbon footprint of the raw material production and transportation stage (Eraw material acquisition), comprising carbon emissions which occur during raw hide acquisition, leather material production, and transportation of raw materials; a carbon footprint of the leather product production stage (Eproduct production), comprising carbon emissions which occur during leather production activities, in-plant transportation, and waste disposal; and a carbon footprint of the leather product transportation and distribution stage (Eproduct transportation), comprising carbon emissions which occur during transportation and distribution of the finished leather product to other manufacturers or to a place of sale (see page 7: "The Carbon footprint of a product is defined as the “weighted sum of greenhouse gas emissions and greenhouse gas removals of a process, a system of processes or a product system, expressed in CO2 equivalents” referred to a product system. In case of finished leather, the carbon footprint, as it will be clearly explained in the document is expressed as: Kg of CO2e/m++2++ of finished leather; page 43: "The final aim of the process is to quantify the CPF of the product leather, which is defined in ISO DIS 14067 as the “sum of greenhouse gas emissions and removals in a product system, expressed as CO2 equivalent and based on a life cycle assessment”. The CO2 equivalent of a specific amount of a greenhouse gas is calculated as the mass of a given greenhouse gas multiplied by its global warming potential12. According to this definition and to the previous definition of the functional unit, a CF of leather shall be expressed as: Kg of CO2e/m++2++ of finished leather");
a leather production process comprises a preparation process, a tanning process, wet processing after tanning, and a finishing process; carbon emissions of the leather product process are from energy consumption and a waste disposal process; the carbon emission accounting model for the leather production process is as follows: Eproduct production = (Eenergy + Ewaste, wherein: Eenergy represents a carbon footprint of energy consumption for the production process, in units of kg CO2e; Ewaste disposal represents a carbon footprint of the waste disposal process, in units of kg CO2e; Wherein: Eenergy =(Efuel + Eelectric power + Eheat), where: Efuel represents a carbon footprint of fuel combustion, in units of kg CO2e, and is calculated as: Efuel=E(Ck X Hk), and where:k represents a different fuel type; Ck represents a consumption of a kth fuel, in units of kg; and Hk represents an emission factor of greenhouse gas of the kth fuel, in units of kg CO2e/kg; Eelectric power represents a carbon footprint of using purchased electric power, in units of kg CO2e, and is calculated as: Eelectric power = EA X EF, and where:EA represents activity level data of the purchased electric power, in units of GJ (kwh);EF represents an emission factor of greenhouse gas of the purchased electric power, in units of kcCO2e/kwh; and use of accurately measurable electric power from a renewable energy source is not included in the calculation of Eelectric power; andEheat represents a carbon footprint of using purchased heat (steam and hot water), in units of kg CO2e, and is calculated as: Eheat = HA X FA, and where:HA represents activity level data of the purchased heat, in units of GJ; and FA represents an emission factor of greenhouse gas of the purchased heat in units of CO2e/GJ; and Ewaste disposal= (WA X WF), where: WA represents activity level data of waste disposal, in units of kg; and WF represents an emission factor of greenhouse gas of waste disposal, in units of kg CO2e/kg (see review of background knowledge, pages 41-42; information from core processes, pages 50-52).
Brugnoli does not explicitly disclose a method comprising: wherein the carbon footprint of the raw material transportation and production stage is as follows: (Eraw material acquisition) =∑(Ci x RFi) +∑(Di x Ei x Fi); wherein: i represents different raw material types of an acquired raw hide and a prepared leather material; Ci represents a consumption of an ith raw material, in units of kg; RFi represents an emission factor of greenhouse gas of the ith raw material, in units of kg CO2e/kg; Di represents a transport mileage of the ith raw material, in units of km; Ei represents a mass of the ith raw material transported, in units of t; and Fi represents an emission factor of greenhouse gas corresponding to a mode of transportation of the ith raw material, in unites of kg CO2e/tkm. the carbon accounting emission accounting are models; and wherein the accounting method further comprises: upon the total carbon footprint of the leather product exceeding a first predetermined value, checking respective carbon footprints in the carbon emission accounting models for the three stages to determine a carbon footprint exerting a largest influence on the total carbon footprint of the leather product; when the carbon footprint exerting the largest influence is the carbon footprint of using purchased heat, reducing an opening of a steam valve or a hot water valve.
While this language represents non-functional descriptive material and conditional language, and is therefore not given patentable weight, this difference is insufficient to distinguish the claims over Brugnoli. However, in the interest of compact prosecution and assuming weight was to be given to the non-functional descriptive material recitations above, Fang discloses a method (Green product management system and method) comprising:
the carbon accounting emission accounting are models (see paragraph [0064]: “...The system establishes a product life cycle model automatically, and calculates the carbon footprint based on the collected raw material and production process data and combined with the data in the database 30 in FIG. 1...”).
wherein the carbon footprint of the raw material transportation and production stage is as follows: (Eraw material acquisition) =∑(Ci x RFi) +∑(Di x Ei x Fi);wherein: i represents different raw material types of an acquired raw hide and a prepared leather material; Ci represents a consumption of an ith raw material, in units of kg; RFi represents an emission factor of greenhouse gas of the ith raw material, in units of kg CO2e/kg; Di represents a transport mileage of the ith raw material, in units of km; Ei represents a mass of the ith raw material transported, in units of t; and Fi represents an emission factor of greenhouse gas corresponding to a mode of transportation of the ith raw material, in unites of kg CO2e/tkm (see Fig. 3, step 309, paragraph [0064]: “At step 309, the raw material and production process data related to the carbon footprint calculation is collected, which requires the supplier to provide information such as the weight of the accessory, the material, the distance between the current position (the product manufacturing place) and the accessory manufacturing place, the transport manner of the accessory, whether the accessory is recyclable. Such information may also be obtained from the data declared by the supplier and may also be obtained from the investigation. At step 310, the carbon footprint of each production process and the carbon footprint of each component of the product are obtained based on the collected raw material and production process data and combined with the data in the database 30 in FIG. 1. In an example, the user may import the BOM. The system establishes a product life cycle model automatically, and calculates the carbon footprint based on the collected raw material and production process data and combined with the data in the database 30 in FIG. 1 (wherein the database 30 is required to store the carbon emission basic data of the basic energy sources of the country including the electric power, the waterpower, the fossil energy etc.). The calculation result is displayed by the result analysis module. The result analysis module not only displays the total result of the carbon footprint, but also analyzes the carbon footprint of each production activity, and analyzes the contribution of each accessory in the form of a diagram, so as to point out clearly the direction of carbon emission reduction efforts for the system user.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of strong environmental protection monitoring system as disclosed by Fang in the method of Brugnoli, the motivation being to provide protection in the production process (see Fang, paragraph [0003]).
The combination of Brugnoli and Fang does not explicitly recite wherein the accounting method further comprises: upon the total carbon footprint of the leather product exceeding a first predetermined value, checking respective carbon footprints in the carbon emission accounting models for the three stages to determine a carbon footprint exerting a largest influence on the total carbon footprint of the leather product; when the carbon footprint exerting the largest influence is the carbon footprint of using purchased heat, reducing an opening of a steam valve or a hot water valve.
While this language represents conditional language as discussed above, and is therefore not given patentable weight, this difference is insufficient to distinguish the claims over Brugnoli and Fang. However, in the interest of compact prosecution and assuming weight was to be given to the non-functional descriptive material recitations above, Solomon discloses a method (System and method for controlling power plant with gas treatments) comprising:
wherein the accounting method further comprises: upon the total carbon footprint of the leather product exceeding a first predetermined value, checking respective carbon footprints in the carbon emission accounting models for the three stages to determine a carbon footprint exerting a largest influence on the total carbon footprint of the leather product; when the carbon footprint exerting the largest influence is the carbon footprint of using purchased heat, reducing an opening of a steam valve or a hot water valve (see adjusting the valves 204 to provide a desired carbon footprint (i.e. a low carbon, a net neutral, or a net negative carbon footprint, paragraphs [0036] and [0058]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the carbon footprint monitoring and control by Solomon in the method of Brugnoli and Fang, the motivation being to provide a desired carbon footprint (e.g., a low carbon, a net neutral, or a net negative carbon footprint) (see Solomon, paragraph [0058]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brugnoli (NPL 2012, listed in PTO-892 dated 03/06/2026 as reference "U"), in view of Fang (US 2018/0276679 A1), in view of Solomon (WO 2024/147794 A1), and in view of Hottenroth (NPL 2013, listed in PTO-892 dated 03/06/2026 as reference "W")
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Brugnoli, Fang and Solomon teaches all the subject matter of the method as described above with respect to claim 5. Furthermore, Brugnoli discloses a method wherein:
the leather product transportation and distribution stage is a process of transporting the leather product from a manufacturer to a warehouse, a seller, and a distribution place; (see page 32, DOWNSTREAM MODULE: The distribution scenario shall always be included. The transport to the average distribution platform shall be considered, taking into account also the return path"; page 43: "In order to be able to quantify the CF defined above, the ISO DIS 14067, in chapter 6.1 specifies that: ‘‘A CFP study assesses the GHG emissions and removals in the life cycle of a product. The unit processes comprising the product system shall be grouped into life cycle stages; e.g., raw material acquisition, production, distribution, use and end-of-life. GHG emissions and removals from the product’s life cycle shall be assigned to the life cycle stage in which the GHG emissions and removals occur.");
the carbon emission accounting model for the leather product transportation and distribution stage takes carbon footprint data for different modes of product transportation (vehicle type), transport mileages, and masses of transported goods into account.
The combination of Brugnoli, Fang and Solomon does not explicitly disclose: the carbon emission accounting model for the leather product transportation and distribution stage is as follows: Eproduct transportation =(DA X EA X FA); wherein: DA represents a transport mileage of the product, in units of km; EA represents a mass of the product transported, in units of t; and FA represents an emission factor of greenhouse gas corresponding to a mode of product transportation, in units of kg CO2e/tkm.
Hottenroth, however, discloses a method (Carbon Footprints für Produkte) further comprising:
the carbon emission accounting model for the leather product transportation and distribution stage is as follows: Eproduct transportation =(DA X EA X FA); wherein: DA represents a transport mileage of the product, in units of km; EA represents a mass of the product transported, in units of t; and FA represents an emission factor of greenhouse gas corresponding to a mode of product transportation, in units of kg CO2e/tkm (see Appendix 6 Examples for calculating transport emissions, page 100, Formula 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the combined transport emissions calculation in the downstream module as disclosed by Hottenroth in the method of Brugnoli, Fang and Solomon, the motivation being to account for emissions stemming from transport between production facilities, distribution centers and retail outlets, and, if applicable, delivery (see Hottenroth, page 29).
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Claim Objections
Applicant’s amendments cured the previous deficiencies identified in claim 5.
Claim rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s amendments and arguments (see remarks, pages 6-8, filed on 09/22/2026), with respect to the rejection of claims 5 and 8 under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant appears to rely on the newly introduced “wherein” clause at the end of claim 5 to assert eligibility. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As an initial matter, this language does not appear to be sufficiently recited in the specification as filed, which is addressed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection above. Secondly, the language is directed to contingent limitations, and this has a direct effect in the BRI of the claims for claim eligibility analysis purposes. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (precedential) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. See also MPEP 2111.04. Lastly, the inclusion of the language found in claim 7 into claim 5 does not alter the previous analysis of claim 7. Therefore, Examiner is unpersuaded by Applicant's arguments that the language overcomes the current rejections. The amended claims do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea itself, therefore the claims are still rejected under 35 USC § 101 as further detailed above.
Claim rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
Applicant’s amendments and arguments (see remarks, page 9, filed on 09/22/2026), with respect to the rejection of claims 5 and 7-8 under 35 USC § 112(a) have been fully considered. Examiner finds Applicant's arguments persuasive in view of the submitted amendments, therefore the rejection was withdrawn. The newly introduced language, however, necessitates new grounds of rejection for claims 5 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Applicant’s amendments and arguments (see remarks, page 9, filed on 09/22/2026), with respect to the rejection of claims 5 and 7-8 under 35 USC § 112(b) have been fully considered. Examiner finds Applicant's arguments persuasive in view of the submitted amendments, therefore the rejections were withdrawn.
Claim rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s amendments and arguments (see remarks, pages 9-11, filed on 05/07/2026), with respect to the rejection of claims 5 and 7-8 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered. Applicant appears to disagree that the reference Fang anticipates the claim language because “Fang does not pertain to the technical field of leather making”. Examiner respectfully disagrees it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Fang addresses the same problem (i.e. “use strong environmental protection monitoring system to provide protection in the production process”) in a production setting. Examiner respectfully disagrees with the standard set by Applicant requiring the references to specifically recite “leather making”. Applicant further asserts “there is no mention of raw hide or leather materials” (in Fang). Examiner disagrees with this standard as Fang describes “a raw material and all contacted auxiliary consumptive materials in a production process of a product” (see paragraph [0005]). Examiner notes the description of the “product” or types of “raw materials” is considered non-functional descriptive material and have little effect in the BRI of the method claims. Further, Applicant asserts that “Fang does not teach those skilled in the art to calculate these two types of emissions separately, nor does it provide any technical teaching on how to quantify them independently” Examiner respectfully disagrees, as it appears Applicant places undue weight to certain language in the claim. Examiner notes that the primary reference (Brugnoli) describes constructing carbon emission accounting, as indicated in the rejection. As indicated in the rejection, the language not recited by Brugnoli represents non-functional descriptive material and conditional language, and is therefore not given patentable weight, this difference is insufficient to distinguish the claims over Brugnoli. However, in an effort to provide compact prosecution, Fang and Solomon were provided. This effort, however, shouldn’t be characterized as granting patentable weight to claim language that carries none. Particularly, it appears Applicant requires Fang to disclose a formula, however, this formula is directed to non-functional descriptive material and therefore patentable weight shouldn’t be given to the description of what the carbon footprint of the raw material transportation and production stage “is”, but rather what steps process claims 5 and 8 require to be performed. Examiner is in the position that this subject matter, in addition to newly introduced language, is rendered obvious in view of the combination of references as described above.
Conclusion
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 EDUARDO D CASTILHO whose telephone number is (571)270-1592. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Patrick McAtee can be reached at (571) 272-7575. 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.
/EDUARDO CASTILHO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3698
