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 addresses the response filed on 12/19/2025.
Claims 1-4 were canceled.
Claims 5-8 were newly introduced.
Claims 5-8 are pending.
Claims 5-8 were examined.
Specification
The amendment to the specification filed on 12/19/2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
“computer-generated accounting model which calculates…” in paragraph [0006]
A “computer generated” accounting model” in paragraph [0009]
An accounting method… “using a computer-generated accounting model…” in paragraphs [0011] and [0048]
Examiner notes that the original disclosure is silent regarding computer implementations. In addition, the original disclosure does not recite any computer structure (i.e. processor, memory), or manners in which the recited algorithms/models are implemented on a computer. Examiner is unpersuaded by Applicant’s arguments regarding the reasoning for incorporating this subject matter into the disclosure (see remarks, page 3). Specifically, a “model” is defined, inter alia, as “a system of postulates, data, and inferences presented as a mathematical description of an entity or state of affairs” and not required to be performed by a computer.1 While “a computer simulation” represents a narrow definition of the term, one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the originally filed subject matter as “unreasonably complex for the human mind to perform”, as Applicant asserts. In addition, while Applicant argues that “the disclosed process is clearly intended as an improvement over traditional LCA software models”, this conclusion or reasoning is not found in the original disclosure. Examiner is also unpersuaded by Applicant’s position that the “original disclosure necessarily and implicitly disclosed that the instant invention is performed by a computer model and is an improvement to other computer models” without even citing exactly which parts of the original disclosure would lead one of ordinary skill in the art to reasonably arrive at this conclusion. Lastly, Examiner reminds Applicant that the provided links are not part of the original disclosure and their teachings shouldn’t be unduly incorporated into the original disclosure as filed. Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
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 5-8 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”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05. In addition, claim 5 is a method claim and recites “wherein carbon footprint data of a production process is determined according to source and type of raw animal skin, weather during production, regional considerations, and production temperature...”, language directed to not positively recited method steps.
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 5-8 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 carbon footprint data from each of the three stages, according to a production process of the leather product, wherein carbon footprint data of a production process is determined according to source and type of raw animal skin, weather during production, regional considerations, and production temperature;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; andf. 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.
Therefore, 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, 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. In particular, the additional element(s) of the claims include: a computer-generated model, recited in the preamble. However, this element merely serves to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, these additional elements do 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, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional computer elements, such as a computer-generated model, amounts to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, these additional elements perform the steps or functions that correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. 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.
Examiner notes that, for elements recited in the dependent claims which were previously analyzed as additional elements of the independent claims above (i.e., a computer-generated model), the assessment of these elements under step 2A and step 2B for the dependent claims is inherited from the analysis of the independent claims and omitted for brevity, unless noted by Examiner below. Dependent claims 6-8 further recite the following additional language, in which elements which merely further define the identified abstract idea are marked in bold below:
g) wherein the carbon footprint of the raw material transportation and production stage is as follows: (Erawmateriai acquisition) =(CiXRFi) +XEiXFi); 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; 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: 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:Eproduct production = (Eenergy + Ewastewherein: 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; and Eheat 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.
i) 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; and 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.
With respect to claim 6, the claim includes language which do not introduce additional elements/functions. The additional language merely represents statements directed to directed to non-functional descriptive material by describing what the carbon footprint of the raw material transportation and production stage "is" (i.e. a description of a formula). 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. 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. Examiner notes no additional method steps are described in the dependent claim.
With respect to claim 7, the claim includes language which do 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. 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. Examiner notes no additional method steps are described in the dependent claim.
With respect to claim 8, the claim includes language which do 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. 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. Examiner notes no additional method steps are described in the dependent claim.
Therefore, while the additional language g), h), i) of dependent claims 6, 7, 8 slightly modify 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, these dependent claims are 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.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 recites “using a computer-generated model”. The specification as filed recites, inter alia:
“[0009] In view of the problem of currently lacking a method for carbon footprint accounting of leather products, the present disclosure selects the life cycle assessment method to perform carbon accounting on a supply chain of leather products and establishes an accounting model for the carbon footprint of a leather product in combination with a leather product production process.”
Therefore, the specification as filed does not recite a computer-generated model. Examiner notes the specification as filed is silent regarding any computer implementation, computer characteristics or parts. The claimed "computer-generated model" is not sufficiently disclosed by the specification as filed. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably determine the specification as filed as being directed to an "accounting model", and it is silent regarding any computer model generating mechanisms. 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 claims 6-8 are also rejected since they depend on claims 5, respectively.
Claim 5 recites “collecting carbon footprint data from each of the three stages, according to a production process of the leather product, wherein carbon footprint data of a production process is determined according to source and type of raw animal skin, weather during production, regional considerations, and production temperature;”. The specification as filed recites, inter alia:
“[0007]: ...Due to the influences of factors such as a source and type of a raw animal skin, weather, region, and temperature, the leather making processes of different enterprises greatly differ...[0014]Step 3, collecting data of raw material production and transportation, leather product production, and product distribution and transportation according to a production of the leather product.”
Therefore, the specification as filed does not recite collecting carbon footprint data, wherein carbon footprint data of a production process is determined according to source and type of raw animal skin, weather during production, regional considerations, and production temperature. Examiner notes the specification as filed only discloses "collecting data of raw material production and transportation, leather product production, and product distribution and transportation according to a production of the leather product" and dos not describe the manner in which the claimed "carbon footprint data" is "determined". 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 claims 6-8 are also rejected since they depend on claim 5.
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 7 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 7 recites “the leather product process” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this language in the claim.
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.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Brugnoli et al. (NPL 2012, listed in PTO-892 as reference "U"), hereinafter Brugnoli, in view of Alapati et al. (US 2025/0045771 A1) ,hereinafter Alapati.
With respect to claim 5, Brugnoli teaches an accounting method of determining a carbon footprint of a leather product, using a computer-generated model (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 carbon footprint data from each of the three stages, according to a production process of the leather product, wherein carbon footprint data of a production process is determined according to source and type of raw animal skin, weather during production, regional considerations, and production temperature (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 groupedinto 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 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). ");
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... 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/m2 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/m2 of finished leather").
Brugnoli does not explicitly disclose a method comprising: the carbon accounting emission accounting are models.
However, Alapati discloses a method (Emission footprint calculation and consumption) comprising:
the carbon accounting emission accounting are models (see Fig. 3, step 304, defining scopes, paragraph [0060]: “At 304, the footprint manager 350 defines a product, a period, and a footprint scope for calculation. Defining a product scope may involve determining or setting an identifier for a particular product or components of a product to be used for the calculation. Defining a period scope may involve setting a particular time period to use for the calculation (e.g., date or time range). Footprint scoping enables the user to check what impact category like CO.sub.2, CO.sub.2e to be calculated and can also influence which transaction data like purchase orders only or physical goods movement documents only or both to be replicated and can be used for calculator. Defining a footprint scope may involve calculating CO.sub.2 equivalent emissions, CO.sub.2 emissions, or both. In some embodiments, other aspects of scoping may involve setting a scope of the calculation in terms of products, product components, manufacturing plants, location of manufacture, etc.”).
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 improved integration of emission footprints as disclosed by Alapati in the method of Brugnoli, the motivation being to enable the emission footprints to be consumed by software applications (see Alapati, paragraph [0021]).
With respect to the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that 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”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. See MPEP 2111.05. Lastly, claim 5 is a method claim and recites “wherein carbon footprint data of a production process is determined according to source and type of raw animal skin, weather during production, regional considerations, and production temperature...”, language directed to not positively recited method steps.
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Brugnoli and Alapati teaches all the subject matter of the method as described above with respect to claim 5. Furthermore, Brugnoli disclose a method wherein the carbon footprint of the raw material transportation and production stage is as follows: (Erawmateriai acquisition) =(CiXRFi) +XEiXFi); 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 review of background knowledge, pages 41-42, upstream process; pages 45-49, information from upstream processes). Regarding the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that claim 6 recites “wherein the carbon footprint of the raw material transportation and production stage is as follows…”; “what each variable "represent"”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Brugnoli and Alapati teaches all the subject matter of the method as described above with respect to claim 5. Furthermore, Brugnoli disclose a method 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: Eproduct production = (Eenergy + Ewastewherein: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; and Eheat 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; andWF 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). Regarding the BRI of the claim, Examiner notes that claim 7 recites “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”; “what each variable "represent"”, language directed to non-functional descriptive material. In addition, claim 7 recites “use of accurately measurable electric power from a renewable energy source is not included in the calculation of Eelectric power” , statements of intended use or field use. See MPEP 2114 II. The motivation for combining the references remain unaltered from the motivation described above in conjunction with the rejection of the independent claims.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brugnoli (NPL 2012, listed in PTO-892 as reference "U"), in view of Alapati (US 2025/0045771 A1), in view of Hottenroth (NPL 2013, listed in PTO-892 as reference "W")
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Brugnoli and Alapati teaches all the subject matter of the method as described above with respect to claim 5. Furthermore, Brugnoli disclose 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 combination of Brugnoli and Alapati does not explicitly disclose, but Hottenroth discloses:
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; and 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 and Alapati, 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 rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s amendments and arguments (see remarks, pages 8-10, filed on 12/19/2025), with respect to the rejection of claims 5-8 under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to an abstract idea have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s assertion that newly introduced claims overcome the rejection. A detailed analysis is provided above. The new claims do not offer significantly more than the abstract idea itself, therefore the claims are still rejected under 35 USC § 101.
Claim rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicant’s amendments and arguments (see remarks, pages 10-13, filed on 12/19/2025), with respect to the rejection of claims 5-8 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered , but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of references employed in the current rejection of the newly presented claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Non-Patent Literature
Schmied et al. (NPL 2013, listed in PTO-892 as page 2, reference "U") disclose Berechnung von Treibhausgasemissionen in Spedition und Logistik, including the content, proposed calculation methods, and requirements of the new standard "Method for calculating and declaring energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions in transport services".
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
1 See Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary "Model," (NPL , listed in PTO-892 as reference "U")