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 .
The following FINAL Office Action is in response to Applicant’s communication filed 01/23/2026 regarding Application 18/829,172.
Status of Claim(s)
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are currently pending and are rejected as follows.
Response to Arguments – 101 Rejection
Applicant’s arguments in regards to the previously applied 101 rejection have been fully considered but are not deemed persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are directed towards patentable subject matter, and that the claims are not directed towards the abstract ideas recited as they provide an improvement to a specific technology.
Examiner disagrees for the following reasons. Applicant’s claims, as amended, recite the actions of determining a calculation range for a carbon footprint of a leather chemical material in a lifecycle, determining boundaries and cut-off criteria for the carbon footprint of a leather chemical product, establishing a carbon footprint calculation model with the explicit formulas for calculating those values, verifying the data’s accuracy and validity, establishing a database by calculating the footprint of a leather chemical material, and then performing integrity, consistency, and sensitivity analysis on the carbo footprint database to guide the production process. These actions were deemed to recite the abstract ideas of a Mental Process, Organizing Human Activity, and Math. The rationale behind this decision is that the acts presented in Applicant’s claims would be deemed to be practical to perform with the aid of pen and paper as, while Applicant argues that there is a significant quantity of data that would be unreasonable for a human to perform, the claims do not support any specified amount of leather material outside of line 11 of Claim 11 which specifies “…defining the functional unit as production of 1 kg of leather chemical material”, of which the processes and steps provided do not require a technological solution to perform. With regards to reciting the abstract idea of Math, the claims explicitly lay out mathematical formulas and steps utilizing said formulas which would fall within the bounds of claiming mathematical concepts, as well as performing further mathematical steps in subsequent claims such as integrity, consistency, and sensitivity analysis. With regard to Organizing Human Activity, the claims are directed towards an invention which provides the steps and actions with regards to a performing calculations for a leather chemical product production process for the explicit purpose of, as recited by Applicant, “…to guide the production process of the leather chemical material to reduce resource and energy consumption in leather making.” which is not limited to a technological function and contains within this scope the organization of human activity.
After the claims were deemed to recite the abstract ideas, the claims were then further analyzed to determine if they were directed to the abstract ideas. Under Step 2A, Prong Two, any additional elements were taken into consideration, however, no additional elements were present. Even as amended, the inclusion of the additional elements of a computer, and a database, are not deemed to be sufficient to be considered anything more than merely adding the words “apply it” to a judicial exception.
Finally under Step 2B, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether as a whole the additional elements are significantly more than the recited exception. As previously expressed, the additional elements present are the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Therefore the claims remain ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Further elaboration regarding this decision is given in the amended 101 rejection below.
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(1) 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 1 recites “a computer-generated model”, however, no mention of a computer or equivalent language is present in Applicant’s specification. While mentions of a calculation model are present, the mention of the use a computer or alternative technology is absent within Applicant’s specification. Therefore the claims as currently presented are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). However, for the sake of compact prosecution the claims will be further examined for below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are currently rejected under U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention(s) is/are directed to a judicial exception (i.e. law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1-5 are directed towards a method for determining the calculation range of a carbon footprint of a leather chemical material in a life cycle, calculating the carbon footprint from obtaining a raw material of a leather chemical material to obtaining a finished product, determining a system boundary, functional unit, and cut-off criteria for the carbon footprint of a leather chemical material in the life cycle, dividing the carbon footprint of the material into a raw chemical obtaining process, a production process of the material, and a waste disposal process within the system boundary, with a functional unit defined as 1 kg of leather chemical material, establishing a carbon footprint calculation model according to resource consumption and environmental emission of each process, collecting an input and an output of each process according to the production process of the leather chemical material and performing inventory analysis on the carbon footprint of the leather chemical material life cycle, distinct model calculations for the raw chemical obtaining process, carbon footprint of the raw material, carbon footprint of the energy source, carbon footprint of the production process, carbon footprint for the waste disposal, and carbon footprint for the leather chemical material, establishing a database of the leather chemical material by calculating the carbon footprint, and performing data verification on the calculations to verify accuracy and validity of data according to mass conservation and determining a calculation method, an allocation program, data requirement, and emission factor in each process, and after the footprint is calculated, performing integrity, consistency, and sensitivity analysis, assessing the carbon footprint result and data quality on the carbon footprint databased to guide the production process. These actions fall within the subject matter of abstracts ideas which the courts have considered ineligible (Mental Process (Observations, Evaluations, Judgments, and Opinions with the aid of pen and paper), Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity
(Fundamental Economic Practices and Principles), and Mathematical Concepts (Mathematical Relationships, Mathematical Formulas or Equations, and Mathematical Calculations)).
Under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention. Claim(s) 1-5 are directed towards a method comprising at least one step. Accordingly, the claims fall within the four statutory of invention (method) and will be further analyzed under Step 2 of the Alice/Mayo framework.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, of the Alice/Mayo framework, it must be considered whether the claims recite an abstract idea.
Independent claim 1 recites an invention which recites the abstract ideas of a Mental Process (Observations, Evaluations, Judgments, and Opinions with the aid of pen and paper), Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (Fundamental Economic Practices and Principles), and Mathematical Concepts (Mathematical Relationships, Mathematical Formulas or Equations, and Mathematical Calculations) in the following limitations:
determining a calculation range of a carbon footprint of a leather chemical material in a life cycle as "cradle to gate", comprising calculating a carbon footprint from obtaining a raw material of the leather chemical material to obtaining a finished product upon completion of production;
determining a system boundary, a functional unit, and cut-off criteria for the carbon footprint of the leather chemical material in the life cycle, dividing the carbon footprint of the leather chemical material into a raw chemical obtaining process, a production process of the leather chemical material, and a waste disposal process within the system boundary, and defining the functional unit as production of 1 kg leather chemical material;
establishing a carbon footprint calculation model according to resource consumption and environmental emission of each process, comprising collecting an input and an output of each process according to the production process of the leather chemical material, and performing inventory analysis on the carbon footprint of the leather chemical material in the life cycle;
wherein: the carbon footprint calculation model for the raw chemical obtaining process uses Formula (1) for calculation:
Ei=Eil+Ei2(1),
wherein:
Ei represents a carbon footprint of the obtaining process of an ith raw chemical needed by the leather chemical material, in units of kgC02;
Ei 1 represents a carbon footprint of a raw material needed for producing the ith raw chemical, in units of kgC02; and
Ei2 represents a carbon footprint of an energy source used for producing the ith raw chemical, comprising, but not limited to, electric energy, thermal energy, and a fuel consumed by unit operations in production, in units of kgC02;
the carbon footprint of the raw material is calculated by Formula (2):
Eil=Imx*Ex (2),
wherein:
mx is a mass of an xth raw material, in units ofkg; and
Ex represents the carbon footprint corresponding to the xth raw material, which is mainly obtained by actual measurement or from second hand data, in units of kgC02/kg;
the carbon footprint of the energy source is calculated by Formula (3):
Ei2=IEei (3),
wherein Eei represents the carbon footprint of the energy source used in a raw chemical production process, comprising, but not limited to, electric energy, thermal energy, and a fuel consumed by unit operations in production, in units of kgC02;
the carbon footprint calculation model for the production process of the leather chemical material uses Formula (4) for calculation:
Em=Ee+Iai*Ei (4), wherein:
Em represents a total carbon footprint of the production process of the leather chemical material, in units of kgC02;
Ee represents a carbon footprint of an energy source used for producing the leather chemical material, comprising, but not limited to, electric energy, thermal energy, and a fuel consumed by unit operations of producing the leather chemical material, in units of kgC02; and
ai represents a mass of the ith raw chemical needed for producing the leather chemical material, in units of kg;
the carbon footprint calculation model for the waste disposal process uses Formula (5) for calculation:
Ew=IEwi (5),
wherein:
Ew represents a total carbon footprint of disposing all generated wastes, in units of kgC02; and
Ewi represents a carbon footprint of disposing a waste generated by each unit operation in production, in units of kgC02; and a
calculation result of the carbon footprint of the leather chemical material by Formula (6) is expressed as:
E=(Em+Ew)/M (6), wherein:
E represents the carbon footprint of the leather chemical material, in units of kgC02/kg; and
M represents an output mass of the leather chemical material in inventory analysis, in units of kg;
performing data verification on the established calculation models, verifying accuracy and validity of data according to mass conservation, and determining a calculation method, an allocation program, a data requirement, and an emission factor in each process; and
establishing a carbon footprint database of the leather chemical material by calculating the carbon footprint of the leather chemical material using the carbon footprint calculation model, and
performing integrity, consistency, and sensitivity analysis, assessing the carbon footprint result and data quality, on the carbon footprint database of the leather chemical material to guide the production process of the leather chemical material in order to reduce resource and energy consumption in leather making
Dependent 2-5 merely further limit the abstract ideas and are thus subject to the same rationale as above.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, any additional elements are recited:
Independent claim 1 recites:
a computer
a database
These additional elements, considered both individually and as ordered pair do no more, than represent mere instructions to implement the abstract idea (“apply it”) onto a computer or generic technology (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Additionally, the claims represent insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). These elements are recited with a high degree of generality, and the specification sets for the general purpose nature of the technologies required to implement the invention (emphasis added).
As stated above, there is no support for the additional element of a computer within Applicant’s specification, however, other support for this determination with regards to the other additional elements can be found in Paragraph(s) [0087]-[0088] of Applicant’s specification.
Under Step 2B, eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claims as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e. whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim (MPEP 2106.05). As explained with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two, there are several additional elements. The computer, and database are both, at best, merely the example of adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Further, the database represents insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)), specifically that of mere data gathering which is known to be well-understood, routine, or conventional within the art (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Insignificant extra solution activity, especially that which is well-understood, routine, or conventional in the art does not provide an inventive concept. Even when considered in combination, these additional elements are not deemed to be sufficient enough to provide an inventive concept onto the abstract idea, therefore, they are not eligible (Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2358 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 134 S. Ct. at 2389, 110 at 1984 (warning against a §101 that turns on “the draftsman’s art”)).
Dependent claims 2-5 do not recite any additional elements themselves and are thus rejected for the same reasons recite 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 Philip N Warner whose telephone number is (571)270-7407. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-4:00pm.
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, Jerry O’Connor can be reached at 571-272-6787. 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.
/Philip N Warner/Examiner, Art Unit 3624
/Jerry O'Connor/Supervisory Patent Examiner,Group Art Unit 3624