DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after 3/16/2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to the Remarks and Amendments filed 04/30/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5 have been amended.
Claims 1-6 have been examined and are pending.
(AIA ) Examiner Note
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were effectively filed absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was effectively filed in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation 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 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph:
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 1-6 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 claims contain subject matter which is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1 and 3 have been amended to recite limitations directed towards computer implemented methods for which there is no support in the original disclosure. The limitations are considered impermissible new matter. For example, the claims have been amended to recite the following:
[claim 1]
A modeling method for carbon emissions in a leather manufacturing process, implemented in a computer comprising at least one processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:… acquiring masses and carbon emissions factors…; constructing a carbon emission accounting sub-model… wherein the carbon emission accounting sub-model is as shown in following Formula (1):
PNG
media_image1.png
48
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
160
442
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Constructing an entire carbon emission accounting model… as shown in following Formula (2):
PNG
media_image3.png
44
488
media_image3.png
Greyscale
etc…
[claim 3] recites similar features to claim 1; e.g.:
A modeling system for carbon emissions in a leather manufacturing process, comprising: at least one processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: [those shown above per claim 1], etc…
Respectfully, no such support is found anywhere in the original disclosure. Note that the entire original disclosure (claims, specification, and drawings) is completely devoid of any machine, computer, or hardware component which may be considered to constitute structure of a physical system and therefore provide support for the claim as now recited – i.e. there is no contemplation within the original disclosure of the method steps as claimed being implemented in a computer as claimed. Applicant’s entire original disclosure is directed towards either mental or manual steps of data collection, equation construction, and calculations.
There is no mention of even a general purpose processor in the entire original disclosure. There is simply no structure described in the specification or drawings to perform each function as now recited. There is no association provided in the specification between any hardware structure and the functions being claimed.
Therefore, applicant fails to have support for his limitation. Accordingly, the claims are improperly directed to impermissible new matter.
How to Overcome This Rejection: Examiner notes Applicant may amend to distinctly claim only subject matter which is not considered impermissible new matter such as removing reference to those features noted supra which do not find support in the original disclosure.
Dependent claims 2, 4-6 inherit the deficiencies of their parent claim and are also 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.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (i.e. a judicial exception) without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, claims 1-2 are found to be directed towards a method (i.e. a process) and, as noted supra, claims 3-6 are interpreted to be directed towards a system (i.e. ostensibly directed towards a machine, or manufacture) used to implement the method as recited per claims 1-2.
Per step 2A Prong One, the claims recite specific limitations which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG, as follows:
Regarding independent claims 1 and 3, as exemplified in the limitations of method claim 1:
PNG
media_image4.png
290
692
media_image4.png
Greyscale
“…wherein the carbon emission accounting sub-model is as shown in following Formula (1):
PNG
media_image5.png
194
458
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
202
668
media_image6.png
Greyscale
monitoring carbon footprint in the leather manufacturing process by the entire carbon emission accounting model to guide carbon dioxide peaking and carbon neutrality.
As noted supra, these limitations fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 PEG. Specifically, these limitations fall within Mathematical Concepts (e.g. mathematical relationships; mathematical formulas or equations; mathematical calculations), Mental Processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), and Certain Methods Of Organizing Human Activity (e.g. fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
That is, the claims are directed towards an abstract idea of using, either mentally or manually, mathematical concepts of summing individual emissions estimates from general sections of a leather manufacturing process as a model [i.e. applicant’s equations 1 and 2 noted supra], for the purpose of estimating, for business purposes according business policy or government regulation, carbon emissions in a whole leather manufacturing process; note the business purpose is stated as “to guide carbon dioxide peaking and carbon neutrality” which appears to also be an exercise intended to be performed in the mind as a mental exercise; e.g. by a manufacturing manager for business reasons.
Therefore, the claims recite a combination of mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity. There is no technical problem being solved and no technical solution presented to solve a technical problem. Note also that the entire original disclosure is actually silent in regards to any computer or hardware which is intended to implement the method. Furthermore, the desire to estimate carbon emissions of a whole leather manufacturing business is purely a business decision, e.g. to comply perhaps with various business policy and/or governmental regulations. The concept of aggregating, i.e. summing, estimates of individual emissions for each general section of a business’ manufacturing process to obtain a total or whole emissions estimate for the business is a generic mathematical concept and not technical in nature. Furthermore, the summation of such individual emissions is not recited as being performed by any particular machine or system; instead, it appears these calculations are intended to be performed in the mind as a mental exercise or manually with paper and pencil except for the general statement that the method is implement via a generic processor. There is no technical solution for solving a technical problem. Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Per step 2A Prong 2, the Examiner finds that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Although there are additional elements, other than those noted supra, recited in the claims, none of these additional element(s) or a combination of elements as recited in the claims apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. As drafted, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned concepts or, link them to a field of use (i.e. in this case carbon emissions estimation of a business) or, serve as insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. gathering data regarding carbon emissions). The claimed computer components are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to implement the idea but are not technical in nature. Simply implementing the abstract idea on or with generic computer components is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
These additional limitations are as follows:
A modeling method for carbon emissions in a leather manufacturing process, implemented in a computer comprising at least one processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising: acquiring masses and carbon emission factors of a plurality of carbon emission sources in the leather manufacturing process comprise: an energy type emission source (E), a production process type emission source (P), a transportation process type emission source (T), and a waste type emission source (W); the energy type emission source (E) comprises carbon emissions generated in heating and drying activities using fossil fuels coal, petroleum, and natural gas in the leather manufacturing process; the production process type emission source (P) comprises carbon emissions generated by leather chemical materials used in different making sections of the leather manufacturing process; the transportation process type emission source (T) comprises carbon emissions generated by road transport involved in the leather manufacturing process; the waste type emission source (W) comprises carbon emissions generated in treatment processes of waste water, waste gas, and leather making leftover materials in the leather manufacturing process;
carbon emission accounting models for leather making sections are constructed based on
masses and carbon emission factors of the four types of emission sources in
sections of the leather manufacturing process;
…
wherein,
Esection represents carbon emissions of each section in the leather
manufacturing process,
Eenergy represents carbon emissions of the energy type emission source,
Pprocess represents carbon emissions of the production process type
emission source,
Ttransportation represents carbon emissions of the transportation process
type emission source,
Wwaste represents carbon emissions of the waste type emission source,
Ck represents a consumption of a k-th type of fuel in the leather
manufacturing process,
Hk represents a carbon emission factor for the k-th type of fuel in the
leather manufacturing process,
EA represents activity level data of purchased electric power in the
leather manufacturing process,
E F represents a carbon emission factor for the purchased electric power
in the leather manufacturing process,
HA represents activity level data of purchased heat in the leather
manufacturing process,
HF represents a carbon emission factor for the purchased heat in the
leather manufacturing process,
PMi represents a mass of an i-th type of raw material consumed in the
leather manufacturing process,
PFi represents a carbon emission factor for the i-th type of raw material
in the leather manufacturing process,
TMi represents a mass of the i-th type of raw material transported in the
leather manufacturing process,
T Fi represents a carbon emission factor for the i-th type of mode of
transportation in the leather manufacturing process,
TDi represents a transport mileage of the i-th type of raw material in the
leather manufacturing process,
WMi represents a mass of the i-th type of waste disposed in the leather
manufacturing process, and
WFi represents a carbon emission factor for disposal of the i-th type of
waste in the leather manufacturing process;
…
wherein:
SumE(i) represents carbon emissions in a whole leather manufacturing process,
Esection 1 represents the preparation section,
Esection 2 represents the tanning section,
Esection 3 represents the wet processing section after tanning, and
Esection 4 represents the finishing section.
…
extracting the carbon emissions of each leather making section by calling the carbon emission accounting sub-models to determine a section with maximum influence on the carbon emissions to reduce the carbon emissions;
Per claims3-6:
Generic modules and sub-modules used to carry out the method of claims 1-2.
However, these elements do not present a technical solution to a technical problem; i.e. the “extracting” feature appears to be nothing more than data acquisition step when recited at this high-level of generality; i.e. a data value is extracted [collected / acquired] from the abstract idea which in part is the execution of [calling] the generic carbon emissions accounting sub-models [i.e. applicant’s equations which are simply aggregations of emissions from each area to be accounted for within a manufacturing process]. The other features are all descriptions of collected data, e.g. collected per generic modules and sub-modules, where such data is to be summed according to the abstract mathematical concept as part of a business decision. These additional elements do not recite a specific manner of performing any of the steps core to the already identified abstract idea. Instead, these features merely serve to generally describe the sources of the emissions data (e.g. descriptions of general sections of a leather manufacturing process which may produce carbon emissions) upon which the aforementioned abstract idea operates, where such data may be collected by generic modules and sub-modules. The 2019 PEG warns that merely invoking generic computer components is insufficient (2019 PEG Section II(A)(2), Example 21). The claims recite no particular machine configuration, architecture, or unconventional computing structure. Modules and sub-modules have been found to be generic place holders for generic computer architecture. Per Alice, merely requiring generic computer implementation to achieve desired functionality is not sufficient. Furthermore, although these descriptions of data generally link the abstract idea to the field of use of a leather tanning processes, descriptions of data do not serve to integrate the abstract idea itself into a practical application thereof. Per Bilski and 2019 PEG Section II(B)(1), merely limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular field of use is also insufficient.
Per Step 2B, the Examiner does not find that the claims provide an inventive concept, i.e., the claims do not recite additional element(s) or a combination of elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception recited in the claim. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the independent claim are considered as merely serving to generally “link” the idea to a field of use (i.e. in this case carbon emissions estimation of a business process), or as insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g. generic data-gathering) performed by generic modules and sub-modules. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept; i.e. the same analysis applies here in 2B. Conventional data gathering, etc… cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Furthermore, the claims do not recite an unconventional arrangement or application of known elements; i.e. the claims are not directed towards unconventional leathering tanning steps but instead is directed towards the summation of known sources of emissions which is a straightforward application of a known mathematical concept to arrive at an estimate of total emissions. The limitations do not impose meaningful constraints on practicing the abstract idea as the idea could be performed either mentally or manually. So, upon revaluating here in step 2B, these elements are determined to amount to no more than mere instructions to gather and sum data specific to emissions of a generic leather tanning process which is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field; i.e. note the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(ll) indicate that mere receipt of data is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here).
Accordingly, alone and in combination, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as found supra, nor provide an inventive concept, and thus the claims are not patent eligible.
As for the dependent claims, the dependent claims do recite a combination of additional elements. However, these claims as a whole, considered either independently or in combination with the parent claims, do not integrate the identified abstract idea into a practical application thereof nor do they provide an inventive concept.
For example, dependent claim 2 recites the following: “The modeling method according to claim 1, wherein the leather manufacturing process is a process of making fur and leather products or finished products with a variety of animal skins as raw materials.” However, a further description that leather manufacturing process involves making finished products with a variety of animal skins is not significantly more than the already identified abstract idea. This description merely describes what is already conventionally known about leather tanning processes is general; there is no improvement being recited to a technology; there is no particular machine required to perform the abstract idea even when considering this further description; there are no elements that the courts have found which would constitute “significantly more” than the already identified abstract idea.
Therefore, the Examiner does not find that these additional claim limitations integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept. Instead, these limitations, as a whole and in combination with the already recited claim elements of the parent claims, are not significantly more than the already identified abstract idea. A similar finding is found for the remaining dependent claims.
For these reasons, the claims are not found to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and therefore the claims are not found to be patent eligible.
How to Overcome This Rejection: Respectfully, Examiner does not find subject matter in the original disclosure which Examiner can suggest that if included in the claims would overcome this particular rejection.
Please see the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register (84 FR 50) on January 7, 2019 (found at http://www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 (AIA )
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Beal et al. (US 2022/0276222 A1; hereinafter, "Beal") in view of Mahdi et al. (Comparative study of environmental impact of three-leather process production by life cycle analysis, Mahdi et al., "Indian Journal of Chemical Technology", Vol. 28 May 2021, pgs. 1-17)
Claims 1, 3, 4, 5: (Currently Amended)
Pertaining to claims 1, 3, 4, 5 exemplified in the limitations of method claim 1, Beal as shown teaches the following:
A modeling method for carbon emissions in a leather manufacturing process (Beal, see at [0012] teaching his system and method of modeling may be for a leather manufacturing system, e.g.: “…a model configured to quantify the emissions for a specific animal can be adapted to quantify the emissions for producing [manufacturing process] a piece a leather [i.e. a leather mfg process] derived from the specific animal…”; i.e. the process for which a carbon emissions model is developed and configured may encompass a leather manufacturing process; See also at least [0118]-[0178] teaching: “…the greenhouse gas emissions for an energy production system can be represented as the sum of the emissions from each part within that system…”; although this later statement is in regards to “an energy production system”, Beal as noted supra, expressly contemplates the model for emissions may likewise be applied to quantify the emissions for producing [manufacturing process] a piece a leather [i.e. a leather mfg process] derived from the specific animal. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the model methods as described throughout Beal’s disclosure may be applied in a similar fashion to quantify the emissions for producing [manufacturing process] a piece a leather [i.e. a leather mfg process] because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.), implemented in a computer comprising at least one processor and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (Beal, see at least [0040]-[0046], e.g.: “…the techniques described herein relate to a computer-implemented method for generating product-centric emissions models…”; as noted per [0012] the product may be “leather” and the process therefore a leather manufacturing process. See also at least Fig. 10 and [0068], teaching: “…FIG. 10 illustrates an exemplary overview of a computer system that can be used in accordance with various embodiments…”), cause the at least one processor to perform operations comprising:
acquiring masses and carbon emission factors of a plurality of carbon emission sources in the leather manufacturing process, wherein the plurality of carbon emission sources in the leather manufacturing process comprise: an energy type emission source (E) (Beal, as noted supra, his modeling is applicable to leather manufacturing process, including per [0012] and see also at least [0015]-[0021], teaching: data for use in determining gas emissions can be obtained, and a unique model (e.g., product-centric models, animal-centric models, crop-centric models, energy production-centric models, material-centric models, or a combination model). The data may include… energy data…”; see also
PNG
media_image7.png
208
428
media_image7.png
Greyscale
As already noted supra, Beal’s process is similarly applicable to processes to manufacture leather, e.g. as noted per [0012]. Although Beal doesn’t delve into the specific nuances of leather manufacturing, Examiner finds that it is within the level of a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that manufacturing of leather may require use of energy, e.g. for heating the space for workers or for maintaining temperature of products, etc.. and therefore, would recognize that Beal’s identified general sources of emissions, such as energy e.g. from combustion of fuel, etc… are equally applicable to such leather manufacturing processes because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.),
a production process type emission source (P) (Beal, see at citations as rationale noted supra, e.g. “product-centric models” including “material data, or other product system data”; see also
PNG
media_image8.png
126
422
media_image8.png
Greyscale
),
a transportation process type emission source (T) (Beal, see at citations as rationale noted supra, e.g. data may include, for example, “on-site practices management data” which includes “…transport systems, distribution systems, or other site-specific operations within a production system.”; see also
PNG
media_image9.png
174
440
media_image9.png
Greyscale
),
and a waste type emission source (W) (Beal, see at citations as rationale noted supra, in view of at least [0018]: “..Phenotypic data can be used to, for example, determine emissions over an assessment cycle. Phenotypic data generally… including, but not limited to: … or waste products (e.g., manure, gases, shells, etc.)…”; see also
PNG
media_image10.png
128
432
media_image10.png
Greyscale
);
the energy type emission source (E) comprises carbon emissions generated in heating and drying activities using fossil fuels coal, petroleum, and natural gas in the leather manufacturing process (Beal, see citations noted supra in view of at least [0019]: “… Physical, chemical, electrical, nuclear, magnetic, and thermal data, collectively called "property data" can be used to, for example, determine emissions over an assessment cycle. Property data generally refers to quantifiable characteristics of a material, substance, energy form, or energy carrier, such as, for example: …heat of combustion, heat content, energy content..” and per [0122]: “…Models can be generated to represent the lifecycles (e.g., assessment cycles) or parts of the lifecycles (e.g., assessment cycles) of products being evaluated. This can include models for, e.g., animal products (beef, chicken, pork, milk, eggs, etc .), crops (plants, algae, fungi , cyanobacteria, bacteria, etc.), energy carriers (oil, coal, gas, solar power electricity, wind power electricity, biofuels, etc.),…”);
the production process type emission source (P) comprises carbon emissions generated by leather chemical materials used in different making sections of the leather manufacturing process (Beal, see citations noted supra, in view of at least [0047]: “..materials and other products can include, e.g., minerals, metals, stones, compounds (gas, liquid, or solid), industrial chemicals, atmospheric materials, surface materials, subsurface materials, etc. that are produced for profit, subsistence, or during a particular cycle, without departing from the scope of the embodiments described herein…”);
the transportation process type emission source (T) comprises carbon emissions generated by road transport involved in the leather manufacturing process (Beal, see citations noted supra, in view of at least [0151]: “…Diesel fuel is also consumed for transporting cattle, e.g., with fuel consumption of 0.2 gallons per mile….”);
the waste type emission source (W) comprises carbon emissions generated in treatment processes of waste water, waste gas, and leather making leftover materials in the leather manufacturing process (Beal, see citations noted supra, e.g. at least [0018] in view of at least [0227] noting that emissions may be from combined emissions producing systems [sources] such as “wastewater treatment”, etc…; Furthermore, Examiner finds that it was within the level of skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that waste gas and other waste streams are known waste streams. Therefore, there is motivation to a person of ordinary skill to include these known waste streams of waste gas and other waste streams in considering combined emissions producing systems with Beal’s emissions from waste water streams because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.);
…
constructing a carbon emission accounting sub-model for each of a plurality of leather making sections based on the masses and carbon emission factors of the plurality of carbon emissions sources in the leather manufacturing process comprising the plurality of leather making sections; […]; wherein the carbon emission accounting sub-model is as shown in following Formula (1): Esection = Eenergy + Pprocess + Ttransportation + Wwaste (Beal, see citations noted supra, including at least
PNG
media_image11.png
198
450
media_image11.png
Greyscale
; i.e. Beal’s carbon emissions of an area [section] of a production process is the sum of emissions from the various processes which make up an area of a production process including carbon emissions of the energy type emission source, carbon emissions of the production process type emission source, carbon emissions of the transportation process type emission source, carbon emissions of the waste type emission source);
PNG
media_image12.png
186
436
media_image12.png
Greyscale
wherein,
Esection represents carbon emissions of each section in the leather manufacturing process (Beal, see again citations noted supra, e.g. [0189] applicant’s Esection reads on Beal’s sum of emissions, such as GHG total kg CO2e per bbl of energy consumed),
Eenergy represents carbon emissions of the energy type emission source (Beal, see again at least [0019], [0122], and [0190]-[0191]
PNG
media_image13.png
200
430
media_image13.png
Greyscale
),
Pprocess represents carbon emissions of the production process type emission source (Beal, see at citations noted supra, e.g. “product-centric models” including “material data, or other product system data”; see also [0184]),
Ttransportation represents carbon emissions of the transportation process type emission source (Beal, see citations noted supra, in view of at least [0151]: “…Diesel fuel is also consumed for transporting cattle, e.g., with fuel consumption of 0.2 gallons per mile….”),
Wwaste represents carbon emissions of the waste type emission source (Beal, see citations noted supra, e.g. at least [0018] in view of at least [0185] and [0227] noting that emissions may be from combined emissions producing systems [sources] such as “wastewater treatment”, etc…),
Ck represents a consumption of a k-th type of fuel in the leather manufacturing process,
Hk represents a carbon emission factor for the k-th type of fuel in the leather manufacturing process (Beal, see at least [0135], e.g.:
PNG
media_image14.png
178
444
media_image14.png
Greyscale
),
EA represents activity level data of purchased electric power in the leather manufacturing process, E F represents a carbon emission factor for the purchased electric power in the leather manufacturing process (
PNG
media_image15.png
158
432
media_image15.png
Greyscale
),
HA represents activity level data of purchased heat in the leather manufacturing process, HF represents a carbon emission factor for the purchased heat in the leather manufacturing process (Beal, again see at least [0133] discussing emissions from upstream products which are required for the production process, such as purchase of fuel. It would have been obvious to quantify the purchase of such fuel in terms of an emissions factor similar to the emissions impact calculated for other sources of emissions such as “electricity” as noted per at least [0134] and because per at least MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.),
PMi represents a mass of an i-th type of raw material consumed in the leather manufacturing process, PFi represents a carbon emission factor for the i-th type of raw material in the leather manufacturing process (Beal, again note per at least [0186], e.g.
PNG
media_image16.png
106
438
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Gas which is flared is a raw material which is consumed.)
TMi represents a mass of the i-th type of raw material transported in the leather manufacturing process, TFi represents a carbon emission factor for the i-th type of mode of transportation in the leather manufacturing process, TDi represents a transport mileage of the i-th type of raw material in the leather manufacturing process (Beal, see again at least
PNG
media_image17.png
170
424
media_image17.png
Greyscale
),
WMi represents a mass of the i-th type of waste disposed in the leather manufacturing process, and WFi represents a carbon emission factor for disposal of the i-th type of
waste in the leather manufacturing process (Beal, see citations noted supra, again in view of at least
PNG
media_image10.png
128
432
media_image10.png
Greyscale
); and
Constructing an entire carbon emission accounting model for the leather manufacturing process is based on the carbon emission accounting sub-models for the plurality of leather making sections, as shown in following Formula (2): SumE(i) = Esection 1 + Esection 2 + Esection 3 + Esection 4 (Beal, see at least [0227]-[0230] teaching Combined Emissions Producing Systems; i.e. Beal teaches the combined emissions [Sum E(i)] of various production process areas is their aggregated sum, e.g. from as many areas as are combined. Although Beal doesn’t explicitly state a combination of emissions from four different sections, it would have been obvious to try such a combination, e.g. of the sections noted supra, depending on the sections of interest for estimating emissions for a particular product production process of interest such as that for a leather production process as noted per Beal at [0012] and because per MPEP 2143(I) (E) choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is “Obvious to try ” and because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.),
extracting the carbon emissions of each leather making section by calling the carbon emission accounting sub-models to determine a section with maximum influence on the carbon emissions to reduce the carbon emissions; and monitoring carbon footprint in the leather manufacturing process by the entire carbon emission accounting model to guide carbon dioxide peaking and carbon neutrality (As noted supra, Beal accounts for or otherwise calculates [extracts] the emissions from each section of a process by the formulas [sub-models] noted supra and Beal, also as noted supra, teaches the emissions of each section may be summed or otherwise aggregated to obtain a total; e.g. as an example see [0117]: “…The model may also output different combinations of emissions (e.g., emissions from feedlot only) or the model may output the total emissions for the entire pathway, total methane, and/or total N2O, etc…”; and per at least [0027], Beal teaches emissions may be monitored and emissions models may be generated to quantify an amount of emissions by a selected product’s production, e.g.: “…obtain in real-time from a database, by the computing device processor of the computing system, wherein the database is included of information obtained by at least one sensor of a plurality of sensors monitoring the selected product, performance data associated with the unique identifier of the selected product, identify, by the computing device processor of the computing system, one or more data variables associated with at least one equation component of the plurality of equation components of the emissions lifecycle based on the performance data, and apply, by the computing device processor of the computing system, at least one adjustment to the at least one equation component to generate a product-centric emissions model, the product centric emissions model quantifying an amount of emissions by the selected product during an emissions assessment cycle of the selected product…”; Examiner notes that the statements of intended use such as: ‘to determine a section with maximum influence on the carbon emissions to reduce the carbon emissions’ and ‘to guide carbon dioxide peaking and carbon neutrality’ are not positively recited and do not alter the method as currently claimed nor the system performing the claimed method.)
Although Beal teaches the above features, and as noted at least per [0025]: “the model(s) can be used to determine emissions data for each emissions producing system”; i.e. quantifying emissions estimations for production process systems [sections] in general, which includes aggregating the sum of emissions from each process system [section], including tanning processes to make leather, he may not delve into the minutia of various leather tanning manufacturing process systems in great detail. However, regarding the following features, Beal in view of Mahdi teaches the following:
…wherein the plurality of leather making sections comprise a preparation section, a tanning section, a wet processing section after tanning, and a finishing section,…
SumE(i) represents overall carbon emissions in a the leather manufacturing process, Esection 1 represents the preparation section (Mahdi, see at least Fig.1 and [pg. 2]: e.g. curing, soaking, liming and “…Animal skins are first sent to tanneries, where they are picked by species and quality. In large containers, they are then soaked to remove dirt and other impurities before treatment. Then the soaked material is chemically treated in a lime bath, to remove hair and other unwanted elements from the product…”), Esection 2 represents the tanning section (Mahdi, see again at least Fig.1 and [pg. 2]: e.g. pickling, etc…”After that, the skin is ready for tanning…”), Esection 3 represents the wet processing section after tanning (Mahdi, see at least Fig.1 and [pg. 2]: e.g. retanning, dyeing, etc…and per [pg.2] :”… Then the product is spread out to drain it, to allow the fixation of chemical agents in the fibers. Then the product undergoes a fatliquoring….”), and Esection 4 represents the finishing section. (Mahdi, see at least Figs. 1-4 e.g. Finished and Finished leather, and per [pg. 2]: “…Oils are rubbed on the fibres to soften them and resist environmental constraints. Today, the oils used are of mixed variety vegetable, animal and mineral. This product is then dried, in special rooms equipped with a fan to accelerate drying…”)
PNG
media_image18.png
410
710
media_image18.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
384
660
media_image19.png
Greyscale
and who discloses, e.g. per [pg. 2]: “The tanning Process Description”, various sections of a leather manufacturing process, including: a preparation section, a tanning section, a post-tanning wet processing section and a finishing section; the preparation section includes water soaking, degreasing, liming, deliming, pickling, softening, and the like; post-tanning wet processing stages include retanning, dyeing, fat liquoring and the like processes; the finishing section includes drying, finishing, and the like processes; etc…);
In view of these teachings, the Examiner understands that the aforementioned leather tanning processes [sections] are known processes and therefore Mahdi provides motivation, to consider these processes [sections] of a leather tanning manufacturing process, to a person wishing to quantify carbon emissions of a leather tanning manufacturing process, such as a practitioner of Beal’s system/method. Therefore, the Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, when performing the carbon emissions calculations of Beal, as motivated by Mahdi’s teachings, to specifically account for emissions from each of the aforementioned sections of a leather tanning manufacturing process when aggregating emissions estimates of his different sections of a production process, because per MPEP 2143(I) (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention is obvious. The motivation to combine may be implicit and may be found in the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. Id. at 1366, 80 USPQ2d at 1649.
Claims 2, 6:
Beal/Mahdi teaches the limitations upon which these claims depend. Furthermore, as shown Beal in view of Mahdi teaches the following: The modeling method according to claim 1, wherein the leather manufacturing process is a process of making fur and leather products or finished products with a variety of animal skins as raw materials (Mahdi, see at least [pg. 2], teaching: “…Experimental section: The tanning Process Description - Animal skins [a variety of animal skins as raw materials] are first sent to tanneries, where they are picked by species and quality. In large containers, they are then soaked to remove dirt and other impurities before treatment… The material is then stretched. This is called staking because it remains the most useful tool for the work. A special machine that gently pushes the leather, spreads the fat liquor and ensures that the finished product remains flexible completes the operation [the final product is a finished leather product]. Finally, and depending on its destination, the last step is the leveling, which consists in standardizing the thickness of the leather according to its use. According to the process shown in Fig. 1, the three scenarios proposed for this study (Fig. 2) differ only by tanning agents. Other major upstream (stage 1) and downstream (stage 2) processes are the same for the three leather-manufacturing scenarios…”).
Response to Arguments
Applicant amended claims 1, 3, 4, 5 on 04/30/2026. Applicant's arguments (hereinafter “Remarks”) also filed 04/30/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by applicant’s amendments. Note the new 101, 112, and 103 rejections with updated citations to Beal in view of Mahdi.
Conclusion
The following prior art is made of record although not relied upon as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chan et al. (Industrial Enterprise Greenhouse Gas Emission Accounting Process Research and Applications, CHAN et al., "Chinese Leather", Vol. 52 No. 7, pp. 10-17, 2023.07. 31); this reference also directly teaches applicant’s primary concept of accounting for emissions in a leather manufacturing process and could be used as a substitute reference to those cited supra in the rejection.
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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL J SITTNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3984. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; ~9:30-6:30. 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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached on (571) 270-3948. 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.
/Michael J Sittner/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3621
Prosecution Insights