CARBON DIOXIDE EMISSIONS CALCULATION SYSTEM AND METHOD

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 . Status of the Claims This is in response to a letter for a patent filed 02 April 2025 in which claims 1-11 were presented for examination. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDSs) submitted on 03 August 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. However, the Patent(s) and/or publication(s) cited in the office actions submitted in the information disclosure statements have not been separately considered. A copy of the PTO-1449 is attached hereto. copy of the PTO-1449 is attached hereto. Claim Objections Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 11, line 5, “row” should be “raw.” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a/the raw material emission amount calculation part,” “a/the main facility unit emission amount calculation part; and “a/the step emission amount calculation part” in claim 1; “a/the target product emission amount calculation part,” “the step emission amount calculation part,” and “the raw material emission amount calculation part” in claim 2; “an/the emission allotment amount calculation part” and “the main facility emission amount calculation part,” in claim 3; “an accompanying process emission amount calculation part” in claim 4; “a/the first remaining emission amount calculation” and “a second remaining emission amount calculation part” in claim 5; “a/the rejected lot object emission amount calculation part,” an emission amount addition calculation part,” “the target product emission amount calculation part,” “the raw material emission amount calculation part,” “the step emission amount calculation part,” and “the main facility unit emission amount calculation part” in claim 6; “a/the rejected lot object emission amount calculation part,” “an emission amount addition calculation part,” “the target product emission amount calculation part,” “the raw material emission amount calculation part,” “the step emission amount calculation part,” and “the main facility unit emission amount calculation part” in claim 7; “a/the rejected lot object emission amount calculation part,” “an emission amount addition calculation part,” “the target product emission amount calculation part,” “the raw material emission amount calculation part,” “the step emission amount calculation part,” and “the main facility unit emission amount calculation part” in claim 8; “a/the rejected lot object emission amount calculation part,” “an/the emission amount addition calculation part,” the step emission amount calculation part,” “the raw material emission amount calculation part,” “the main facility unit emission amount calculation part in claim 9; “the raw material emission amount calculation part,” “the step emission amount calculation part,” “the main facility unit emission amount calculation part,” “an/the emission amount addition calculation part,” and “the target product emission amount calculation part in claim 10. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Claims 1-10 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Claim 11 is directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, Claims 1-11 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention. Step 2A Prong 1 Independent claims 1 and 11 substantially recite: [ ] calculates/calculating, on the basis of a first unit CO2 emission amount per unit about a raw material in connection with production of the target product of the target type and a total amount of the raw material used for the target product of the target type produced in a predetermined period, a total raw material CO2 emission amount about the raw material in connection with the production of the target product of the target type, [ ] calculates/calculating, for each of a plurality of main facilities respectively associated with the steps in the production of the target product of the target type, a second unit CO2 emission amount per unit about each of the main facilities on the basis of a total production load amount required in the main facility associated with the step to execute the step in the production in the predetermined period and a total CO2 emission amount about the main facility with respect to the total production load amount, and [ ] calculates/calculating, for each of the main facilities respectively associated with the steps in the production of the target product of the target type, a step CO2 emission amount about the step executed by the main facility in connection with the production of the target product of the target type, on the basis of the second unit C02 emission amount per unit about the main facility calculated by the main facility unit emission amount calculation part and the total production load amount required in the main facility in the production in the predetermined period in connection with the production of the target product of the target type. The limitations as a whole recite a method or organizing human activity; and the aforementioned limitations as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, may be interpreted as at least a “Mental Process” (concepts performed in the human mind) which includes observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions and/or “Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” which includes social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.. Step 2A Prong 2 This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements: “a carbon dioxide emission amount calculation system,” “a raw material emission calculation part,” “a main facility unit emission amount calculation part,” and “a step emission calculation part” in claim 1 to perform the “calculates,” “calculates,” and “calculates” steps. The claimed computer components in the steps of claim 1 are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e., “a carbon dioxide emission amount calculation system,” “a raw material emission calculation part,” “a main facility unit emission amount calculation part,” and “a step emission calculation part” in claim 1 to performing the “calculates,” “calculates,” and “calculates”) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (i.e., “a carbon dioxide emission amount calculation system,” “a raw material emission calculation part” in claim 1). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (i.e., “a carbon dioxide emission amount calculation system,” “a raw material emission calculation part,” “a main facility unit emission amount calculation part,” and “a step emission calculation part” in claim 1). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible. Step 2B The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the (“a carbon dioxide emission amount calculation system,” “a raw material emission calculation part,” “a main facility unit emission amount calculation part,” and “ a step emission calculation part” in claim 1 to perform the “calculates/calculating,” “calculates/calculating,” and “calculates/calculating” steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are patent ineligible. As per dependent claim 2, the recitations “calculates, as a total target product C02 emission amount about the target product of the target type, a sum of: a total of respective step CO2 emission amounts… about the steps executed by the main facilities for each of the main facilities respectively associated with the steps in the production of the target product of the target type; and the total raw material C02 emission amount about the raw material… in connection with the production of the target product of the target type” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity and/or a mental process as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the recitations of “a target product emission amount calculation part” is another computer component recited at a high-level of generality and is merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea. As per dependent claim 3, the recitations, “calculates, concerning an auxiliary facility indirectly involved in the production of the product via a specific main facility and being adoptable for a plurality of facilities, a CO2 emission allotment amount about a certain facility that utilizes the auxiliary facility by allotting a total auxiliary facility CO2 emission amount about the auxiliary facility in the predetermined period to each of the facilities that utilizes the auxiliary facility at a predetermined proportion, wherein, when the main facility has an association with the auxiliary facility in the calculation of the second unit C0 emission amount per unit about the main facility, …calculates a new total C02 emission amount about the main facility with respect to the total production load amount by adding the C0 emission allotment amount about the facility corresponding to the main facility…to the total CO2 emission amount about the main facility with respect to the total production load amount, and calculates the second unit CO2 emission amount per unit about the main facility on the basis of the calculated new total C0 emission amount about the main facility with respect to the total production load amount” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity and/or a mental process as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the recitation of “an emission allotment amount calculation part” is another computer component recited at a high-level of generality and is merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea. As per dependent claim 4, the recitations, “calculates, on the basis of a third unit C0 emission amount per unit about a predetermined process executed to the product after the production of the product to delivery of the product to a delivery destination and a total amount of the target product of the target type produced in the plant in the predetermined period, a total accompanying process CO2 emission amount about the predetermined process to the target product of the target type” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity and/or a mental process as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. As per dependent claim 5, the recitations, “calculates a fourth unit CO2 emission amount per product unit about the remaining emission source on the basis of a total remaining CO2 emission amount about the remaining emission source in the predetermined period and a total amount of the product produced in the plant in the predetermined period”; and ” calculates a total second remaining CO2 emission amount about the remaining emission source in connection with the production of the target product of the target type on the basis of the fourth unit CO2emission amount per product unit about the remaining emission source… and a total amount of the target product of the target type produced in the predetermined period” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity and/or a mental process as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the recitations of “a first remaining emission amount calculation part” and “a second remaining emission amount calculation part” are other computer components recited at a high-level of generality and is merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea. As per dependent claim 6, the recitations, “calculates a total rejected lot object CO2 emission amount about a rejected lot object to be removed after finish of a certain step of the steps”; and “adds a predetermined proportion of the total rejected lot object CO2 emission amount calculated to the total target product CO2 emission amount calculated when the target product of the target type has a kind which is identical to a kind of the rejected lot object…” “calculates, on the basis of a first unit CO2 emission amount per unit about a raw material in connection with production leading to the rejected lot object and a total amount of the raw material resulting in the rejected lot object produced in the predetermined period, a total raw material CO2 emission amount about the raw material in connection with the production leading to the rejected lot object”, “calculates, for one or more main facilities associated with one or more steps executed until the removal among a plurality of steps in the production leading to the rejected lot object, a step CO2emission amount about a step executed by the main facility in connection with the production leading to the rejected lot object, on the basis of the second unit CO2 emission amount per unit about the main facility calculated and a total production load amount required in the main facility in the predetermined period in connection with the production leading to the rejected lot object”, and “calculates, as the total rejected lot object CO2 emission amount, a sum of: one or more total step CO2 emission amounts about each step executed by each main facility as calculated for the one or more main facilities associated with the one or more steps executed until the removal among the steps in the production leading to the rejected lot object; and the total raw material CO2 emission amount about the raw material in connection with the production leading to the rejected lot object as calculated” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity and/or a mental process as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the recitations of “a rejected lot object emission amount calculation part” and “an emission amount addition calculation part” are other computer components recited at a high-level of generality and is merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea. As per dependent claim 7, the recitations, “calculates a total rejected lot object CO2 emission amount about a rejected lot object to be removed after finish of a certain step of the steps”; “adds a predetermined proportion of the total rejected lot object CO2ermission amount to the total target product CO2 emission amount when the target type is identical to a type of the rejected lot object,” “calculates, on the basis of a first unit CO2 emission amount per unit about a raw material in connection with production leading to the rejected lot object and a total amount of the raw material resulting in the rejected lot object produced in the predetermined period, a total raw material CO2 emission amount about the raw material in connection with the production leading to the rejected lot object,” “calculates, for one or more main facilities associated with one or more steps executed until the removal among a plurality of steps in the production leading to the rejected lot object, a step CO2 emission amount about a step executed by the main facility in connection with the production leading to the rejected lot object, on the basis of the second unit CO2 emission amount per unit about the main facility and a total production load amount required in the main facility in the predetermined period in connection with the production leading to the rejected lot object,” “calculates, as the total rejected lot object CO2 emission amount, a sum of: one or more total step CO2 emission amounts about each step executed by each main facility for the one or more main facilities associated with the one or more steps executed until the among the steps in the production leading to the rejected lot object; and the total raw material CO2 emission amount about the raw material in connection with the production leading to the rejected lot object…” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity and/or a mental process as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the recitations of “a rejected lot object emission amount calculation part” and “an emission amount addition calculation part” are other computer components recited at a high-level of generality and is merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea. As per dependent claim 8, the recitations, “calculates a total rejected lot object CO2 emission amount about a rejected lot object to be removed after finish of a certain step of the steps”; and “adds a predetermined proportion of the total rejected lot object CO2 emission amount to the total target product CO2 emission amount when the raw material for the target product of the target type is identical to a raw material for the rejected lot object,” “calculates, on the basis of a first unit CO2 emission amount per unit about the raw material in connection with production leading to the rejected lot object and a total amount of the raw material resulting in the rejected lot object produced in the predetermined period, a total raw material CO2 emission amount about the raw material in connection with the production leading to the rejected lot object,” “calculates, for one or more main facilities associated with one or more steps executed until the removal among a plurality of steps in the production leading to the rejected lot object, a step CO2 emission amount about a step executed by the main facility in connection with the production leading to the rejected lot object, on the basis of the second unit CO2 emission amount per unit about the main facility and a total production load amount required in the main facility in the predetermined period in connection with the production leading to the rejected lot object,” “calculates, as the total rejected lot object CO2 emission amount, a sum of: one or more total step CO2emission amounts about each step executed by each main facility for the one or more main facilities associated with the one or more steps executed until the removal among the steps in the production leading to the rejected lot object; and the total raw material CO2emission amount about the raw material in connection with the production leading to the rejected lot object …” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity and/or a mental process as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the recitations of “a rejected lot object emission amount calculation part” and “an emission amount addition calculation part” are other computer components recited at a high-level of generality and is merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea. As per dependent claim 9, the recitations, “calculates a total rejected lot object CO2 emission amount about a rejected lot object to be removed after finish of a certain step of the steps”; and “adds, when the main facilities respectively associated with the steps in the production of the target product of the target type include one or more main facilities which are the same as one or more main facilities associated with one or more steps executed until the removal among a plurality of steps in production leading to the rejected lot object, a predetermined proportion of the total rejected lot objection CO2 emission amount to a step CO2 emission amount about each step executed by each main facility in connection with the production of the target product of the target type, for the same main facility,” “calculates, on the basis of a first unit C02 emission amount per unit about a raw material in connection with production leading to the rejected lot object and a total amount of the raw material resulting in the rejected lot object produced in the predetermined period, a total raw material CO2 emission amount about the raw material in connection with the production leading to the rejected lot object,” “calculates, for the one or more main facilities associated with the one or more steps executed until the removal among the steps in the production leading to the rejected lot object, a step CO2 emission amount about a step executed by the main facility in connection with the production leading to the rejected lot object, on the basis of the second unit CO2emission amount per unit about the main facility and a total production load amount required in the main facility in the predetermined period in connection with the production leading to the rejected lot object,” “calculates, as the total rejected lot object CO2 emission amount, a sum of: one or more total step CO2 emission amounts about each step executed by each main facility for the one or more main facilities associated with the one or more steps executed until the removal among the steps in the production leading to the rejected lot object; and the total raw material CO2 emission amount about the raw material in connection with the production leading to the rejected lot object …” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity and/or a mental process as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the recitations of “a rejected lot object emission amount calculation part” and “an emission amount addition calculation part” are other computer components recited at a high-level of generality and is merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea. As per dependent claim 10, the recitations, “calculates, on the basis of a first unit CO2 emission amount per unit about a raw material in connection with production leading to a rejected lot object to be removed after finish of a specific step of the steps and a total amount of the raw material resulting in the rejected lot object produced in the predetermined period, a total raw material CO2 emission amount about the raw material in connection with the production leading to the rejected lot object,” and “calculates, for one or more main facilities associated with one or more steps executed until the removal among a plurality of steps in the production leading to the rejected lot object, a step CO2 emission amount about a step executed by the main facility in connection with the production leading to the rejected lot object, on the basis of the second unit CO2 emission amount per unit about the main facility and a total production load amount required in the main facility in the predetermined period in connection with the production leading to the rejected lot object,” “adds, when the main facilities respectively associated with the steps in the production of the target product of the target type include the one or more main facilities which are the same as the one or more main facilities associated with the one or more steps executed until the removal among the steps in the production leading to the rejected lot object, a predetermined first proportion of a step CO2 emission amount about each step executed by each main facility in connection with the production leading to the rejected lot object to a step CO2 emission amount about the step executed by the main facility in connection with the production of the target product of the target type for the same main facility,” “adding a predetermined second proportion of the total raw material CO2 emission amount about the raw material in connection with the production leading to the rejected lot object to the total target product CO2 emission amount, when the product has a type classified depending on a kind and a consumer and the target product of the target type has a kind which is identical to the kind of the rejected lot object;” or “adding a predetermined third proportion of the total raw material CO2 emission amount about the raw material in connection with the production leading to the rejected lot object to the total target product CO2 emission amount when the target type is identical to a type of the rejected lot object”; or “adding a predetermined fourth proportion of the total raw material CO2 emission amount about the raw material in connection with the production of the rejected lot object as calculated by the raw material emission amount calculation part to the total target product CO2 emission amount when the raw material for the target product of the target type and the raw material for the rejected lot object are identical to each other” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity and/or a mental process as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the recitation of “an emission amount addition calculation part” is another computer component recited at a high-level of generality and is merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Dependent Claims 2-10 have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. Dependent Claims 2-3 and 5, when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea of the independent claims. The dependent claims recite no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the judicial exception and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible. Prior Art Discussion: As per claims 1 and 11, the best prior art, Foreign prior art, and NPL includes: 1) Arjona Antolin (US PG Pub. 20120290273 A1) discloses a system and method for calculating greenhouse gas emission in the production of raw material for obtaining bioproducts by considering a partial calculation for the emissions related to any process and adding them up to obtain an overall value for said GHG emissions. 2) Kijima et al. (US PG Pub. 20130159218 A1) discloses an information processing apparatus and method which outputs a manufacturing cost and a CO emission amount for each of manufacturing processes which is capable of manufacturing an identical product. 3) Da Gama Campos et al. (WO 2022180544 A1) discloses a method of manufacturing a steel product in several steelmaking units wherein a steel product is manufactured in at least two steelmaking units and the method includes a calculation step wherein an expected level of CO emissions is calculated to manufacture the steel product in each steelmaking unit, such calculation being done considering all CO contributions associated to raw materials, energy sources and processes used for manufacturing the steel product in each respective steelmaking unit and manufacturing the steel product into the steelmaking unit wherein the calculated expected level of C02 emissions Eexp is the lowest. 4) Tomofumi et al. (JP 2012108691 A) discloses carbon dioxide emission amount calculation device and carbon dioxide emission amount calculation method The carbon dioxide emission amount for each material/raw material is calculated and recorded in the emission data recording unit for each material/raw material and managed. Carbon dioxide emissions can be calculated by taking the product of the amount of materials and raw materials used in production facilities and the amount of materials and raw materials emitted per unit of production. 5) Song et al., “Development of a low-carbon product design system based on embedded GHG emissions”, July 2010, Resources, Conservation and Recycling Vol 54, Issue 9, (2010), pages 547–556, discloses that a low-carbon product design system consists of several steps including: setting up establishment of the GHG emission target, establishment of the BOM structure, formation of the g-BOM (greenhouse gas-BOM), estimation of the GHG emissions of the product, identification of problematic parts, selection of alternative parts and evaluation of the GHG emissions of the newly designed product. However, neither Arjona Antolin, Kijima, Campos et al., Tomofumi et al., nor Song et al., alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of applicant's invention as the noted features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art. Claim 1 and 11’s features include: wherein the raw material emission amount calculation part calculates, on the basis of a first unit CO2 emission amount per unit about a raw material in connection with production of the target product of the target type and a total amount of the raw material used for the target product of the target type produced in a predetermined period, a total raw material CO2 emission amount about the raw material in connection with the production of the target product of the target type Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. 1) Auronzeb et al. (US PG Pub. 20240028599 A1) discloses a system and a method for transparent greenhouse gas emissions and reporting for an end product by identifying an end-product, retrieving from a database repository an overall GHG emission value determined based on a GHG emission equation and a plurality of data field values of reported GHG emissions stored in the database, determining a distributed GHG emission value describing GHG emitted during manufacture of the end-product, based on the overall GHG emission value and a number of the end-products manufactured and supply chain reporting over a reporting period, and displaying the distributed GHG emission value via the GUI. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDA A. NELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7076. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00am - 6:30pm. 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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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. /F.A.N/Examiner, Art Unit 3628 /SHANNON S CAMPBELL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628