11111111111111 MODERN NEW TIMES

7/30/2019 11111111111111 MODERN NEW TIMES

1/8

1. The examination of the present application has been carried out on the

claims 1-14 electronically filed on the 01.10.2012 and the rest of the

documents (pages 1-22 of the description and pages 1/18-18/18 of drawings)

originally filed.

2. ARTICLE 123(2) EPC

The attention of the applicants is drawn to the fact that the passages referred

to as support for the amendments of claims 1-14 presently on file (see letter

dated 01.10.2012; page 1 Amendments to page 3, line 5) belong to the

particular embodiments of the application , rather than to the general

description, which is very limited (see pages 1,2 and 3 up to line 10 and

pages 7, line 3 to page 9, line 6 of the originally filed description documents).

Picking selected features of a particular embodiment and introducing it into

the more general claimed system presently in the wording of the claims is not

allowable unless the selected technical feature(s) is (are) accompanied by all

technical features of the specific embodiment.

The amended claims do not meet the requirements of support of Article

123(2) EPC for the following reasons:

2.1 The term "dispersed" presently at line 4 of claim 1 must be substituted by

the term "disposed" originally in the wording of the claim for the sake of

compliance with Article 123(2) EPC.

The terms "first oxidation reactor" "second oxidation reactor" are by no means

supported anywhere in the application documents originally filed (see e.g.

page 2, lines 10-12) which everywhere concerns a second reactor which is

an oxidation reactor and a third reactor which is an oxidation reactor. The

terms first, second and third must be reintroduced into the wording of the

independent claim 1 (as well as in any of the dependent claims as adequate)

for the sake of compliance with the requirements of support of Article 123(2)

EPC.

The terms "wherein the oxidants produce the syngas in the first oxidation

reactor" extends beyond the originally filed terms "wherein CO2 and steam

oxidants are used to produce syngas" in the wording of original claim 4.

The terms "a second oxidation reactor in communication with the reduction

reactor , the first oxidation reactor or both" goes beyond the technical

features disclosed anywhere in the wording of claims 1-54 originally filed as

7/30/2019 11111111111111 MODERN NEW TIMES

2/8

well as in the general description pages cited above and must therefore be

deleted from the wording of independent claim 1 for the sake of compliance

with the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC.

The terms "and produces heat in the second oxidation reactor" introduced into

the wording of independent claim 1 lack support in the originally filed

documents.

The terms " wherein the metal oxide intermediate has a higher oxidation state

than the reduced metal or metal oxide and a lower oxidation state than the

metal oxide" must be completed by the wording "of the ceramic composite"

according to the supported terms at page 10, lines 12-14 of the originally filed

documents for the sake of support of Article 123(2) EPC.

2.2 The terms "disposed between the first oxidation reactor and the second

oxidation reactor" and respectively from a product stream of the first oxidation

reactor to the second oxidation reactor" presently at lines 2-4 of claim 3 must

be deleted therefrom since it lacks support. Figure 2-9 which do not belong to

the general description concern particular embodiments (see, COAL as

feedstock among many other particular features therein) which cannot be

extrapolated to any general system as that presently claimed for the sake of

compliance with Article 123(2) EPC.

2.3 The wording of present claim 4 extends beyond that explicitly disclosed at

claims 13 and 14 originally filed and the terms "in fluid communication with the

second reactor (first oxidation reactor)" and respectively the terms " to

produces steam by utilizing heat from a product stream of the first reactor, the

second reactor or both" must be introduced therein for the sake of support of

Article 123(2) EPC. In the same way the terms "and combination thereof or

both" (concerning the terms "to heat a feed comprising water, steam") must

be deleted therefrom for the sake of compliance with the requirements of

Article 123(2) EPC.

2.4 The wording of present claim 5extends beyond that explicitly disclosed at

claims 15,16 and 28 originally filed and the terms "or combination thereof"

must be deleted therefrom for the sake of compliance with the requirements of

Article 123(2) EPC.


claims 25, 26 and 27 originally filed and the terms "such that a product of the

fuel is recycled to the second reactor" (from claim 25), "in fluid communication

7/30/2019 11111111111111 MODERN NEW TIMES

3/8

with" (from claim 26 concerning Fischer-Tropsch reactor) must be introduced

therein for the sake of compliance with the requirement of support of Article

123(2) EPC. In the same way the terms "and combination thereof " must be

deleted therefrom for the sake of compliance with the requirements of Article

123(2) EPC.


claims 30 originally filed and the terms "such that a product of the fuel is

recycled to the second reactor" (from claim 25), "of the second reactor" must

be introduced therein after the therms "wherein the oxidant" (from originally

filed claim 30) for the sake of compliance with the requirement of support of

Article 123(2) EPC.

2.7 The wording of present claim 10extends beyond that explicitly disclosedat claims 40,46, 47, 49, 51 originally filed since each of 46, 47,49,51 are

dependant on claim 40 via claim 46 and consequently all their technical

features (these of claim 40 and claim 46) must be included into the wording of

the claim for the sake of support of Article 123(2) EPC.

2.8 The wording of present claim 11 extends beyond that explicitly disclosed

at claims 1-54 originally filed since no support at all can be found for the

features in the wording of the cited claim 11, being therefore in breach with

the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC.

2.9 For the explicit reasons above, none of the applicants arguments (see

letter dated 01.10.2012 ; pages 1-3 Amendments) can be accepted.

2.10 The wordings of the above cited claims therefore contain technicalfeatures not disclosed in the documents originally filed and is in breach

with the requirements of support of Article 123(2) EPC. For this reason

the application in its entirety must be rejected according to the

dispositions of Article 97(2) EPC.

3. CLARITY (ARTICLE 84 EPC)

7/30/2019 11111111111111 MODERN NEW TIMES

4/8

Only once the above objections of lack of support (Article 123(2) EPC) would

have been dealt with, the clarity of the claimed subject-matter must be

established as follows:

3.1 The presence of the terms:

3.1.1 "(The reduction reactor) produces carbon dioxide, steam or

combinations thereof",

3.1.2 "(The first oxidation reactor) produces hydrogen, carbon monoxide,

syngas, heat or combinations thereof" and respectively the terms

3.1.3 "the at least one metal oxide is regenerated within the second oxidation

reactor by oxidizing the metal oxide intermediate of the first oxidation reactor"

in the wording of independent claim 1 define rather desired results to be

achieved than effective real technical features allowing the skilled person to

put into practice let apart to know which of them belong or not the the claimed

subject-matter.

In fact, it is impossible to know how which technical features are necessary

for obtaining steam (or carbon dioxide) referred to under point 3.1.1 above by

treating a unknown fuel (heavy fuel oil, carbon, methanol, hydrogen?) on

metal oxide (Al2O3; SiO2; TiO2; MgO2?) disposed on ceramic composite

particles at 1-150 Atm and 400C-1200C ? And that production above,implying at the same time reducing the unknown metal oxide disposed on

ceramic composite particles to obtain a reduced metal oxide or metal.

The same objection above applies to each of the processes referred to under

points 3.1.2 (how can I produce hydrogen for instance by introducing carbon

dioxide on a reduced catalyst? ; how can I produce syngas introducing air or

oxygen on a reduced catalyst?) and point 3.1.3 (what technical features are

necessary for oxidating a reduced oxide or reduced metal inside the second

oxidation reactor? are there necessary some reagents?) above.

The skilled person is confronted with the doubt to know which technical

features are encompassed by the claimed subject-matter and which other are

excluded there from and the wordings of the claims need to contain the

required technical features according to the case law of the EPO (see case

Law Edition 2009; page 248,last paragraph) them to meet the requirements of

clarity of Article 84 EPC.

7/30/2019 11111111111111 MODERN NEW TIMES

5/8

3.2 The presence of the terms "the al least one metal oxide is regenerated

within the second oxidation reactor by oxidizing the metal oxide intermediate"

renders the claimed subject-matter in breach with the requirements of Article

84 EPC since it is not possible to decipher whether the catalyst of the

reduction reactor (at least the one metal oxide is only present in the first

reduction reactor) or that of the intermediate oxidation reactor (since as it is

intended in the wording of the claim that reduction reactor and first oxidation

reactor are in contact with the second oxidation reactor) are to be

regenerated.

The explicit connections of reactors must be (if supported in the application

documents originally filed Article 123(2) EPC) to be introduced into the

wording of the claims for the sake of clarity of Article 84 EPC.

3.3 The attention of the applicants is drawn to the fact that once the above

objections of lack of support and clarity are applied, the presently claimed

system comprises the following elements:

3.3.1) a reactor (i.e. a vessel) containing a metal oxide catalyst deposited on a

support having means for heating at 400C-1200C and maintaining pressureat 1-150 atm with means to introduce a fuel (a lead which can be open for

instance),

3.3.2) a reactor (i.e. a vessel) containing a reduced metal or a reduced metal

oxide (no reference whatsoever to the support) having means for heating at

400C-1200C and maintaining pressure at 1-150 atm with means to

introduce any of steam or carbon dioxide,

3.3.3) a reactor (i.e. a vessel) with means to introduce any of steam, carbon

dioxide, air, oxygen.

It seems to be quite evident that the above technical features in the wording of

independent claim 1 cannot be considered as sufficiently disclosing the

claimed system for the skilled person to put it into practice and obtaining asystem which intends to be useful for producing CO2 or steam or by

7/30/2019 11111111111111 MODERN NEW TIMES

6/8

oxidative (oxidation means are missing in the wording of claim 1)

reforming of a fuel (carbon, natural gas, petroleum coke) and

simultaneously regenerating the catalyst used therein for further use

thereof in a continuous process (transporting means between reactors

and inside the reactors are missing) as explicitly cited at the introductory

part of the description (see pages 1 to 3, line 8).

3.4 The explicit name of the catalysts to be used in the claimed system

as well as the precise means for introducing the necessary reagents and

the means for performing the intended process in the claimed system

(accidentally the connections among the different reactors only when

fully supported) must be introduced into the wording of the independent

claim for the sake of clarity of Rule 43(2) EPC and respectively of Article

84 EPC.

3.5 For the explicit reasons above, none of the applicants arguments (see

letter dated 01.10.2012 ; page 3 Clarity (Article 84 EPC)) can be accepted.

3.6 Were the applicants not in a position to meet the above requirements

(FILE ONLY ONE INDEPENDENT SYSTEM CLAIM CONTAINING ALL

ESSENTIAL TECHNICAL FEATURES OF THE CLAIMED SUBJECT-

MATTER ACCORDING TO RULE 43(2) AND ARTICLE 84 EPC), the

rejection of the application in its entirety must follow according to the

dispositions of Article 97(2) EPC without any possibility of discussing

the rest of point s below.

4. NOVELTY (ARTICLE 54 EPC)

The attention of the applicants is drawn to the fact that once the above

objections of lack of support and clarity are applied, the presently claimed

system (see independent claim 1 presently on file) comprises only the

elements 3.3.1, 3.3.2 and 3.3.3 explicitly referred to above.

7/30/2019 11111111111111 MODERN NEW TIMES

7/8

The objection of lack of novelty in view of D1 is maintained as originally raised

for the reasons given under point 3.1 of the official communication dated on

the 27.02.2012 annexed to the search report.

In fact D1 (see figures 1-5) explicitly discloses three reactors meeting all the

explicit technical features presently in the wording (see points 3.3.1, 3.3.2 and

3.3.3 above) of independent claim 1 since in particular the third reactor

presently claimed does not contain any technical feature apart of being a

vessel.

The applicants arguments (see letter dated 01.10.2012; pages 4-5; Novelty

(Article 54)) concerning technical features which are not present in the

wording of the independent claim 1 cannot be accepted as establishing

novelty of the claimed subject-matter.

In the absence of at least one technical feature present in the wording of

the only independent system claim 1 in view of D1, the novelty of the

claimed subject-matter cannot be acknowledged (Article 54 EPC) and

the application in its entirety must be rejected on grounds of lack of

novelty according to the provisions of Article 97(2) EPC.

5. INVENTIVE STEP (ARTICLE 56 EPC)

5.1 The analysis of inventive step before the EPO must follow the problem-

solution approach of the guidelines (G-VII.5, January 2012) according to

which the evidence must be provided that a differentiating technical feature

present in the wording of the independent claims is responsible for the

solution of a technical problem posed in the description in a non obvious way

in view of the closest prior art document. In particular, the attention of the

applicants is drawn to the fact that "Features which cannot be seen to

make any contribution, either independently or in combination with

other features, to the technical character of an invention are not relevant

for assessing inventive step" and respectively to the fact that "A

technical problem may be regarded as being solved only if it is credible

7/30/2019 11111111111111 MODERN NEW TIMES

8/8

that substantially all claimed embodiments exhibit the technical effects

upon which the invention is based" .

5.2 The above objections of lack of novelty in view of D1 do not allow to arriveto the first step of the problem-solution approach (definition of at least one

differentiating technical feature present in the wording of the independent

claims) and impeaches therefore any argument concerning the inventive step

of the claimed subject-matter.

5.3 The application documents originally filed does not seem to contain any

additional technical features which once incorporated into the wording of all

independent claim could help to solve any technical problem posed, in a non

obvious way, in view of D1.

5.4 The applicants arguments (see letter dated 01.10.2012; pages 6-7;

Inventive step (Article 56 EPC)) cannot be based on any differentiating

technical feature present in the wording of the independent claims (due to lack

of novelty) and cannot therefore follow the problem solution approach of the

guidelines. The applicants have not been able to provide the evidence of a

solved technical problem.

5.5 In the absence of at least one differentiating technical feature

present in the wording of the independent claims 1 which has been

effectively shown as being responsible for the solution, in a non

obvious way of a technical problem posed in the application documents

originally filed in a non obvious way in view of D1, the inventive step ofthe claimed subject-matter cannot be acknowledged (Guidelines G-VII.5

and well as Article 56 EPC) and the application in its entirety must be

rejected on grounds of Article 56 EPC according to the provisions of

Article 97(2) EPC.

Documents

11111111111111 MODERN NEW TIMES