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

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 5 extends 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. 2.5 The wording of present claim 7 extends beyond that explicitly disclosed at 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

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. 2.6 The wording of present claim 8 extends beyond that explicitly disclosed at 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 10 extends beyond that explicitly disclosed at 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 technical features 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)

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.

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 pressure at 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 a system which intends to be useful for producing CO2 or steam or by

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 SUBJECTMATTER 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.

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 problemsolution 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

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 arrive to 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 of the 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.