You are on page 1of 2

IN RE ITEM VIII 1. CLARITY (ARTICLE 6 PCT) 1.

1 The claimed subject-matter does not meet the requirements of Article 6 PCT since the wording of independent claim 1 does not contain all technical features essential for the invention to be carried out. In fact, neither the frequency nor the power needed nor either the treatment time needed for obtaining the desired result to be achieved (see "sufficient to create a magnetic field relative to the applicator to crack at least a portion of the aromatic molecules into polar molecules" as well as "processing the polar molecules into fuels" in the wording of claim 1) or even all the features (catalyst, P, T, LHSV, C/O or Steam/oil, etc) needed for obtaining fuel from a polar molecule, and which constitute the essential technical features of the claimed process, are not present in the wording of independent claim 1 and consequently it is in breach with the requirements of clarity of Article 6 PCT. 1.2 The same objection under point 1.1 above are hereby raised against the wording of present claims 4, 5 since they do not contain any standard method allowing third parties how to calculate resonance frequency of aromatic molecules and respectively the dielectric antiresonance of the water molecules. The explicit references to the frequency values to be used in the claimed method are to be introduced into the wordings of claims 4 and 5 for the sake of clarity of Article 6 PCT. 1.3 In the absence of all essential technical features of the claimed subject-matter and the correct relationships and references cited above, the clarity of the claimed subjectmatter cannot be acknowledged (Article 6 PCT). IN RE ITEM V 2. NOVELTY (ARTICLE 33(2)PCT)

2.1 The figures 4 and 12-16 of D1 (see [0260],[0291]-[0293]; claims 1-25) which discloses the in situ treatment of aromatic hydrocarbon with adjustable RF in the range 3-30 MHz and 100 MHz (see [0200], [0201],[0202],[0203] and [0204]) are prejudicial for at least the novelty of claims 1-10 presently on file. 2.2 D2 (see fig. 4, 12-16;[0071], [0075], [0076], [0084], [0093], [0101], [0111], [0126]-[0130], [0133], [0153], [0157]) discloses a process wherein the frequency 30, 100, 300 MHz is adjusted to a Debye resonance value of aromatic compound and the power is applied as a function of temperature to be reached by using a coupling system which is prejudicial for at least the novelty of claims 1-10 presently on file. 2.3 D3 (see figure 11, col. 14) concerns the use of adjusted radio frequencies in the range from 0.8 MHz to 40 MHz for in situ treatment of tar (see claims 1-69) which is prejudicial for at least claims 1-10 presently on file. 2.4 D4 (see point 1.1 Resonant electromagnetic fields interaction with hydrocarbon systems; and figures 1,2,5) discloses underground resonance RF heating of aromatic

crude oils (Russkoye oil field) at frequencies ranging from 100 MHz to 10 GHz whic are prejudicial for at least the novelty of claims 1-10 presently on file. 2.5 Each of D5 (see figure 1; point 3.1-3.3 ; figures 1-8; tables 1, first row) and D6 (see figure 1 and tables 1-4; points 3.1-3.3) discloses the details of cracking benzene under different operational conditions by using radiofrequencies which are prejudicial for at least the wording of claims 1-4 presently on file. In the absence of at least one differentiating technical feature in the wording of independent claim 1 which could be considered establishing novelty over D1-D6, the novelty (Article 33(2) PCT) of the claimed subject-matter (claims 1-10) cannot be acknowledged in view of D1-D6 3. INVENTIVE STEP (ARTICLE 33(3) PCT) 3.1 The above objection of lack of novelty impeaches that any argument of inventive step can be based on any differentiating technical feature in the wording of the independent claims, which are therefore considered non inventive. 3.2 Nowhere in the application documents originally filed is shown (comparative examples are missing) that any additional technical feature could (when incorporated into the wording of the independent claims) be made responsible for the solution of a technical problem not being solved previously by D1-D6 3.3

Further elements of the state of the art are know from e.g. D7-D9 (see whole documents) which can be considered useful for the analysis of inventive step of the claimed subject-matter either taken alone or in combination with any of D1-D6. 3.4 The attention of the applicant is drawn to the fact that any microwave treatment of crude oil in situ is prejudicial for the novelty of present claims 1-10 on file. Documents concerning microwave treatments have nevertheless not been cited since it is evident that the explicit range of radiofrequencies on file (6.7-40.7 MHz) and must be introduced into the wording of the independent claim for the sake of clarity are outside the range of microwaves' frequencies. 3.5 In the absence of at least one differentiating technical feature present in the wording of the independent process claim on file which could be considered responsible for the solution in a non obvious way of technical problem posed in the application documents originally filed in view of D1-D9 the inventive step of the claimed subject-matter (claims 1-10) cannot be acknowledged (Article 33(3) PCT) .