1.

The examination of the present case has been carried out on the set of 11 claims filed with a letter dated 19.02.2007 and the rest of documents originally filed.

2. ARTICLE 123(2) EPC The introduction of the terms "wherein the sulfonic acid group-containing carbonaceous material does not show a G-peak which appears near 1580 cm-1 and a D-peak which appears near 1400 cm -1 in Raman spectroscopy" into the wording of independent claim 1 renders the claimed subject-matter in breach with the requirements of Article 123(2) EPC since the cited terms are not supported anywhere in the application documents originally filed. In fact, the purported support place at paragraph [0037] of the application documents originally filed referred to by the applicants (see letter dated 15.12.2011, page 1 , lines 1-10) merely refers to the fact that "a clear Raman spectrum is not obtained, and the degree of carbonization cannot be confirmed by this index" (paragraph [0037], lines 13-15 rather than to the fact that the above peaks are not present as a technical feature of the claimed product. The wording of independent claim 8 therefore contains 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.

2. CLARITY (ARTICLE 84 EPC) 2.1 The attention of the Applicants is drawn to the fact that any further discussion concerning novelty and inventive step, needs beforehand precise definition of the extent of the claimed subject-matter presently in the wording of independent claim 1. The attention of the Applicants is drawn to the fact that intended aims ("to prepare two or more base oil grades which base oil grades having different kinematic viscosity at 100C from a waxy paraffinic FT product ") in the wording of independent claim 1 does not add any process feature to the process features explicitly cited therein. In the same way, neither the viscosity of the product nor it content of lower boiling compounds constitute any technical feature of the claimed process, which must be defined in terms of real process features per se. The wording of independent claim 1 contains following technical features: (a) Distilling (unknown conditions)waxy paraffinic FT product containing >70%w noncyclic iso-paraffins to a fraction having a base oil viscosity (undefined).

(b) Catalytic dewaxing (unknown conditions) the distilled product (a), (c) Separating lower boiling compounds from dewaxed product (b), (d) repeating (a-c) for each base oil. The attention of the Applicants is drawn to the fact that nowhere in the wording of the independent claim 1 referred to above any recycle of any product obtained under step (c) is mentioned. The exact wording of step (d) merely concerns performing (a) to (c) another time with another FT feedstock obtaining another or the same (for each base oil) of undefined viscosity . This is confirmed by the description (see page 4,lines 32-33 and the examples 1-4 presently on file) indicating that different operational dewaxing conditions with different feedstocks allow obtaining base oils having different viscosities (from 5.151 cSt @100C to 9.78 cSt @100C in the examples 1-4 on file). 2.2 The wording of independent claim 1 is in breach with the requirements of clarity of Rule 43(2) and respectively Article 84 EPC since it does not contains all technical features essential for the claimed subject-matter to be carried out, rather concerns merely desired results to be achieved. Neither the catalyst name, nor the operational features (T, P, Catalyst/feedstock ratio, hydrogen/feedstock ratio, WHSV, etc.) are present in the wording of independent claim 1 allowing third parties to know the extent of the claimed subject-matter. The skilled person is confronted with the problem 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. The process independent claim 1 not containing all technical features essential for obtaining the desired result to be achieved and for the claimed subject-matter to be carried out the application in its entirety must be refused according to the dispositions of Article 97(2) since it is in breach with the requirements of Rule 43(2) and Article 84 EPC. 2.3 The attention of the Applicants is drawn to the fact that only once the above objections of lack of clarity would have been satisfactorily overcome, the analysis of the next point is to be started with. Failure to do as requested above will result in a refusal of the application in its entirety and the process will not continue. 3. NOVELTY (ARTICLE 54 EPC) The attention of the Applicants is drawn to the fact the in the absence of any operational feature (P,T, C/feedstock, Hydrogen/feedstock, WHSV, etc.) in the wording of step c) of claim 1 presently on file, the terms catalytic dewaxing cannot constitute per se a differentiating technical feature in view of any catalytic process converting only one molecule of the feedstock (wax), such as D1 and D2.

3.1.1 The novelty objection in view of D1 raised under point 2.2 of the second official communication dated 06.10.2010 is hereby maintained since D1 (see examples 1-3; claims 1-10) contains all technical features (in particular contacting different FT feedstock with catalysts produce wax reactions) presently in the wording of independent claim1 . The attention of the Applicants is drawn to the fact that example 3 of D1 explicitly refers to catalytic dewaxing on Pt-ZSM-23 and that inevitably different base oils are obtained therein (see claim 10 in combination with claim 1 concerning base oils production). The Applicants arguments concerning the purported not disclosure of production of (different) base oils in D1 (see letter dated 15.06.2011; page 2,lines 2427) cannot be therefore the base on which the objection of lack of novelty could be overcome. The Applicants arguments (see letter dated 15.06.2011; page 1, Novelty to page 2, line 27) concerning the obtained (desired product) which does not constitute operational technical features of the claimed process, cannot help to overcome the objection of lack of novelty in view of D1. 3.1.2 In any case, even though it does not affect the question of novelty since it does not concern operational features but merely results to be achieved, the attention of the Applicants is drawn to the fact that also D1 discloses that working under different dewaxing operational conditions different base oils with different kinematic viscosity (see example 1, V= 4.95 cSt @100C; example 2, V=4.86 cSt@ 100C; example 3, V=4.96C) can be produced. This fact confirms the relevance of D1 for the novelty of the desired results included within the wording of claim 1 presently on file. 3.2 Novelty in view of D2 D2 discloses (see col. 3, line 37 to col. 4, line 14 and col. 9, lines 39-45) a process wherein three different distilled sidecuts streams having HVI 80-100 (or 80-150), HVI 250-300 and HVI 500-600 base oil precursors are treated under undefined catalytic hydrodewaxing conditions in order to obtain under undefined operational conditions (see claim 1) and at least two parallel effluent streams of refinery dewaxed base oils from said reaction zones. The claimed subject-matter (present claim 1) does formally meet the requirements of novelty of Article 53 EPC in view of D1 since it (D1) does not explicitly disclose a distilled FT feedstock containing >70% wt of paraffins rather refinery derivated raffinate lubricating base oil precursor as feedstock of the catalytic hydrodewaxing process. 3.3 In the absence of at least one differentiating technical feature in the wording of the independent claim 1 in view of D1 the application in its entirety must be refused (Article 97(2) EPC) on grounds of lack novelty (Article 54 EPC). The attention of the Applicants is drawn again to the fact that only once the above objections of lack of novelty would have been satisfactorily overcome, the analysis of the next point is to be started with. Failure to do as requested above will result in a refusal of the application in its entirety and the process will not continue.

4.

INVENTIVE STEP(ARTICLE 56 EPC)

4.1 The analysis of inventive step before the EPO must follow the problem solution approach of the guidelines (G-VII.5; january 2012) which requires that the evidence be provided that a technical problem has effectively been solved in a non obvious way as the consequence of a differentiating technical feature present in the wording of all independent claims. 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". 3.2 It seems that the above differentiating technical feature (see point 2.) in view of D1 does not allow solving any technical problem in a non obvious way in view therefrom: In fact, the application originally filed contains an example wherein no recycle is present (see Example 1-3) and represents therefore rather technical features of the prior art than the presently claimed subject-matter.The differentiating technical feature presently in the wording of independent claim 1 cannot constitute, therefore, the basis for any argument concerning the inventive step of the claimed subject-matter. Additionally, 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 claim) be made responsible for the solution of a technical problem not being solved previously by D1. 3.3.1 Reference is made to the following documents; the numbering will be adhered to in the rest of the procedure.

4.1 The objection of lack of inventive step raised in view of D1 taken alone under points 3.1 and 3.2 of the second official communication dated 06.12.2010 is hereby maintained since the above objection of lack of novelty is an obstacle to the inventive step of the claimed subject-matter which cannot be sustained due to the absence of a differentiating technical feature in the wording of independent claim 1 presently on file. 4.2 The applicants arguments (see letter dated 15.06.2012; page 2, inventive step to page 3, last line) do not provide the evidence that a differentiating technical feature present in the wording of the independent claim (not possible since lack of novelty in view of D1) is responsible for the solution of technical problem posed (D1 contains the same technical features and solve INEVITABLY the same problem) indicated at page 3, lines 1-3 of the letter dated 15.06.2011 ="formation of two or more high quality base oils having different viscosities; "in step c) no higher boiling compounds need to be removed." energy consuming distillation step can be omitted") in a non obvious way in view of D1, contrary to the requirements of problem solution approach of the guidelines C-IV,11.5 ff, and cannot therefore be of any use in order to overcome the objection of lack of inventive step originally raised.

4.3 D2 can be eventually of help as representative of the normal knowledge of the skilled person indicating that different base oils can be obtained from different feedstock fractions by using different catalytic cracking processes, for the analysis of inventive step of the claimed subject-matter in view of D1 or even taken alone as closest prior art. 4.4 For the reason explicitly cited above (IN THE ABSENCE OF AT LEAST A DIFFERENTIATING TECHNICAL FEATURE WHICH SOLVES A TECHNICAL PROBLEM IN VIEW OF D1 OR D2 AS CLOSEST PRIOR ART IN A NON OBVIOUS WAY ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES C-IV,11.5ff), the examining division is of the opinion the claimed subject-matter (independent claim 1) cannot constitute the basis for any kind of inventive step argument, since the desired results to be achieved are known by the skilled person having knowledge of D1 and D2. Consequently, the application in its entirety must be refused on grounds of lack of inventive step (Article 56 EPC) according to the dispositions of Article 97(2) EPC.