S/N: 14/479,936
`In Reply to Office Action mailed: January 5, 2017
`
`REMARKS
`
`Reconsideration is requested in view of the above amendment and the following
`
`remarks. New dependent claim 23 has been added. Support for claim 23 can be found at,
`
`e.g., paragraphs [0162] and [0163] of the specification. Claims 15-23 are pending in the
`
`application. Claim 16 remain withdrawn.
`
`Claims 15 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Okamoto et al. (JP2007/315879A) in view of Roblin et al. (US. Patent Application
`
`Publication No. 2008/0135419A1), Fogcannon (Fogcannon, 2009, pp. 1-8) and Onasch et
`
`a1. (American Geophysical Union Annual Meeting, 2000, p. 1). Applicant respectfully
`
`traverses this rejection.
`
`Claim 15 requires an analysis reagent including a combination of a polyanionic
`
`compound and a bivalent cationic compound, and one substance or one compound of the
`
`substance as an additive, wherein the substance is at least one selected from the group
`
`consisting of succinic acid, gluconic acid, valine, histidine, and maltitol. With this
`
`feature, the analysis reagent can help control a removal rate of non-HDL to be in a range
`
`of 100i20% (see paragraphs [0165]—[0173] of the specification).
`
`The rejection recognizes that Okamoto et al. fail to disclose the claimed reagent as
`
`required by claim 15. Roblin et al. do not remedy the deficiencies of Okamoto et al.
`
`Roblin et al. merely discuss a reagent mixture containing excipients that stabilize the
`
`reagent mixture. In fact, Roblin et al. are silent as to an analysis reagent including one
`
`sub stance or one compound of the substance as an additive, wherein the substance is at
`
`least one selected from the group consisting of succinic acid, gluconic acid, valine,
`
`histidine, and maltitol, as required by claim 15.
`
`Fogcannon and Onasch et al. do not remedy the deficiency of Roblin et al.
`
`Fogcannon discusses that deliquescent salts can include calcium chloride, magnesium
`
`chloride (see Fogcannon, page 1, the paragraph starting with “Deliquescent”), while
`
`Onasch et al. state:
`
`We have investigated the effects of succinic acid (SA) on the
`thermodynamics and kinetics of ammonium nitrate (AN) particles. SA is a
`slightly soluble, 8.6g per 100g H20 at 298 K, C4 dicarboxylic acid.
`
`5
`
`

`

`S/N: 14/479,936
`In Reply to Office Action mailed: January 5, 2017
`
`Because of its low solubility, SA remains solid after the AN has
`deliguesced. We observed a pronounced reduction in the particle growth
`factor at deliquescence due to the presence of solid SA, and conclude that
`the SA takes up a minor but not insignificant amount of water. A slight
`decrease in the deliquescence relative humidity was observed as the mass
`percent of SA was increased from 12.5-50 .
`.
`.
`.
`
`(see Onasch et al., the first paragraph from the bottom of page 1; emphasis added).
`
`The rejection contended that since Roblin et al. use divalent metal salts such as
`
`MgClz, which according to Fogcannon is a deliquescent salt, and Onasch et al. discuss
`
`when succinic acid is used with ammonium nitrate particles, a slight decrease in the
`
`deliquescence relative humidity was observed, Roblin et al., Fogcannon and Onasch et al.
`
`when in combination, suggest an analysis reagent including succinic acid as a substance,
`
`as required by claim 15. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
`
`Roblin et al. merely discuss MgClz as an example of divalent metal salts (see
`
`Roblin et al., paragraph [0086]). However, unlike what is asserted in the rejection,
`
`Roblin et al. do not indicate that deliquescence is an issue with the Roblin et al. reagent,
`
`let alone that MgClz in particular when used in the reagent mixture will cause any
`
`deliquescence issue that needs to be addressed. In fact, Roblin et al. are completely silent
`
`as to deliquescence of its reagent. There is no reasonable basis to read the need of
`
`addressing a deliquescence issue into Roblin et al. in order to justify the rejection.
`
`In fact, unlike the invention of claim 15, which uses a microchannel structure
`
`rotatable about a rotation axis of the analysis device, Roblin et al. merely use a simple kit
`
`for the test process. The Roblin et al. kit allows a user to simply add the sample to be
`
`tested, apply a potential across the cell and measure the generated current (see Roblin et
`
`al., paragraph [0041]). As a result, the Roblin et al. device is not rotated before the
`
`sample is tested, and in turn there is no need to avoid having deliquescent reagent travel
`
`to other cavities. Therefore, nothing in Roblin et al. suggests avoiding deliquescence
`
`issues.
`
`Moreover, the references of record provide no reason to expect that the
`
`advantages enjoyed by the analysis reagent of claim 15, 6g, controlling a removal rate of
`
`non-HDL to be in a range of 100i20%, could be achieved. Instead, Roblin et al. merely
`
`focus on simplifying the process by reducing the need for the user to measure out
`
`

`

`S/N: 14/479,936
`In Reply to Office Action mailed: January 5, 2017
`
`particular quantities of material of the reagent mixture (see Roblin et al., paragraph
`
`[0041].
`
`For at least these reasons, claim 15 is patentable over Okamoto et al., Roblin et al.
`
`Fogcannon and Onasch et al. Claims 20-22 depend from claim 15 and are patentable
`
`along with claim 15 and need not be separately distinguished at this time. Applicant does
`
`not concede the relevance of the rejection to the remaining features of the claim.
`
`Claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 USC 103(a) as being unpatentable over
`
`Okamoto et al. in view of Roblin et al., Fogcannon and Onasch et al. and further in view
`
`of Saeki et al. (JP 2007/078676A) and Bibbo et al. (US. Patent No. 6,981,794). Claims
`
`17-19 depend ultimately from claim 15 and are patentable over Okamoto et al, Roblin et
`
`al., Fogcannon, Onasch et al., Saeki et al. and Bibbo et al. for at least the same reasons
`
`discussed above regarding claims 15 and 20-22. Saeki et al. and Bibbo et al. do not
`
`remedy the deficiencies of Okamoto et al, Roblin et al., Fogcannon and Onasch et al.
`
`Applicant does not concede the correctness of the rejection.
`
`Double Patenting
`
`Claims 15 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type
`
`double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5 of US. Patent No. 9,134,286
`
`in view of Roblin et al., Fogcannon and Onasch et al. Applicant respectfully traverses this
`
`rejection.
`
`Claim 15 requires an analysis reagent including a combination of a polyanionic
`
`compound and a bivalent cationic compound, and one substance or one compound of the
`
`substance as an additive, wherein the substance is at least one selected from the group
`
`consisting of succinic acid, gluconic acid, valine, histidine, and maltitol. With this
`
`feature, the analysis reagent can help control a removal rate of non-HDL to be in a range
`
`of 100i20% (see paragraphs [Ol65]—[Ol73] of the specification).
`
`The rejection recognizes that claims 1 and 5 of US. Patent No. 9,134,286 fail to
`
`require the claimed reagent. Roblin et al. do not remedy the deficiencies of claims 1 and
`
`5 of US. Patent No. 9,134,286. Roblin et al. merely discuss a reagent mixture containing
`
`excipients that stabilize the reagent mixture, wherein the excipients in Roblin et al.
`
`

`

`S/N: 14/479,936
`In Reply to Office Action mailed: January 5, 2017
`
`include mannitol or glycine. In fact, Roblin et al. are silent as to an analysis reagent
`
`including one substance or one compound of the substance as an additive, wherein the
`
`substance is at least one selected from the group consisting of succinic acid, gluconic
`
`acid, valine, histidine, and maltitol, as required by claim 15. Fogcannon and Onasch et
`
`al. do not remedy the deficiencies of claim 1 and 5 of US. Patent No. 9,134,286 and
`
`Roblin et al.
`
`For at least these reasons, claim 15 is patentable over claims 1 and 5 of US.
`
`Patent No. 9,134,286 in view of Roblin et al., Fogcannon and Onasch et al. Applicant
`
`does not concede the relevance of the rejection to the remaining features of the claim.
`
`Claims 15 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type
`
`double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US. Patent No. 9,046,503 in view
`
`of Roblin et al. and Fogcannon and Onasch et al. Applicant respectfully traverses this
`
`rejection.
`
`Claim 15 requires an analysis reagent including a combination of a polyanionic
`
`compound and a bivalent cationic compound, and one substance or one compound of the
`
`substance as an additive, wherein the substance is at least one selected from the group
`
`consisting of succinic acid, gluconic acid, valine, histidine, and maltitol.
`
`Likewise, the rejection recognizes that claim 1 of US. Patent No. 9,046,503 fails
`
`to require the claimed reagent. Roblin et al. do not remedy the deficiencies of claim 1 of
`
`US. Patent No. 9,046,503. Roblin et al. merely discuss a reagent mixture containing
`
`excipients that stabilize the reagent mixture, wherein the excipients in Roblin et al.
`
`include mannitol or glycine. In fact, Roblin et al. are silent as to an analysis reagent
`
`including one substance or one compound of the substance as an additive, wherein the
`
`substance is at least one selected from the group consisting of succinic acid, gluconic
`
`acid, valine, histidine, and maltitol, as required by claim 15. Fogcannon and Onasch et
`
`al. do not remedy the deficiencies of claim 1 of US. Patent No. 9,046,503 and Roblin et
`
`al.
`
`For at least these reasons, claim 15 is patentable over claim 1 of US. Patent No.
`
`9,046,503 in view of Roblin et al., Fogcannon and Onasch et al. Applicant does not
`
`concede the relevance of the rejection to the remaining features of the claim.
`
`

`

`S/N: 14/479,936
`In Reply to Office Action mailed: January 5, 2017
`
`Claims 15 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type
`
`double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US. Patent No. 8,865,472 in view
`
`of Roblin et al. and Fogcannon and Onasch et al. Applicant respectfully traverses this
`
`rejection.
`
`Claim 15 requires an analysis reagent including a combination of a polyanionic
`
`compound and a bivalent cationic compound, and one substance or one compound of the
`
`substance as an additive, wherein the substance is at least one selected from the group
`
`consisting of succinic acid, gluconic acid, valine, histidine, and maltitol.
`
`Likewise, the rejection recognizes that claim 1 of US. Patent No. 8,865,472 fails
`
`to require the claimed reagent. Roblin et al. do not remedy the deficiencies of claim 1 of
`
`US. Patent No. 8,865,472. Roblin et al. merely discuss a reagent mixture containing
`
`excipients that stabilize the reagent mixture, wherein the excipients in Roblin et al.
`
`include mannitol or glycine. In fact, Roblin et al. are silent as to an analysis reagent
`
`including one substance or one compound of the substance as an additive, wherein the
`
`substance is at least one selected from the group consisting of succinic acid, gluconic
`
`acid, valine, histidine, and maltitol, as required by claim 15. Fogcannon and Onasch et
`
`al. do not remedy the deficiencies of claim 1 of US. Patent No. 8,865,472 and Roblin et
`
`al.
`
`For at least these reasons, claim 15 is patentable over claim 1 of US. Patent No.
`
`8,865,472 in view of Roblin et al., Fogcannon and Onasch et al. Applicant does not
`
`concede the relevance of the rejection to the remaining features of the claim.
`
`Claims 15 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type
`
`double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US. Patent No. 8,709,346 in view
`
`of Roblin et al. and Fogcannon and Onasch et al. Applicant respectfully traverses this
`
`rejection.
`
`Claim 15 requires an analysis reagent including a combination of a polyanionic
`
`compound and a bivalent cationic compound, and one substance or one compound of the
`
`substance as an additive, wherein the substance is at least one selected from the group
`
`consisting of succinic acid, gluconic acid, valine, histidine, and maltitol.
`
`

`

`S/N: 14/479,936
`In Reply to Office Action mailed: January 5, 2017
`
`Likewise, the rejection recognizes that claim 1 of US. Patent No. 8,709,346 fails
`
`to require the claimed reagent. Roblin et al. do not remedy the deficiencies of claim 1 of
`
`US. Patent No. 8,709,346. Roblin et al. merely discuss a reagent mixture containing
`
`excipients that stabilize the reagent mixture, wherein the excipients in Roblin et al.
`
`include mannitol or glycine. In fact, Roblin et al. are silent as to an analysis reagent
`
`including one substance or one compound of the substance as an additive, wherein the
`
`substance is at least one selected from the group consisting of succinic acid, gluconic
`
`acid, valine, histidine, and maltitol, as required by claim 15. Fogcannon and Onasch et
`
`al. do not remedy the deficiencies of claim 1 of US. Patent No. 8,709,346 and Roblin et
`
`al.
`
`For at least these reasons, claim 15 is patentable over claim 1 of US. Patent No.
`
`8,709,346 in view of Roblin et al., Fogcannon and Onasch et al. Applicant does not
`
`concede the relevance of the rejection to the remaining features of the claim.
`
`Claims 15 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type
`
`double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US. Patent No. 8,667,833 in view
`
`of Roblin et al. and Fogcannon and Onasch et al. Applicant respectfully traverses this
`
`rejection.
`
`Claim 15 requires an analysis reagent including a combination of a polyanionic
`
`compound and a bivalent cationic compound, and one substance or one compound of the
`
`substance as an additive, wherein the substance is at least one selected from the group
`
`consisting of succinic acid, gluconic acid, valine, histidine, and maltitol.
`
`Likewise, the rejection recognizes that claim 1 of US. Patent No. 8,667,833 fails
`
`to require the claimed reagent. Roblin et al. do not remedy the deficiencies of claim 1 of
`
`US. Patent No. 8,667,833. Roblin et al. merely discuss a reagent mixture containing
`
`excipients that stabilize the reagent mixture, wherein the excipients in Roblin et al.
`
`include mannitol or glycine. In fact, Roblin et al. are silent as to an analysis reagent
`
`including one substance or one compound of the substance as an additive, wherein the
`
`substance is at least one selected from the group consisting of succinic acid, gluconic
`
`acid, valine, histidine, and maltitol, as required by claim 15. Fogcannon and Onasch et
`
`10
`
`

`

`S/N: 14/479,936
`In Reply to Office Action mailed: January 5, 2017
`
`al. do not remedy the deficiencies of claim 1 of US. Patent No. 8,667,833 and Roblin et
`
`al.
`
`For at least these reasons, claim 15 is patentable over claim 1 of US. Patent No.
`
`8,667,833 in view of Roblin et al., Fogcannon and Onasch et al. Applicant does not
`
`concede the relevance of the rejection to the remaining features of the claim.
`
`Claims 15 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type
`
`double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5 and 9 of US. Patent No.
`
`8,596,150 in view of Roblin et al. and Fogcannon and Onasch et al. Applicant
`
`respectfully traverses this rejection.
`
`Claim 15 requires an analysis reagent including a combination of a polyanionic
`
`compound and a bivalent cationic compound, and one substance or one compound of the
`
`substance as an additive, wherein the substance is at least one selected from the group
`
`consisting of succinic acid, gluconic acid, valine, histidine, and maltitol.
`
`Likewise, the rejection recognizes that claims 1, 5 and 9 of US. Patent No.
`
`8,596,150 fail to require the claimed reagent. Roblin et al. do not remedy the deficiencies
`
`of claims 1, 5 and 9 of US. Patent No. 8,596,150. Roblin et al. merely discuss a reagent
`
`mixture containing excipients that stabilize the reagent mixture, wherein the excipients in
`
`Roblin et al. include mannitol or glycine. In fact, Roblin et al. are silent as to an analysis
`
`reagent including one substance or one compound of the substance as an additive,
`
`wherein the substance is at least one selected from the group consisting of succinic acid,
`
`gluconic acid, valine, histidine, and maltitol, as required by claim 15. Fogcannon and
`
`Onasch et al. do not remedy the deficiencies of claims 1, 5 and 9 of US. Patent No.
`
`8,596,150 and Roblin et al.
`
`For at least these reasons, claim 15 is patentable over claims 1, 5 and 9 of US.
`
`Patent No. 8,596,150 in view of Roblin et al., Fogcannon and Onasch et al. Applicant
`
`does not concede the relevance of the rejection to the remaining features of the claim.
`
`Claims 15 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type
`
`double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 of US. Patent No.
`
`11
`
`

`

`S/N: 14/479,936
`In Reply to Office Action mailed: January 5, 2017
`
`8,415,140 in view of Roblin et al. and Fogcannon and Onasch et al. Applicant
`
`respectfully traverses this rejection.
`
`Claim 15 requires an analysis reagent including a combination of a polyanionic
`
`compound and a bivalent cationic compound, and one substance or one compound of the
`
`substance as an additive, wherein the substance is at least one selected from the group
`
`consisting of succinic acid, gluconic acid, valine, histidine, and maltitol.
`
`Likewise, the rejection recognizes that claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 of US. Patent No.
`
`8,415,140 fail to require the claimed reagent. Roblin et al. do not remedy the deficiencies
`
`of claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 ofU.S. Patent No. 8,415,140. Roblin et al. merely discuss a
`
`reagent mixture containing excipients that stabilize the reagent mixture, wherein the
`
`excipients in Roblin et al. include mannitol or glycine. In fact, Roblin et al. are silent as
`
`to an analysis reagent including one substance or one compound of the substance as an
`
`additive, wherein the substance is at least one selected from the group consisting of
`
`succinic acid, gluconic acid, valine, histidine, and maltitol, as required by claim 15.
`
`Fogcannon and Onasch et al. do not remedy the deficiencies of claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 of
`
`US. Patent No. 8,415,140 and Roblin et al.
`
`For at least these reasons, claim 15 is patentable over claims 1, 2, 4 and 5 of US.
`
`Patent No. 8,415,140 in view of Roblin et al., Fogcannon and Onasch et al. Applicant
`
`does not concede the relevance of the rejection to the remaining features of the claim.
`
`Claims 15 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type
`
`double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of US. Patent No. 7,938,030 in view
`
`of Roblin et al. and Fogcannon and Onasch et al. Applicant respectfully traverses this
`
`rejection.
`
`Claim 15 requires an analysis reagent including a combination of a polyanionic
`
`compound and a bivalent cationic compound, and one substance or one compound of the
`
`substance as an additive, wherein the substance is at least one selected from the group
`
`consisting of succinic acid, gluconic acid, valine, histidine, and maltitol.
`
`Likewise, the rejection recognizes that claim 1 of US. Patent No. 7,93 8,030 fails
`
`to require the claimed reagent. Roblin et al. do not remedy the deficiencies of claim 1 of
`
`US. Patent No. 7,93 8,030. Roblin et al. merely discuss a reagent mixture containing
`
`12
`
`

`

`S/N: 14/479,936
`In Reply to Office Action mailed: January 5, 2017
`
`excipients that stabilize the reagent mixture, wherein the excipients in Roblin et al.
`
`include mannitol or glycine. In fact, Roblin et al. are silent as to an analysis reagent
`
`including one substance or one compound of the substance as an additive, wherein the
`
`substance is at least one selected from the group consisting of succinic acid, gluconic
`
`acid, valine, histidine, and maltitol, as required by claim 15. Fogcannon and Onasch et
`
`al. do not remedy the deficiencies of claim 1 of US. Patent No. 7,938,030 and Roblin et
`
`al.
`
`For at least these reasons, claim 15 is patentable over claim 1 of US. Patent No.
`
`7,93 8,030 in view of Roblin et al., Fogcannon and Onasch et al. Applicant does not
`
`concede the relevance of the rejection to the remaining features of the claim.
`
`Claims 15 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type
`
`double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 16 of US. Patent No.
`
`7,897,398 in view of Roblin et al. and Fogcannon and Onasch et al. Applicant
`
`respectfully traverses this rejection.
`
`Claim 15 requires an analysis reagent including a combination of a polyanionic
`
`compound and a bivalent cationic compound, and one substance or one compound of the
`
`substance as an additive, wherein the substance is at least one selected from the group
`
`consisting of succinic acid, gluconic acid, valine, histidine, and maltitol.
`
`Likewise, the rejection recognizes that claims 1 and 16 of US. Patent No.
`
`7,897,3 98 fail to require the claimed reagent. Roblin et al. do not remedy the deficiencies
`
`of claims 1 and 16 of US. Patent No. 7,897,398. Roblin et al. merely discuss a reagent
`
`mixture containing excipients that stabilize the reagent mixture, wherein the excipients in
`
`Roblin et al. include mannitol or glycine. In fact, Roblin et al. are silent as to an analysis
`
`reagent including one substance or one compound of the substance as an additive,
`
`wherein the substance is at least one selected from the group consisting of succinic acid,
`
`gluconic acid, valine, histidine, and maltitol, as required by claim 15. Fogcannon and
`
`Onasch et al. do not remedy the deficiencies of claims 1 and 16 of US. Patent No.
`
`7,897,398 and Roblin et al.
`
`13
`
`

`

`S/N: 14/479,936
`In Reply to Office Action mailed: January 5, 2017
`
`For at least these reasons, claim 15 is patentable over claims 1 and 16 of US.
`
`Patent No. 7,897,398 in view of Roblin et al., Fogcannon and Onasch et al. Applicant
`
`does not concede the relevance of the rejection to the remaining features of the claim.
`
`Claims 15 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type
`
`double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2 and 6 of US. Patent No.
`
`7,854,893 in view of Roblin et al. and Fogcannon and Onasch et al. Applicant
`
`respectfully traverses this rejection.
`
`Claim 15 requires an analysis reagent including a combination of a polyanionic
`
`compound and a bivalent cationic compound, and one substance or one compound of the
`
`substance as an additive, wherein the substance is at least one selected from the group
`
`consisting of succinic acid, gluconic acid, valine, histidine, and maltitol.
`
`Likewise, the rejection recognizes that claims 1, 2 and 16 of US. Patent No.
`
`7,854,893 fail to require the claimed reagent. Roblin et al. do not remedy the deficiencies
`
`of claims 1, 2 and 16 of US. Patent No. 7,854,893. Roblin et al. merely discuss a reagent
`
`mixture containing excipients that stabilize the reagent mixture, wherein the excipients in
`
`Roblin et al. include mannitol or glycine. In fact, Roblin et al. are silent as to an analysis
`
`reagent including one substance or one compound of the substance as an additive,
`
`wherein the substance is at least one selected from the group consisting of succinic acid,
`
`gluconic acid, valine, histidine, and maltitol, as required by claim 15. Fogcannon and
`
`Onasch et al. do not remedy the deficiencies of claims 1, 2 and 16 of US. Patent No.
`
`7,854,893 and Roblin et al.
`
`For at least these reasons, claim 15 is patentable over claims 1, 2 and 16 of US.
`
`Patent No. 7,854,893 in view of Roblin et al., Fogcannon and Onasch et al. Applicant
`
`does not concede the relevance of the rejection to the remaining features of the claim.
`
`Claims 15 and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
`
`obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of co-pending
`
`US. Patent Application No. 14/692,315 in view of Roblin et al. and Fogcannon and
`
`Onasch et al. Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
`
`14
`
`

`

`S/N: 14/479,936
`In Reply to Office Action mailed: January 5, 2017
`
`Claim 15 requires an analysis reagent including a combination of a polyanionic
`
`compound and a bivalent cationic compound, and one substance or one compound of the
`
`substance as an additive, wherein the substance is at least one selected from the group
`
`consisting of succinic acid, gluconic acid, valine, histidine, and maltitol.
`
`Likewise, the rejection recognizes that claim 14 of co-pending US. Patent
`
`Application No. 14/692,315 fails to require the claimed reagent. Roblin et al. do not
`
`remedy the deficiencies of claim 14 of co-pending US. Patent Application No.
`
`14/692,315. Roblin et al. merely discuss a reagent mixture containing excipients that
`
`stabilize the reagent mixture, wherein the excipients in Roblin et al. include mannitol or
`
`glycine. In fact, Roblin et al. are silent as to an analysis reagent including one substance
`
`or one compound of the substance as an additive, wherein the substance is at least one
`
`selected from the group consisting of succinic acid, gluconic acid, valine, histidine, and
`
`maltitol, as required by claim 15. Fogcannon and Onasch et al. do not remedy the
`
`deficiencies of claim 14 of co-pending US. Patent Application No. 14/692,315 and
`
`Roblin et al.
`
`For at least these reasons, claim 15 is patentable over claim 14 of co-pending US.
`
`Patent Application No. 14/692,315 in view of Roblin et al., Fogcannon and Onasch et al.
`
`Applicant does not concede the relevance of the rejection to the remaining features of the
`
`claim.
`
`Claims 15 and 21are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
`
`obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of co-pending
`
`US. Patent Application No. 14/877,663 in view of Roblin et al. and Fogcannon and
`
`Onasch et al. Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection.
`
`Claim 15 requires an analysis reagent including a combination of a polyanionic
`
`compound and a bivalent cationic compound, and one substance or one compound of the
`
`substance as an additive, wherein the substance is at least one selected from the group
`
`consisting of succinic acid, gluconic acid, valine, histidine, and maltitol.
`
`Likewise, the rejection recognizes that claim 19 of co-pending US. Patent
`
`Application No. 14/877,663 fails to require the claimed reagent. Roblin et al. do not
`
`remedy the deficiencies of claim 19 of co-pending US. Patent Application No.
`
`15
`
`

`

`S/N: 14/479,936
`In Reply to Office Action mailed: January 5, 2017
`
`14/877,663. Roblin et al. merely discuss a reagent mixture containing excipients that
`
`stabilize the reagent mixture, wherein the excipients in Roblin et al. include mannitol or
`
`glycine. In fact, Roblin et al. are silent as to an analysis reagent including one substance
`
`or one compound of the substance as an additive, wherein the substance is at least one
`
`selected from the group consisting of succinic acid, gluconic acid, valine, histidine, and
`
`maltitol, as required by claim 15. Fogcannon and Onasch et al. do not remedy the
`
`deficiencies of claim 19 of co-pending US. Patent Application No. 14/877,663 and
`
`Roblin et al.
`
`For at least these reasons, claim 15 is patentable over claim 19 of co-pending US.
`
`Patent Application No. 14/877,663 in view of Roblin et al., Fogcannon and Onasch et al.
`
`Applicant does not concede the relevance of the rejection to the remaining features of the
`
`claim.
`
`In view of the above, favorable reconsideration in the form of a notice of
`
`allowance is respectfully requested. Any questions regarding this communication can be
`
`directed to the undersigned attorney, Douglas P Mueller, Registration No. 30,300, at
`
`(612) 455-3804.
`
`
`Dated: March 15 2017
`
`DPM/CY/mcl
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`HAMRE, SCHUMANN, MUELLER &
`LARSON, PC.
`45 s. 7th St, Suite 2700
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(612) 455-3800
`
`/dp_mueller/
`By:
`Name: Douglas P. Mueller
`Reg. No. 30,300
`
`16
`
`