Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 16/382,302

COATING TREATMENT SOLUTION, METHOD OF PRODUCING THE SAME, AND METHOD OF PRODUCING COATING MATERIAL

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Apr 12, 2019
Examiner
TADAYYON ESLAMI, TABASSOM
Art Unit
1718
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
DENSO CORPORATION
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
50%
Grant Probability
Moderate
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
77%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 50% of resolved cases
50%
Career Allow Rate
384 granted / 776 resolved
-15.5% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
65 currently pending
Career history
841
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§103
60.2%
+20.2% vs TC avg
§102
15.7%
-24.3% vs TC avg
§112
20.7%
-19.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 776 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/29/25 has been entered. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1-2, 7-13, 15-16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ken Matsubara (WO02017/110545) in which we considered U.S. Patent Application: 2019/0006069, here after Matsubara) as its legal English translation, further in view of Minoru Yamasaki et al (U. S. Patent: 5626962, here after Yamasaki). Michio Yamashita et al (U. S. Patent: 4601876 is used as evidence for inherency). Claims 1 and 20 are rejected. Matsubara teaches a method of producing a coating treatment solution comprising a solution containing a metal element M and iron, the metal element becoming divalent cations, the coating treatment solution being used for forming a ferrite film having a spinel type crystal structure MFe2O4 on a surface of a soft magnetic material, comprising steps of: preparing a first solution which contains the metal element M and iron, the metal element M containing at least manganese (Mn); adding an alkaline solution to the first solution, the second solution having a pH within a range of 6 to 10; and producing the coating treatment solution by using the second solution [abstract, 0045, 0049, 0057-0058]. Matsubara also teaches spraying the solution on substrate [0011]. Although Matsubara does not teach pH of 9-12, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of [overlapping range] that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made have a method of making a solution for ferrite coating on particles as Matsubara teaches the pH of the second solution is 9-10, because one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of overlapping range that corresponds to the claimed range. Matsubara does not teach preparing the second solution in a non-oxidizing atmosphere. Yamasaki teaches non-oxidizing atmosphere for each addition and stirring for producing spinel ferrite coating causes gradually changing of the coercive force with passage of reaction time [column 9 lines 55-60], therefore there would be a better control over the reaction. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made have a method of making a solution for ferrite coating on particles as Matsubara teaches where mixing and preparing solution is done in no-oxidizing atmosphere, because it helps gradually changing of the coercive force with passage of reaction time. Adding an alkaline solution to the first solution in non-oxidizing atmosphere prevents generating ferrite particles and metal hydroxide ions of Mn will be generated. Spraying the second solution to the surface of the soft magnetic material causing the metal hydroxide ions to be adhered on the surface of the soft magnetic material, where metal hydroxide ions adhered on the surface of the soft magnetic material to be oxidized by ambient oxygens, resulting in the oxidized metal hydroxide ions being changed to the ferrite film having the spinel type crystal structure MFe2O. Yamasaki teaches non-oxidizing atmosphere, which means the amount of oxygen is at the most 3 ppm [see Yamashita column 2 lines 40-41]. Claim 2 is rejected for the same reason claim 1 is rejected above. For the same reason as Yamasaki teaches each addition and stirring is preferred in a non-oxidizing atmosphere (see claim 1 rejection above). Claims 7-8 are rejected as Matsubara teaches the first solution and the second solution are an aqueous solution, and the second solution has a pH of 6-10[0057]. Overlapping ranges are prima facie evidence of obviousness. Although it does not teach pH of 7-12, however it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of [overlapping range] that corresponds to the claimed range. In re Malagari, 182 USPQ 549 (CCPA 1974). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made have a method of making a solution for ferrite coating on particles as Matsubara teaches the pH of the second solution is 9-10, because one having ordinary skill in the art to have selected the portion of overlapping range that corresponds to the claimed range. Claims 9-10 are rejected. Matsubara teaches the coating treatment solution further contains urea [0083]. Although Matsubara does not teach to add urea to reach pH 9-12, however it is to the skill of an ordinary skill in art to adjust the ratio of alkaline solution and urea to reach to pH of 9-10. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made have a method of making a solution for ferrite coating on particles as Matsubara teaches where the pH of the solution is adjusted with ratio of alkaline solution and urea to reach to pH of 9-10, because it is to the skill of an ordinary skill in art to adjust the ratio of alkaline solution and urea to reach to pH of 9-10. Claim 11 is rejected as Matsubara teaches contacting the coating solution with soft magnetic material forms a ferrite film of the spinel type crystal structure MFe204 on a surface of the soft magnetic material [0055, 0059]. Claim 12 is rejected as Matsubara teaches the soft material is a soft magnetic particle and the coating material is a magnetic core powder made of the soft magnetic particles, surfaces of which are covered with the ferrite film [abstract lines 1-4]. Claims 13 and 21 are rejected for the same reason claim 1 is rejected. Matsubara teaches a coating treatment solution comprising a solution containing iron and Mn, the metal element becoming divalent cations, and the coating treatment solution being used for forming a ferrite film having a spinel type crystal structure MFe204 on a surface of a soft magnetic material, and the coating treatment solution having a pH of 6-10[abstract, 0045, 0057 also see claim 1 rejection above]. Yamasaki teaches non-oxidizing atmosphere, which means the amount of oxygen is at the most 3 ppm [see Yamashita column 2 lines 40-41]. Yamasaki teaches non-oxidizing atmosphere for each addition and stirring for producing spinel ferrite coating causes gradually changing of the coercive force with passage of reaction time [column 9 lines 55-60], and oxidizing in air later on which in fact result on forming spinel type crystal structure. Mastubara teaches heat treatment under pressure of 2x10-2 Pa [0062], which in fact has oxygen concentration of less than 4 ppm, therefore the oxygen dissolved concentration is less than 4 ppm. Claims 15-16 are rejected. Matsubara, and Yamasaki teach the limitation of claims 1, and 13 and teach adding alkaline solution (for example NaOH, 0083) to adjust pH, which in fact is adjusted that matches with metal hydroxide ions (MnOH+). Claim 18 is rejected. Matsubara, and Yamasaki teach the limitation of claims 1, and teach the second solution having the pH within the range of 9 to 10, and Matsubara teaches (enabling) the ferrite film to be a manganese-zinc ferrite [0045, claim 6] film formed on the surface of the soft magnetic material. Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason claim 18 is rejected above. Matsubara and Yamasura teach producing a coating treatment solution wherein the second solution has a pH of 9 and the manganese-zinc ferrite film formed on the surface of the soft magnetic material [see claim 18 rejections above], but dos not teach manganese concentration of 8 mass percent of the manganese-zinc ferrite film and a zinc concentration of 1 mass percent of the manganese-zinc ferrite film. However, it is to the skill of an ordinary skill in art to adjust ratio of manganese precursor (manganese chloride) and zinc precursor (zinc chloride), so the film meets the current claim limitation. Claims 5-6, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ken Matsubara (WO002017/110545) in which we considered U.S. Patent Application: 2019/0006069, here after Matsubara) as its legal English translation, further in view of Minoru Yamasaki et al (U. S. Patent: 5626962, here after Yamasaki), and Mitsuru Odahara et al (WO02013/054700, here after Odahara). Claims 5-6 are rejected. Matsubara teaches heat treatment under no-oxidizing atmosphere [0062], and Yamasura teach preparing the second solution in a non- oxidizing atmosphere [see claim 1 rejection above], but doesn't teach a solvent to be used for preparing of the solutions is bubbled by using an inert gas in the non-oxidizing atmosphere. Odahara teaches forming M ferrite (Zn ferrite) on metal particles [abstract], by forming water solution of iron chloride and water solution of M chloride and then mix them together [0025]. Odahara teaches carrying bubbling nitrogen gas in solution of M chloride and iron chloride to prevent oxidation [0026]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made have a method of making a solution for ferrite coating on particles as Matsubara, and Yamasaki teach where the solution is bubbled by using an inert gas and in the non-oxidizing atmosphere, because it further prevents reaction of the liquid from oxidation. Claim 17 is rejected. Matsubara does not teach dissolving metal salt including metal element M (Zn or Mn) in solvent, and dissolving metal salt including Fe in solvent and mixing solution. Odahara teaches forming M ferrite (Zn ferrite) on metal particles [abstract], by forming water solution of iron chloride and water solution of zinc chloride and then mix them together [0025]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made have a method of making a solution for ferrite coating on particles as Matsubara, and Yamasaki teach wherein the first solution is made by method of Odahara, because it is suitable method for making ferrite coating on metal powders. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 12/29/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argument regarding controlled low-oxygen condition is not persuasive, the applicant only shows low oxygen pressure result which would be expected from combination of the above references, and does not stablish any criticality. The applicant argues the references do not teach the concentration of oxygen is less than 5% or 10%. The examiner disagrees, as Yamasaki teaches non-oxidizing atmosphere it means there is no oxygen in atmosphere (less than 5%) and at the most would be 3 ppm( see claim rejection above). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI whose telephone number is (571)270-1885. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 5712725166. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /TABASSOM TADAYYON ESLAMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 12, 2019
Application Filed
Apr 09, 2022
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 14, 2022
Response Filed
Oct 06, 2022
Final Rejection — §103
Jan 09, 2023
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 12, 2023
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 14, 2023
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 10, 2023
Examiner Interview Summary
Jul 10, 2023
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Aug 20, 2023
Response Filed
Nov 20, 2023
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 27, 2024
Notice of Allowance
Feb 27, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
May 28, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 08, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jul 11, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 24, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 30, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 31, 2024
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 02, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 02, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 24, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 29, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Dec 31, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 06, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599968
METHOD OF PRODUCING AN ADDITIVE MANUFACTURED OBJECT
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600634
2D AMORPHOUS CARBON FILM ASSEMBLED FROM GRAPHENE QUANTUM DOTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12601049
AG- AND/OR CU- CONTAINING HARD COATINGS WITH ANTIBACTERIAL, ANTIVIRAL AND ANTIFUNGAL PROPERTIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12590372
LASER INDUCED FORWARD TRANSFER OF 2D MATERIALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585183
METHOD OF FORMING AN ELECTRONIC DEVICE ON A FLEXIBLE SUBSTRATE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
50%
Grant Probability
77%
With Interview (+27.1%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 776 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month