Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/357,079

CERAMIC SUBSTRATE AND PREPARATION METHOD FOR THE SAME, CERAMIC HEATING BODY, AND ELECTRONIC VAPORIZATION DEVICE

Non-Final OA §112§DP
Filed
Jul 21, 2023
Examiner
MILLER, CAMERON KENNETH
Art Unit
1731
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Shenzhen Smoore Technology Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
258 granted / 321 resolved
+15.4% vs TC avg
Minimal -0% lift
Without
With
+-0.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
65 currently pending
Career history
386
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.7%
-39.3% vs TC avg
§103
47.7%
+7.7% vs TC avg
§102
19.8%
-20.2% vs TC avg
§112
22.2%
-17.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 321 resolved cases

Office Action

§112 §DP
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 . Election/Restrictions Claim 1 contains subject matter allowable over the prior art. Claims 11-19, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, contain all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement between inventions I-III, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 11/26/2025, is hereby withdrawn and claims 11-19 are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01. Claim Objections Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 12 appears to contain a potential typographical error whereby the recitation of “20°Cto” should instead recite “20°C to”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 1-9 and 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Regarding claim 1, claim 1 is directed towards a ceramic substrate comprising silicon carbide, aluminum oxide, silicon dioxide and glass powder, however, in order to be a ceramic substrate comprising these components, a sintering step is required as evidenced by instant claim 12. A sintering step would melt the glass powder, as evidenced by the instant specification at [0049] of the PGPub, which recites “the glass powder is melted into a liquid phase at a high temperature”. As such, it is unclear how claim 1 can be directed towards a ceramic substrate which comprises a glass powder. Regarding claim 12, at line 6 the limitation “a grinding material to grinding media ratio in a range of 1:1 to 1:2.5”, which is unclear. A ratio in terms of mass/mass would have a different value than a ratio in terms of volume/volume. As such, some indication of units is required to fully appreciate the ratio limitation. Regarding claim 16, at lines 4-5 the limitation “a grinding material to grinding media ratio in a range of 1:1 to 1:2.5”, which is unclear. A ratio in terms of mass/mass would have a different value than a ratio in terms of volume/volume. As such, some indication of units is required to fully appreciate the ratio limitation. Additionally regarding claim 16, Claim 16 recites the limitation "the molding time" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. All claims not specifically addressed are rejected due to their dependence on a rejected claim. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 10 is allowed. Claim 10 is directed towards a ceramic substrate, comprising: 10 to 70 wt% of silicon carbide; 6 to 65 wt% of aluminum oxide; 15 to 50 wt% of silicon dioxide; 0.8 to 2.3 wt% of calcium oxide; 0.1 to 0.4 wt% of sodium oxide; 0.1 to 0.2 wt% of potassium oxide; 0.1 to 0.2 wt% of barium oxide; 0.1 to 0.4 wt% of boron oxide; and 0.2 to 0.5 wt% of zinc oxide, wherein a weight percentage of each component is based on a mass percentage of each component. The closest prior art is Yu et al. (CN111205104A with reference to the machine translation, hereinafter referred to as Yu). Yu is directed towards a porous ceramic for electronic cigarettes (see Yu at the Abstract of the machine translation). Yu discloses comprises the following components in percentage by mass: 30-60% of ceramic powder, 1-30% of pore-forming agent, 5-40% of sintering aid, 10-40% of paraffin and 1-10% of modifier, wherein the ceramic powder comprises at least two of diatomite, cordierite, fly ash, alumina, zirconia, silicon carbide, silicon nitride, quartz sand, zircon sand, glass sand, kaolin and clay (see Yu at the Abstract of the machine translation). Per instant claim 10, Yu fails to disclose or make obvious 10 to 70 wt% of silicon carbide; 0.8 to 2.3 wt% of calcium oxide; 0.1 to 0.4 wt% of sodium oxide; 0.1 to 0.2 wt% of potassium oxide; 0.1 to 0.2 wt% of barium oxide; 0.1 to 0.4 wt% of boron oxide; and 0.2 to 0.5 wt% of zinc oxide. As such, the ceramic substrate of claim 10 is allowed. Examiner further notes that the subject matter of claim 1 would be allowed if the 112(b) rejection of claim 1 were overcome. Claim 1 is directed towards a ceramic substrate, comprising: (a) 10 to 70 wt% of silicon carbide; (b) 6 to 60 wt% of aluminum oxide; (c) 5 to 45 wt% of silicon dioxide; and (d) 0 to 15 wt%, excluding 0, of glass powder, wherein each component is provided as a raw material, and wherein a weight percentage of each component is based on a mass percentage of each component. The closest prior art is Yu et al. (CN111205104A with reference to the machine translation, hereinafter referred to as Yu). Yu is directed towards a porous ceramic for electronic cigarettes (see Yu at the Abstract of the machine translation). Yu discloses comprises the following components in percentage by mass: 30-60% of ceramic powder, 1-30% of pore-forming agent, 5-40% of sintering aid, 10-40% of paraffin and 1-10% of modifier, wherein the ceramic powder comprises at least two of diatomite, cordierite, fly ash, alumina, zirconia, silicon carbide, silicon nitride, quartz sand, zircon sand, glass sand, kaolin and clay (see Yu at the Abstract of the machine translation). Per instant claim 1, Yu fails to disclose or make obvious (a) 10 to 70 wt% of silicon carbide; (d) 0 to 15 wt%, excluding 0, of glass powder. As such, claim 1 would be allowable but for the 112(b) rejection of claim 1 above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON K MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4616. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am - 5:00pm EST. 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, Amber Orlando can be reached at (571) 270-3149. 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. CAMERON K MILLER Examiner Art Unit 1731 /CAMERON K MILLER/Examiner, Art Unit 1731
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 21, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12600674
ALUMINA PARTICLES, RESIN COMPOSITION, MOLDED BODY, AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING ALUMINA PARTICLES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12600664
GLASS-CERAMICS WITH HIGH ELASTIC MODULUS AND HARDNESS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594223
GRADIENT COMPOSITION ZIRCONIA DENTAL MATERIALS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12590039
Glazing Material
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12583784
Li2O-Al2O3-SiO2-BASED CRYSTALLIZED GLASS
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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (-0.3%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 321 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