Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/462,683

ELECTRONIC VAPORIZATION SYSTEM AND LIQUID INJECTION DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Sep 07, 2023
Examiner
DYE, ROBERT C
Art Unit
3619
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
Shenzhen Smoore Technology Limited
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
63%
Grant Probability
Moderate
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
74%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 63% of resolved cases
63%
Career Allow Rate
498 granted / 787 resolved
+11.3% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
837
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.1%
-39.9% vs TC avg
§103
55.2%
+15.2% vs TC avg
§102
16.5%
-23.5% vs TC avg
§112
23.7%
-16.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 787 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
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 . 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 10-14 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. Claim 10 recites "the liquid storage cavity" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation. Claim 10 also recites "the control assembly is configured to stop a liquid injection action of the liquid supply mechanism of the liquid injection device of liquid level information by the liquid level detection assembly" in the last 3 lines (emphasis added). The limitation appears to be missing words and it is unclear as to what is particularly required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – Claims 1, 2, 4, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murison (US20180184722). Regarding claim 1, Murison discloses a liquid injection device (see case 100; Fig. 3), comprising: an accommodating cavity for detachable mounting of an electronic vaporization device (see hinged PV holder 2); a liquid storage tank (cartridge/fluid reservoir 3); a liquid supply mechanism (piezo-pump 6); and a control assembly (see electronics module with assembly board 11; [0141], Fig. 9), wherein the control assembly is connected to the liquid supply mechanism and configured to detect whether the electronic vaporization device is mounted in the accommodating cavity (system has non-contact sensor detects release or withdrawal of vaporizer, [0023,0103,0149]), wherein the liquid supply mechanism is in communication with the liquid storage tank to: be connected to the electronic vaporization device and supply liquid to the electronic vaporization device when the electronic vaporization device is mounted in the accommodating cavity, and be disconnected from the electronic vaporization device and stop supplying liquid to the electronic vaporization device when the electronic vaporization device is removed from the accommodating cavity (liquid supply mechanism connects to the vaporizer via tube 4 and supplies liquid when vaporizer is connected; Murison discloses a stop valve that seals the filling stem, [0085,0089,0148,0163]). Regarding claim 2, Murison discloses wherein the liquid supply mechanism comprises a liquid injection connection assembly and a driving unit configured to drive the liquid injection connection assembly to move (see filling stem 4 and piezo-pump 6; Fig. 8), and wherein the driving unit is connected to the control assembly (pump is controlled by electronics, [0012]), and when the electronic vaporization device is mounted in the accommodating cavity, the liquid injection connection assembly is configured move to a first position and is connected to the electronic vaporization device and in communication with the liquid storage tank, and wherein, when the electronic vaporization device is removed from the accommodating cavity, the liquid injection connection assembly is configured move to a second position and is disconnected from the electronic vaporization device (hinged PV holder 2 has open and closed positions for connection and disconnection of the vaporizer 1 wherein part of the liquid connection assembly pivots with the hinged holder between first and second positions, see Fig. 3 vs 4). Regarding claim 4, Murison discloses a liquid injection channel (filling stem 4). Regarding claim 8, Murison discloses a receiving cavity that accommodates the control assembly and a holder (see Fig. 4 wherein electronics and holder are depicted). A partition wall separating the receiving cavity and the accommodating cavity is arranged on the holder and the partition wall is provided with a through hole configured for the liquid supply mechanism to run through to the accommodating cavity (see bottom of the casing wherein fluid reservoir line extends through a hole in a partition wall into pump 6). Regarding claim 9, Murison discloses an electronic vaporization system comprising an electronic vaporization device (see vaporizer PV 1), a liquid injection device (case 100), wherein the vaporization device is detachably mounted and the liquid injection device is configured to supply liquid to the electronic vaporization device when mounted (see Fig. 4). 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. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murison (US20180184722). Regarding claim 3, Murison discloses the liquid supply mechanism comprises a power assembly connected to the control assembly (battery 5 drives piezo-pump 6, [0148]), wherein, when the liquid injection connection assembly is connected to the electronic vaporization device, the power assembly is configured to drive the liquid storage tank to output a liquid substrate, and the liquid substrate is injected to the electronic vaporization device through the liquid injection connection assembly, and wherein, when the liquid injection connection assembly is disconnected from the electronic vaporization device, the power assembly is configured to stop driving the liquid storage tank to output the liquid substrate to a liquid injection channel (e-liquid filling is started automatically when the vaporizers is positioned in the storage case; [0312]). While Murison does not expressly disclose the power assembly is configured to stop driving the liquid storage tank when the liquid connection assembly is disconnected from the electronic vaporization device, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the power assembly to stop filling when the device is not present since Murison discloses the case is configured to detect and fill the vaporizer when the vaporizer is present ([0312]) and it is very well known and conventional as well as common sense for a filling device to stop filling when the container is no longer present--thus avoiding leaking/spilling of the fluid. Claim 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murison (US20180184722) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Biel (US 2019/0208811). Regarding claim 5, Murison does not disclose a slider and liquid connection member connected to the slider; however, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the liquid injection connection assembly of Murison with a slider as claimed since Biel, similarly directed towards electronic smoking devices, teaches a case 200 for refilling smoking devices wherein the case is provided with a connection interface 180 connected to a liquid channel system and configured to move between a first and second position via slide frame component 174, wherein hollow needle elements 181,182 are inserted into or withdrawn from a corresponding refill interface of a smoking device ([0072,0078], see Fig. 8b, 8c; slide frame is a slider with moveable connection interface having needle elements being the channels formed in the injection member). Biel discloses the moveable interface is advantageous because it eases the connection between case and smoking device ([0072]). Regarding claims 6 and 7, Murison does not disclose a liquid storage member configured to be squeezed. In the same field of endeavor of electronic vaporizers, Biel discloses a case for refilling a vaporizer wherein the case comprises a liquid cartridge 300 configured to be squeezed to push liquid out of the cartridge and into the vaporizer (see Fig. 11, wherein cartridge 11 has an integrated slider portion which is squeezed by rod 162)([0060]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the cartridge so as to be squeezed to output liquid since Biel discloses providing a squeezable cartridge to push liquid into a vaporizer thereby refilling it ([0060]). Biel discloses the pump system can easily be used to refill a liquid reservoir of an electronic smoking device wherein air that is ousted from the reservoir is recaptured by the pump system to allow for a refill without liquid being spilled ([0063]). Examiner further notes that squeezing the liquid cartridge would allow for liquid to be pushed out while avoiding air entering the liquid refill lines. As to claim 7, Biel discloses a housing (casing body where cartridge is inserted), a spacing between the housing and liquid storage member (see reception cavity 340, Fig. 6b) , and a power assembly being connected to a control assembly, connected to the spacing, and configured to supply a power source to the spacing to squeeze the liquid storage member (see pump system 120 wherein rod 162 protrudes into cavity 340 and pushes against the slider portion 320 to squeeze the liquid storage member). While Biel's power assembly is not connected to an automated control system as in Murison, in configuring the case of Murison with the pump system of Biel, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have connected the pump system to the control system of Murison to enable automated refilling and control of the device (Murison, [0312]). Claim 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murison (US20180184722) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Jackson (US 20250127235). Regarding claim 10, Murison discloses the electronic vaporization device has a liquid storage cavity (reservoir 44, [0177]) and that the case is configured to stop pumping when the required amount of e-liquid has been transferred ([0103]), but Murison does not expressly disclose a liquid level detection assembly arranged in the liquid storage cavity. In the same field of endeavor of electronic smoking devices, Jackson discloses a liquid level detection assembly (see capacitive sensors 70,72 arranged within the liquid storage cavity to detect the liquid fill level of the cavity; [0072-0074, Fig. 4-5). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided a liquid level detection assembly in the liquid storage cavity of the vaporization device since (1) Murison discloses the refilling is configured to stop pumping when the required amount of e-liquid has been transferred ([0103]) and (2) Jackson discloses providing sensors within the liquid storage cavity to determine the amount of liquid and whether the cavity is full ([0073-0075,0065]). One would have been motivated to refill safely without spilling or pressure build-up regardless of the amount of fluid present at the start of the refilling process ([0065]). Regarding claim 11, Jackson discloses spacing apart two detection units on opposite sides of the storage cavity ([0072]). Regarding claim 12, the cavity comprises first and second ends wherein the first detection unit and second detection unit comprise detection portions that extend into the liquid storage cavity (see Fig. 4 of Jackson). The detection units are arranged to close to first or second ends (ends can be construed as left/right sides or top/bottom; note that sensor 70 is arranged close to both the top and bottom ends). Regarding claim 13, the first detection unit comprises a main body portion with first detection portion arranged at an end of the first main body portion (electrical contact 35 construed as main body portion with sensor 70 a first detection portion arranged at end of the contact). As to the first detection portion being bent with the first main body portion it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the detection unit with a bend between the main body and detection portions since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. See MPEP 2144.04. One would have been motivated to adjust the shape of the detection unit to fit within the confined space of the electronic smoking device. Regarding claim 14, Murison discloses a vaporization shell with assembly opening (see for example, the outer shell ti1 or tube 38, which have ends in the axial direction; Fig. 23). As to the arrangement of the main body portions on the shell, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have arranged the main body portion (electrical contact) on the vaporization shell of the device since Jackson discloses forming the electrical contacts on the outer side of the liquid storage cavity (see Fig. 4). The specific arrangement of the sensor contacts and electrical lines would have been a matter of obvious engineering choice. Regarding claim 15, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have configured the main body portion and the shell as integral since it has been held that making one piece an article which has formerly been formed in multiple pieces involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.04. One would have been motivated to secure the parts together as a single unit. Claim 10-12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murison (US20180184722) as applied to claims above, and further in view of Gretton (US 2021/0337878). Regarding claim 10, Murison discloses the electronic vaporization device has a liquid storage cavity (reservoir 44, [0177]) and that the case is configured to stop pumping when the required amount of e-liquid has been transferred ([0103]), but Murison does not expressly disclose a liquid level detection assembly arranged in the liquid storage cavity. In the same field of endeavor of electronic smoking devices, Gretton discloses a liquid level detection assembly (see capacitive sensors arranged in the liquid storage cavity to detect the liquid fill level of the cavity; [0479-0481,0540-0553, Fig. 31). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have provided a liquid level detection assembly in the liquid storage cavity of the vaporization device since (1) Murison discloses the refilling is configured to stop pumping when the required amount of e-liquid has been transferred ([0103]) and (2) Gretton discloses providing sensors within the liquid storage cavity to determine the amount of liquid and whether a threshold has been met ([0479-0481]). One would have been motivated to provide feedback to the refill pump based on the amount of liquid within the liquid storage cavity. Regarding claim 11, Gretton discloses spacing apart two detection units on opposite sides of the storage cavity (Fig. 31, sensor plates on left/right sides). Regarding claim 12, the cavity comprises first and second ends wherein the first detection unit and second detection unit comprise detection portions that extend into the liquid storage cavity (see Fig. 31 of Gretton). The detection units are arranged close to first or second ends (ends can be construed as left/right sides or top/bottom; note that sensors are arranged close to both the top and bottom ends). Regarding claim 16, Murison discloses a main control board (PCB 58) and Gretton discloses a capacitance measurement in the vaporizer and part of the IC (Figs. 29, 31) which communicates with the pump controller of the case control assembly (Fig. 31). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT C DYE whose telephone number is (571)270-7059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Anna Momper can be reached at (571) 270-5788. 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. /ROBERT C DYE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 07, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 13, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12594790
TIRE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12576674
PNEUMATIC TIRE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12558922
TIRE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12545058
A VEHICLE WHEEL TYRE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12539720
UTILITY-VEHICLE TYRE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 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
63%
Grant Probability
74%
With Interview (+10.9%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 787 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