DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/17/2026 filed with respect to the rejections of claim 21 under 103 in view of Jarvholm have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made as detailed below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 21-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker (US 2013/0192619) in view of Raichman (US 2016/0271347) and Parker (US 2017/0157653).
Regarding claims 21, 24, 28, and 31, Tucker [Fig. 2-3] teaches an aerosol delivery device [0002] comprising: a heater 14 atomizer arranged to aerosolize an aerosol precursor composition and produce an aerosol [0034]; a body 6 housing the atomizer [0031]; a mouthpiece coupleable with the body and defining an outlet [0056]; an inner tube 62 (flow director) longitudinally extending from the atomizer to the mouthpiece and arranged to direct the aerosol toward the mouthpiece [0031, 0047, 0064]. Tucker does not teach a hydrophobic structure. Raichman teaches a vaporizer comprising a hydrophobic coating on an inner surface of portions of the vaporizer, wherein the coating is configured to prevent products of the vaporization of the active ingredient from sticking to the inner surface [0111], i.e. that defines at least a hydrophobic property to resist formation of condensation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply this hydrophobic coating to an inner surface of the flow director of Tucker for the above reasons suggested by Raichman.
Modified Tucker does not teach a structure comprising a three-dimensional patterned surface. Parker teaches that a hydrophobic surface may be provided by structure comprises a three-dimensional patterned surface that defines at least a hydrophobic property to resist formation of condensation [0008-0014; Fig. 3]. The surface comprises a series of linear grooves that extend along at least a portion of the inner surface of the flow director, at gaps G under protrusions 4 [Figs 1, 2, and 8b]. Parker teaches this is an alternative to a hydrophobic coating [0002]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the hydrophobic coating of modified Tucker with a three-dimensional patterned surface at the micrometer scale to provide advantageous self-cleaning properties as suggested by Parker [0086]. Furthermore, it is prima facie obvious to substitute art recognized equivalents known for the same purpose, see MPEP 2144.06. The method of forming the aerosol delivery device thereby reads on the claimed method. Thus, the surface does not include a chemical coating.
Regarding claims 22 and 29, modified Tucker teaches the surface further comprises a series of divots [Parker Fig. 8b]. Each region to the left of base portion 6 is interpreted as a divot, whereas each region to the right of base portion 6 is interpreted as a linear groove.
Regarding claims 23 and 30, for the same reasons as applied above to claims 21 and 28, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the structure to an inner surface of the body of Tucker along an airflow path (inner surface of body 6 between mouthpiece 8 and gasket 10 as shown in Fig. 2), for hydrophobic and self-cleaning effects as suggested by Raichman and Parker.
Regarding claims 25 and 32, Tucker teaches the body forms a cartridge configured to couple with a control body [0026].
Regarding claims 26 and 33, Tucker teaches a reservoir contained within the body and configured to hold the aerosol precursor composition [0048, 0052].
Regarding claims 27 and 34, modified Tucker teaches the three-dimensional patterned surface is at the micrometer scale [Parker 0004].
Regarding claims 35 and 36, modified Tucker teaches the three-dimensional patterned surface further defines an anti-microbial property [Parker 0014].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC YAARY whose telephone number is (571)272-3273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Philip Louie can be reached at (571)270-1241. 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.
/ERIC YAARY/Examiner, Art Unit 1755
Prosecution Insights