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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/5/2026 has been entered.
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 62 and 73 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.
For Claim 62, it defines that the gyroscopic member is a disc, however, Claim 57 which it depends on defines the gyroscopic member as having fan blades. It is not clear how the gyroscopic member can be both a disc and fan blades. As such the Claim is indefinite.
For Claim 73, it defines the gyroscopic member as either a disc, central hub fan assembly, or a radial distal fan blades assembly, however, Claim 57 which it depends on defines the gyroscopic member as having fan blades. It is not clear how the gyroscopic member can be both fan blades and be one of disc, central hub fan assembly, or a radial distal fan blades assembly. As such the Claim is indefinite
Claim 79 recites the limitation "the axes" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 81 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.
For Claim 81, it is unclear how the support structure includes an airflow directing assembly. As defined in the specification and shown in figure 5A the airflow directing assembly is the nozzle (255) which is not part of the support structure (251). A nozzle would not support the propulsion arrangement. As such the claim is indefinite.
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 –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 57, 59-60, 63, 65, 67, 79-82 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vassa (US Patent #5421538).
For Claim 57, figures 1-4 of Vassa ‘538 disclose an aerial vehicle (10) comprising an airframe (12); at least one propulsion arrangement (28) mounted to the airframe and configured to providing thrust to the aerial vehicle, a support structure (30 and 52) coupled to the propulsion arrangement and configured for controlling the direction of thrust of the propulsion arrangement: a gyroscopic stabilization assembly (36) including at least one rotatable gyroscopic member configured to be coupled to the propulsion arrangement via a mechanical transmission (44) to be rotated to gyroscopically stabilize the airframe of the aerial vehicle in use, the gyroscopic member comprising a gyroscopic fan including a plurality of fan blades (40 and 42), and wherein the pitch of the fan blades is adjustable.
For Claim 59, figures 1-4 of Vassa ‘538 disclose that the propulsion arrangement (28) is pivotably mounted to the airframe as it rotates.
For Claim 60, figures 1-4 of Vassa ‘538 disclose that the gyroscopic fan (40 and 42) is disposed within the airframe (12).
For Claim 63, figures 1-4 and 8a-8b of Vassa ‘538 disclose that the aerial vehicle further comprises a controller (80) for controlling operation of the aerial vehicle.
For Claim 65, figures 1-4 of Vassa ‘538 disclose that the propulsion arrangement rotates about an axis of rotation and the gyroscopic member rotates about an axis of rotation, and the propulsion arrangement and the gyroscopic member are arranged such that their respective axes of rotation are substantially parallel to each other.
For Claim 67, figures 1-4 of Vassa ‘538 disclose that the gyroscopic members (40 and 42) are parallel.
For Claim 79, figures 1-4 of Vassa ‘538 disclose that the axis of the propulsion arrangement and the gyroscopic fan are arranged substantially longitudinally in the airframe.
For Claim 80, figures 1-4 of Vassa ‘538 disclose that the propulsion arrangement is fixedly mounted to the airframe.
For Claim 81, figures 1-4 of Vassa ‘538 disclose that the support structure (30 and 52) includes an airflow directing assembly for directing thrust from the propulsion arrangement in a plurality of directions.
For Claim 82, figures 1-4 of Vassa ‘538 disclose that the airframe is an elongated airframe.
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(s) 69-71 and 76-78 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vassa (US Patent #5421538) as applied to claim 57 above, and further in view of Skahan (US PgPub #2017/0341725).
For Claim 70, while Vassa ‘538 is silent about attachment points for attaching the aerial vehicle to an adjacent similar aerial vehicle, the figures of Skahan ‘725 teach that the aerial vehicle includes attachment points for attaching the aerial vehicle to an adjacent similar aerial vehicle. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Vassa ‘538 with the attachment points of Skahan ‘275. The motivation to do so would be to create larger aerial systems per desired design requirements.
For Claim 71, while Vassa ‘538 is silent about the vehicle being autonomous, figure 108 of Skahan ‘725 teaches autonomous navigation. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Vassa ‘538 with the autonomous control of Skahan ‘725. The motivation to do so would be to provide autonomous control that provides safe flight and does not require a capable pilot.
For Claims 69 and 76-78, while Vassa ‘538 shows a seat with a cockpit in the figures it is silent about there being a cockpit module which is detachable. However, the figures of Skahan ‘725 teach an aerial vehicle in which the cockpit is detachable form the airframe as well as being gimballed about two axes so as to pivotally rotate.. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Vassa ‘538 with the pivotally detachable cockpit module as taught by Skahan ‘725. The motivation to do so would be to be able to exchange cockpit modules if they are damaged or if different flight requirements are desired.
Claim(s) 74-75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vassa (US Patent #5421538) as applied to claim 57 above, and further in view of Ward (US Patent #3481405).
For Claims 74-75, while Vassa ‘538 discloses providing an aerial vehicle that can move around and operate the gyroscopic stabilization arrangement to gyroscopically stabilize the airframe of the aerial vehicle and controlling the pitch of the gyroscopic fan blades to manage the thrust of the propulsion arrangement, it is silent about moving the aerial vehicle to a fire and using the propulsion arrangement to direct thrust to the fire. However, the figures of Ward ‘405 teach a method of suppressing a fire by maneuvering an aerial vehicle to a fire and controlling a support structure (28 and 30) to direct thrust generated by the propulsion arrangement (16) towards the fire while maintaining the orientation of the airframe. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Vassa ‘538 with the method of using the produce thrust of a vehicle to suppress a fire as taught by Ward ‘105. The motivation to do so would be to put out a dangerous fire.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10, filed 1/5/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 57 under 103 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 in view of Vassa ‘538 based on the amendments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP J BONZELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3663. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Joshua Michener can be reached at 571-272-1467. 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.
/PHILIP J BONZELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3642 2/17/2026