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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 23 February 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10, 12-13, 15-24 remain pending in the application. Claims 11 and 14 have been canceled, and new claims 25 and 26 have been added. Applicant's amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection and rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 21 October 2025; however, upon further consideration new rejections are set forth as explained below.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: delete “the” between “single” and “jet”. 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 4 and 5 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.
Claims 4 and 5 both recite the limitation "the surfactant" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The recitation of “a surfactant” in claim 2, from which both claims 4 and 5 depend, is not considered a positive recitation since it is listed as an alternative from a list of options.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 5-6, 9-10, 15, 20-24, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson (US 2006/0032643) in view of Dillman et al. (US 2010/0218960).
Regarding claim 1, Thompson discloses a fluid projecting platform (par. 1; fig. 1) comprising:
a vehicle (50, see also par. 3);
a primary fluid projectile vessel (60) configured to store a primary fluid projectile (par. 24);
a secondary fluid projectile vessel configured to store a secondary fluid (par. 24 – “hoses to supply…fire retardant from external tenders”);
a tertiary fluid projectile vessel configured to store a tertiary fluid projectile (par. 21 – “holding tank” and “additional supply of fire retardant”);
a first nozzle (36) configured to output projectile fluid comprising one or both of the primary fluid projectile or secondary fluid projectile (par. 16 – “through which water or other firefighting liquid may be injected via a supply hose (not shown)”);
a second nozzle (42) configured to output projectile fluid comprising one or both of the primary fluid projectile or secondary fluid projectile (par. 16 – “through which water, gel, or soap may be delivered via a supply hose”);
a first pump configured to fluidically transmit the primary fluid projectile to the first nozzle (par. 19 – “water pressure may be established and maintained by use of a high-pressure fire pump (not shown)”; par. 24 – “Pumps for delivering water concentrate”);
a second pump configured to fluidically transmit the secondary fluid projectile to the first nozzle (par. 18 – “a foam concentrate is added to the water”; par. 19 – “soap concentrate can be added into the water by means of an injection pump (not shown)”; par. 24 – “Pumps for delivering water concentrate”);
a third pump configured to fluidically transmit the tertiary fluid projectile to the second nozzle (par. 19 – “pumping a fire-retardant mixture through the nozzle 42”);
a jet engine (12) that emits a jet-stream of a gas from an exhaust outlet (fig. 1 – outlet of 26) in a direction non-coincident with the fluid projectile fluid output of the first nozzle (par. 16; fig. 1 – nozzle 36 is “inward facing”, and the exhaust outlet 26 is positioned inwardly relative to the nozzle and open in the longitudinal direction), wherein the first nozzle and the jet engine are positioned such that the projectile fluid output is directed into the jet-stream (par. 17 – “Pressurized water is fed to the injection ring 36…and travels along with the fast flow of heated jet exhaust.”); and,
a gimbal arm (14) having a first end coupled to the vehicle (figs. 1, 2 – at 20) and a second end coupled to the jet engine (fig. 1), wherein the gimbal arm is configured to translate the jet engine with respect to the vehicle, rotate the jet engine with respect to the vehicle, or both (par. 14);
wherein one or more of the primary fluid projectile vessel, the secondary fluid projectile vessel, the tertiary fluid projectile vessel, the first nozzle, the second nozzle, the first pump, the second pump, the third pump, or the air compressor are coupled to the vehicle (figs. 1, 2; par. 14, 23).
Thompson does not disclose an air compressor configured to provide compressed air to the second nozzle.
Dillman teaches a fluid projecting platform (10/12, see fig. 2) comprising an air compressor (145) configured to provide compressed air to a nozzle (128, see par. 75).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fluid projecting platform of Thompson to further include an air compressor configured to provide compressed air to the second nozzle, as taught by Dillman, since this was known to increase the velocity of air carrying fire retardant through a conduit to the nozzle and disperse the fire retardant from the nozzle (Dillman, par. 91).
Regarding claim 2, Thompson in view of Dillman discloses the fluid projecting platform described regarding claim 1, and further wherein one or more of the primary fluid projectile, the secondary fluid projectile, or the tertiary fluid projectile comprises one or more of water (par. 24 – “water”), a surfactant, a flame retardant, a fire protectant, an oxygen depleting chemical, a thermal barrier gel, a crowd dispersal agent, a corrosion inhibitor, a pesticide, a vaccine, a medicine, an oleophilic absorber, snow, ice, water, greywater, an oxygen scavenger, a rheological modifier, a dispersant, or a surfactant.
Regarding claim 5, Thompson in view of Dillman discloses the fluid projecting platform described regarding claim 2, and further wherein the tertiary fluid projectile comprises a surfactant, and wherein the surfactant comprises soap (par. 19 – “soap concentrate”), but not specifically castile soap.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the soap to be castile soap since this was a known natural soap that would provide a biodegradable, plant-based, and environmentally-friendly type of soap which would not harm the environment when used to extinguish a wildfire.
Regarding claim 6, Thompson in view of Dillman discloses the fluid projecting platform described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the vehicle comprises one or more of a car, a truck, a trailer, a tractor, a bus, a minibus, a backhoe, a bulldozer, an excavator, a forwarder, a skidder, a dump truck, a front loader, a logging forwarder, or an all-terrain vehicle (par. 14 – “the platform 18 may be mounted on a truck, trailer, other track or 6x6 carrier to be mobile”).
Regarding claim 9, Thompson in view of Dillman discloses the fluid projecting platform described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the vehicle comprises one or more of an operator cabin (54) comprising: a heat shield (52, see par. 23); a radiation shield; a positive pressure system; an air purifying system; a thermal imaging system; an air conditioning sensor; or a chemical sensor.
Regarding claim 10, Thompson in view of Dillman discloses the fluid projecting platform described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the vehicle comprises a weight distribution system comprising one or more of: a support foot (par. 19 – “outriggers”); an axle load detector; a bladder; or a ballast tank.
Regarding claim 15, Thompson in view of Dillman discloses the fluid projecting platform described regarding claim 1, and further comprising a single jet engine (fig. 1).
Regarding claim 20, Thompson in view of Dillman discloses the fluid projecting platform described regarding claim 1, but not wherein the vehicle has a carrying capacity of at least about 50,000 pounds.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the vehicle have a carrying capacity of at least about 50,000 pounds since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the vehicle of Thompson must have a carrying capacity of at least about 50,000 pounds in order to support the jet engine, fluid tank, and other system components. Further, providing a greater weight carrying capacity allows the tanks to store more water and fire retardant, which allows the system to remain on station for a longer duration.
Regarding claim 21, Thompson in view of Dillman discloses the fluid projecting platform described regarding claim 1, but not further wherein the vehicle, the jet engine, or both are configured to operate for a period of time of about 12 hours at 60% throttle.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the vehicle, the jet engine, or both are configured to operate for a period of time of about 12 hours at 60% throttle since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the vehicle, the jet engine, or both of Thompson must be configured to operate for a period of time of about 12 hours at 60% throttle in order to remain on station fighting a wildfire without replenishment until the fire is under control or the vehicle, the jet engine, or both can be resupplied with water, fire retardant, fuel, etc.
Regarding claim 22, Thompson in view of Dillman discloses the fluid projecting platform described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the jet engine is configured to propel the primary fluid projectile at a rate of at least about 500 gallons/minute (par. 18).
Regarding claim 23, Thompson in view of Dillman discloses the fluid projecting platform described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the jet engine is configured to propel the primary fluid projectile to cover about 2 acres in a minute (par. 19), but not further wherein the jet engine is configured to propel the primary fluid projectile at a speed of at least about 50 miles per hour.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the jet engine configured to propel the primary fluid projectile at a speed of at least about 50 miles per hour since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the jet engine of Thompson must be configured to propel the primary fluid projectile at a speed of at least about 50 miles per hour in order to cover an area of 2 acres every minute and to project it to a sufficient distance from the platform in order to allow it to safely battle a fire with the threat of damage.
Regarding claim 24, Thompson in view of Dillman discloses the fluid projecting platform described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the jet engine is configured to propel the primary fluid projectile to cover about 2 acres in a minute (par. 19), but not further wherein the jet engine is configured to propel the primary fluid projectile to a distance of at least about 10 feet.
Nevertheless, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the jet engine configured to propel the primary fluid projectile to a distance of at least about 10 feet since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the jet engine of Thompson must be configured to propel the primary fluid projectile to a distance of at least about 10 feet in order to cover an area of 2 acres every minute and to project it to a sufficient distance from the platform in order to allow it to safely battle a fire with the threat of damage.
Regarding claim 26, Thompson in view of Dillman discloses the fluid projecting platform described regarding claim 1, and further wherein the gimbal arm is configured to tilt (par. 14), rotate (par. 14), and translate (par. 15) the jet engine with respect to the vehicle.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Dillman, and further in view of Garcia (US 6,371,384).
Regarding claim 3, Thompson in view of Dillman discloses the fluid projecting platform described regarding claim 1, but not further wherein the tertiary fluid projectile comprises the surfactant, and wherein the surfactant comprises sodium hydroxide, sodium carbonate, or both.
Garcia teaches a fluid projecting platform (10) comprising a fluid projectile comprising a surfactant comprising sodium hydroxide (col. 4, ln. 14-19).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tertiary fluid projectile to comprise sodium hydroxide, as taught by Garcia, since this was known to produce a foam (col. 4, ln. 21).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Dillman, and further in view of Shiga (US 2004/0074650).
Regarding claim 4, Thompson in view of Dillman discloses the fluid projecting platform described regarding claim 1, but not further wherein the tertiary fluid projectile comprises a surfactant, and wherein the surfactant comprises one or more of an anionic surfactant, a nonionic surfactant, a cationic surfactant, or an amphoteric surfactant.
Shiga teaches a fluid projectile for a firefighting application (par. 1) comprising a surfactant, and wherein the surfactant comprises one or more of an anionic surfactant, a nonionic surfactant, a cationic surfactant, or an amphoteric surfactant (par. 23).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the tertiary fluid projectile to comprise a surfactant, and wherein the surfactant comprises one or more of an anionic surfactant, a nonionic surfactant, a cationic surfactant, or an amphoteric surfactant, as taught by Shiga, since it was known that a combination of several surfactants different in ionicity provide high-quality foams (par. 23).
Claims 7-8 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Dillman, and further in view of Conboy (US 2022/0008773).
Regarding claim 7, Thompson in view of Dillman discloses the fluid projecting platform described regarding claim 1, but not further wherein the vehicle is autonomous or semi-autonomous.
Conboy teaches a fluid projecting platform comprising a vehicle, and wherein the vehicle is autonomous (fig. 9A; par. 141, 346).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the vehicle of the fluid projecting platform of Thompson in view of Dillman autonomous, as taught by Conboy, since this would allow the vehicle to operate in a dangerous environment without requiring a human in the vehicle.
Regarding claim 8, Thompson in view of Dillman discloses the fluid projecting platform described regarding claim 1, but not further wherein the vehicle is remote controlled.
Conboy teaches a fluid projecting platform comprising a vehicle, and wherein the vehicle is remote controlled (fig. 17A, 17B; par. 160, 161).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the vehicle of the fluid projecting platform of Thompson in view of Dillman remote controlled, as taught by Conboy, since this would allow the vehicle to operate in a dangerous environment without requiring a human in the vehicle.
Regarding claim 16, Thompson in view of Dillman discloses the fluid projecting platform described regarding claim 1, but not further comprising a sensor comprising one or more of: a GPS sensor; an infrared sensor; a LIDAR sensor; or a range finder sensor.
Conboy teaches a fluid projecting platform comprising a sensor comprising one or more of: a GPS sensor (30G5, see par. 349); an infrared sensor; a LIDAR sensor; or a range finder sensor.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further included a sensor comprising a GPS sensor, as taught by Conboy, in the fluid projecting platform of Thompson in view of Dillman, since this was known to assist in navigation of the platform.
Regarding claim 17, Thompson in view of Dillman and Conboy discloses the fluid projecting platform described regarding claim 16, and Conboy further teaches comprising a wireless communication system (30H) comprising one or more of: a satellite communication system; a cellular communication system; or both (par. 350).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the fluid projecting platform of Thompson in view of Dillman to include a wireless communication system comprising one or more of: a satellite communication system; a cellular communication system; or both, as taught by Conboy, since this was known to provide a means of transmitting data to and from the vehicle.
Regarding claim 18, Thompson in view of Dillman and Conboy discloses the fluid projecting platform described regarding claim 16, and Conboy further teaches comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage media encoded with a computer program (30G) including instructions executable by a processor (30G3) to direct the gimbal based on a data recorded by the sensor, a data received from the wireless communication system, or both (fig. 9B; par. 348).
Regarding claim 19, Thompson in view of Dillman and Conboy discloses the fluid projecting platform described regarding claim 18, and Conboy further teaches wherein the non-transitory computer-readable storage media directs the gimbal using computational fluid dynamics, computer learning, or both (par. 428 – using artificial intelligence to control the vehicle operation).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Dillman, and further in view of Lair (US 2003/0159430).
Regarding claim 12, Thompson in view of Dillman discloses the fluid projecting platform described regarding claim 1, but not further wherein the jet engine comprises a vector control configured to adjust an angle of the jetstream with respect to the second end of the gimbal.
Lair teaches a jet engine (par. 90) comprising a vector control configured to adjust an angle of the jetstream with respect to the opposite end of the jet engine (par. 95; fig. 5, 6).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jet engine of the fluid projecting platform of Thompson in view of Dillman to comprise a vector control configured to adjust an angle of the jetstream with respect to the second end of the jet gimbal, as taught by Lair, since this would provide a means for controlling the direction of the jet-stream.
Regarding claim 13, Thompson in view of Dillman discloses the fluid projecting platform described regarding claim 1, but not further wherein the jet engine comprises a nozzle configured to adjust a cross-sectional shape of the of the jet-stream.
Lair teaches a jet engine (par. 90) comprising a nozzle (10) configured to adjust a cross-sectional shape of the of the jet-stream (par. 91).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the jet engine of the fluid projecting platform of Thompson in view of Dillman to comprise a nozzle configured to adjust a cross-sectional shape of the of the jet-stream, as taught by Lair, since this would allow the speed of the jet-stream of gas and primary fluid projectile leaving the jet engine to be controlled.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thompson in view of Dillman, and further in view of Johansen (US 2010/0252284).
Regarding claim 25, Thompson in view of Dillman discloses the fluid projecting platform described regarding claim 1, but not explicitly that the jet engine emits the jet-stream in a direction perpendicular to the projectile fluid output of the first nozzle.
Johansen teaches a fluid projecting platform (100) comprising a jet engine (200, see par. 34) and a fluid nozzle (242), wherein the jet engine emits the jet-stream in a direction perpendicular to the projectile fluid output of the first nozzle (par. 40).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first nozzle to direct the fluid output in a direction perpendicular to the direction of the jet-stream since this would emit the fluid into the stream of air (par. 40), which would provide the maximize atomization effect.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the interpretation of the prior art being used in the current rejection. Therefore, Thompson in view of Dillman is interpreted to render obvious each and every limitation of amended claim 1, as explained in the rejection above.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Thompson does not disclose “a jet engine emitting a jet-stream in a direction non-coincident with output of a first nozzle”. In particular, Applicant explains that the fluid nozzle inject fluid into a space proximal to the exit point from the tailpipe, not directly into the jet-stream. In response, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim requires only that the jet-stream is emitted from an exhaust outlet in a direction non-coincident with the fluid output of the first nozzle, and also that the fluid output is directed into the jet stream. Thompson discloses both of these limitations as explained in the reference above.
Further regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Thompson does not teach that soap concentration is added into the water by an injection pump; however, Applicant’s argument fails to present any further evidence or analysis in support of this assertion. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not convincing, and Thompson is interpreted to teach the subject limitation as explained above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CODY J LIEUWEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4477. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8-5, Friday varies.
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, Arthur Hall can be reached at (571) 270-1814. 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.
/CODY J LIEUWEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3752