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.
Claim 56 recites the limitation "the periphery" in 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 59 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 59, the claim is to the gyroscopic member including a gyroscopic disc but Claim 56 which it depends on defines the gyroscopic member as being a plurality fan blades. It is unclear how the gyroscopic member is both a plurality of fan blades and a disc. As such the claim is unclear and therefore indefinite.
Claim 63 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 63, the claim defines a plurality of parallel gyroscopic members, but it is not clear if these are in addition to the defined rotatable gyroscopic member of Claim 56 which it depends on or if these are in addition to the claimed rotatable gyroscopic member. As such the claim is indefinite.
Claim 69 recites the limitation "the pitch" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 72 recites the limitation "the centrally located propulsion arrangement" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 75 recites the limitation "the distal radial ends" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 56-58, 60-62, 66-68, 70-71, and 73 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Horton (US Patent #4807830).
For Claim 56, figures 1, 2, 6, and 7 of Horton ‘830 disclose an aerial vehicle comprising: an annular airframe (20); at least one propulsion arrangement (30) mounted around the periphery of the annular airframe, the at least one propulsion arrangement being configured for providing thrust and for varying the direction of thrust downwardly for vertical takeoff and landing ability as well as for providing horizontal thrust for moving the annular airframe horizontally; a gyroscopic stabilization assembly (45) including at least one rotatable gyroscopic member located generally central to the annular airframe; wherein the rotatable gyroscopic member is a gyroscopic fan comprising a plurality of fan blades.
For Claim 57, figures 1, 2, 6, and 7 of Horton ‘830 disclose that he aerial vehicle includes a cockpit module (40).
For Claim 58, figures 1, 2, 6, and 7 of Horton ‘830 disclose that the fan blades of the gyroscopic fan blades are configured to counter the thrust of the propulsion arrangement.
For Claim 60, figures 1, 2, 6, and 7 and the abstract of Horton ‘830 disclose the aerial vehicle further comprises a controller for controlling the flight of the aircraft.
For Claim 61, figures 1, 2, 6, and 7 of Horton ‘830 disclose that the propulsion arrangement rotates about an axis of rotation and the gyroscopic member rotates about and axis of rotation, and the propulsion arrangement is pivotable relative to the gyroscopic member between a first position in which the axis of rotation of the propulsion arrangement and the gyroscopic member are parallel to each other , and a second position in which the axis of rotation of the propulsion arrangement and the gyroscopic member are transverse to each other.
For Claim 62, figures 1, 2, 6, and 7 of Horton ‘830 disclose that the annular airframe defines a central aperture and the gyroscopic member is located in the central aperture.
For Claim 66, figures 1, 2, 6, and 7 of Horton ‘830 disclose that the aerial vehicle is operated by a pilot.
For Claim 67, figures 1, 2, 6, and 7 of Horton ‘830 disclose that the aerial vehicle includes a support structure coupled to the propulsion arrangement and configured for controlling the direction of thrust of the propulsion arrangement.
For Claim 68, figures 1, 2, 6, and 7 and column 5, lines 57-59 of Horton ‘830 disclose that the aerial vehicle includes an airflow directing assembly arranged adjacent to a thrust outlet of the propulsion arrangement and configured to direct the thrust of the propulsion arrangement.
For Claim 70, figures 1, 2, 6, and 7 of Horton ‘830 disclose that the cockpit module is fixedly attached to the airframe.
For Claim 71, figures 1, 2, 6, and 7 of Horton ‘830 disclose that the aerial vehicle includes a centrally located propulsion arrangement (50).
For Claim 73, figures 1, 2, 6, and 7 of Horton ‘830 disclose that the gyroscopic member is powered from a central hub.
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) 56, 69, 71-72, 74, and 75 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanders (US Patent #7279732) in view of Horton (US Patent #4807830).
For Claim 56, figures 1a-4c of Sanders ‘732 disclose an aerial vehicle comprising: an annular airframe (41); at least one propulsion arrangement (45) mounted around the periphery of the annular airframe, the at least one propulsion arrangement being configured for providing thrust; a gyroscopic stabilization assembly (21) including at least one rotatable gyroscopic member located generally central to the annular airframe; wherein the rotatable gyroscopic member is a gyroscopic fan comprising a plurality of fan blades.
While Sanders ‘732 discloses vectoring the thrust of the gyroscopic assembly (21) with deflection vanes (4) it is silent about the propulsion arrangement (45) having the ability to vary the direction of thrust. However, figure 2 of Horton ‘830 teaches that it is well known to have propulsion arrangements (30) that can vector so as to be able to provide thrust for varying the direction of thrust downwardly for vertical takeoff and landing as well as for providing horizontal thrust for moving the annular airframe horizontally. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Sanders ‘732 with the pivotably propulsion assemblies of Horton ‘830. The motivation to do so would be to provide thrust in various directions for greater vehicle control.
For Claim 69, figures 1a-4c of Sanders ‘732 disclose that the pitch of the fan blades is pivotable (21c) to manage the thrust of the propulsion arrangement.
For Claim 71, figures 1a-4c of Sanders ‘732 disclose that the aerial vehicle includes a centrally located propulsion arrangement (23 and 25).
For Claim 72, figures 1a-4c of Sanders ‘732 disclose that the centrally located propulsion arrangement includes an axis of rotation that is concentric with the axis of rotation of the gyroscopic member.
For Claim 74, figures 1a-4c of Sanders ‘732 disclose that the gyroscopic member is powered by the centrally located propulsion arrangement.
For Claim 75, figures 1a-4c of Sanders ‘732 disclose that the gyroscopic member is driven by a radially distal fan blade drive assembly (23 and 25) driving rotational movement of the distal radial ends of the fan blades.
Claim(s) 64 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horton (US Patent #4807830) as applied to Claim 57 above, and further in view of Brady (US Patent #3985320).
For Claim 64, while Horton ‘830 is silent the cockpit being detachable, figures 1 and 2 of Brady ‘320 teach a cockpit (17) that can be detached with connection points (59 and 61) so as to be able to easily access the interior structure of the vehicle. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Horton ‘830 with the detachable cockpit of Brady ‘320. The motivation to do so would be to provide access to the vehicle.
Claim(s) 65 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horton (US Patent #4807830).
For claim 65, while Horton ‘830 is silent about attachment points for attaching similar vehicles, the Examiner takes Official Notice that it is well known in the art attach aerial vehicle together for joint flying and that is done with attachment points. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Horton ‘830 with attachments points.
Claim(s) 76 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horton (US Patent #4807830) as applied to claim 56 above, and further in view of Ward (US Patent #3481405).
For Claim 76, while Horton ‘830 is silent about using the aerial vehicle for fire suppression, the figures of Ward ‘405 teach moving an aerial vehicle to point the thrust unit at a fire so as to suppress the fire. Therefore it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Horton ‘830 with the method of using thrust to suppress fire as taught by Ward ‘405. The motivation to do so would be to provide fire safety.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-9, filed 1/23/2026, with respect to the art used 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 Sanders ‘732 and Horton ‘830 in view of the new claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892.
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 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 3/4/2026