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 .
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.
Status of Claims
The following action is in response to the applicant’s Response to Election dated 1/5/2026, that was in response to the Requirement for Restriction dated 11/6/2025. Claims 1-20 are pending, claims 1-8 are elected and will be examined based on the merits, while claims 9-20 are considered non-elected and are withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/5/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The previous restriction will be maintained because it is believed that the difference of the independent claims regarding the unmanned vehicle is not common to all claims, therein showing multiple inventive categories; the requirement of a propeller requires a different class search than the limitations of the flame system. Applicant is reminded that in the event of allowance of claims 1-8, claims 9-20 would be considered for allowance if amended in the same manner as claims 1-8.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hill [3256688].
With respect to claim 1, Hill discloses: A flame effect system for an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), the flame effect system comprising: a hopper (18) configured to store a powdered fuel [col 2, line 12-17]; a propellant tank (14) configured to store a propellant [col 1, line 57-59]; a nozzle (10, 12) configured to expel the powdered fuel into an atmosphere [col 1, line 52-53]; and a fluid path (11, 13) extending from the propellant tank (14) to the nozzle, wherein the hopper is fluidly coupled to the fluid path at an intersection between the propellant tank and the nozzle, the hopper is configured to enable the powdered fuel to flow into the fluid path, and the propellant tank is configured to expel the propellant through the fluid path to fluidize the powdered fuel within the fluid path and to drive the fluidized powdered fuel through the nozzle [see FIG 1 below, col 1, line 52-col 2, line 2, line 29].
Hill further discloses:
{cl. 2} The flame effect system of claim 1, comprising an igniter (16) positioned at or proximate to the nozzle, wherein the igniter is configured to activate to initiate a combustion reaction between the fluidized powdered fuel and oxygen in the atmosphere [see FIG 1, col 1, line 63-66].
{cl. 3} The flame effect system of claim 1, comprising a valve (17) disposed along the fluid path between the propellant tank and the intersection, wherein the valve is configured to selectively open to facilitate flow of the propellant through the fluid path [see FIG 1, col 2, line 1-7].
{cl. 4} The flame effect system of claim 3, wherein the valve is adjustable to control a flow rate of the propellant through the fluid path [col 2, line 4-7].
PNG
media_image1.png
288
889
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill [3256688], further in view of Clark [1559552].
With respect to claim 5, Hill discloses the invention as substantially claimed however does not show the type of powder and propellant used.
Clark makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 5} The flame effect system of claim 1, wherein the powdered fuel comprises lycopodium powder, the propellant comprises carbon dioxide, or a combination thereof [page 2, right column, line 78-84].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Hill with the teachings of Clark because Clark provides a known combination of combustion reactants that will create a desirable flame effect.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill [3256688], further in view of Angevine et al [4250816].
With respect to claim 6, Hill discloses the invention as substantially claimed however does not show the fuel is configured to flow via gravity as claimed.
Angevine makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 6} The flame effect system of claim 1, wherein the hopper is configured to enable the powdered fuel to flow into the fluid path under the influence of gravity [col 4, line 39-52].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Hill with the teachings of Angevine because Angevine provides a known manner in which to supply a substance from a hopper that requires fewer moving parts.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill [3256688], further in view of Strock et al [20130186920].
With respect to claim 7, Hill discloses the invention as substantially claimed however does not show the orifice plate as claimed. Hill utilizes a pump 19, that functions similarly to an orifice plate, therefore Strock makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 7} The flame effect system of claim 1, comprising: a second fluid path fluidly coupling the hopper to the fluid path; and an orifice plate (17) disposed along the second fluid path, wherein the orifice plate is configured to control a flow rate of the powdered fuel into the fluid path [see FIG 1, paragraph 0014].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Hill with the teachings of Strock because Strock provides a known mechanism that allows for a smooth transport of reactants in order to control combustion.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hill [3256688], further in view of Suzuki et al [20170219209].
With respect to claim 8, Hill discloses the invention as substantially claimed however does not show the controller as claimed.
Suzuki makes up for these deficiencies by teaching:
{cl. 8} The flame effect system of claim 1, comprising a controller comprising a memory and a processor, wherein the controller is configured to initiate a combustion reaction between the fluidized powdered fuel and oxygen in the atmosphere. [see claim 1, paragraph 0030-0033]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Hill with the teachings of Suzuki because Suzuki provides a known manner in which to control combustion to ensure a desirable burner performance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AVINASH A SAVANI whose telephone number is (571)270-3762. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Michael Hoang can be reached at 571-272-6460. 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.
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762
3/24/2026
Prosecution Insights