You won't like this answer but fixed wing VTOL aircraft with gimbals thrust actual fits many rocket/missile type of aircraft, which include:
1) High altitude anti-aircraft missiles, such as RIM-161 SM3 and S400 systems. Fins at high altitude doesn't work that well, so thrust vectoring is the main control authority at high altitude (while the body provides the lift).
2) SpaceX Falcon booster. If you argue missiles are VTO but not VL, consider the Falcon booster? VTOL, yes. Gimbals thrust, yes. Aircraft, absolutely. Fixed wing? Sort of, if you include lift body.
Within the scope of conventional manned airplanes, F35 and Harrier's reaction control is close (although differential thrust not gamble thrust).
The way you asked, "feasibility" misled many previous answers to "practicality".
For feasibility, it's a definitive yes, but for practicality, not many airplanes have done that, because of fuel economy and reliability.
Remember wings and control surfaces have a lift to drag ration greater than one, while thrust vectoring have a "lift to drag ratio" (control force to thrust lost ratio) of roughly one. For example, if your tail needs 10kn of down force, you have two options 1) use a tail plane with L/D=5 and pay for 2kn of drag, 2) divert your thrust upwards for 10kn and and lose a net thrust of 10kn.
This is the reason why thrust vectoring and differential thrust isn't used unless there are other choices, e.g. very slow(F35, Harrier, R73 AA missile) or very high (S300/400, SM3, etc), deep stall (F22, and various thrust vectoring demo and experimental airplanes, e.g. F18 HARV).