Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION 2. This office action is in response to the filing of the application on 7/20/2023. Since the initial filing, no claims have been amended, added, or canceled. Thus, claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Specification 3 . The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: C laim 1 includes claim limitation “ the facemask defining an interior region adjacent the user's face when the facemask is donned by the user ” (claim 1, lin. 3-4) which i s not found inside of the specification . A review of the specification finds the matching structure identified as “interior volume” (pg. 3, lin. 12) ; C laim 2, includ es limitation “the interior region” in (claim 2, lin. 3) which is not found in the specification; Claim 7 includes limitation “an elongate length” (claim 7, lin. 3) which is not found inside of the specification . A review of the specification finds the similar structure identified as “ at any location along the length ” (pg. 3, lin. 12). Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections 4. Claim(s) 2-3, and 8-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 2 is objected to due for potentially appear ing to be positively claiming a human body part in violation of 35 USC 101 . See claim limitation “ a nosecup that is located within the interior region of the facemask and that covers the nose and mouth of the user ” (claim 2, lin. 2-3). Applicant is required to include “ intended use ” language between claimed structure and user. For example, -- that is configured to cover the nose and mouth of the user--. Claim 3 is objected to due to use of claim limitation “at last one component of the facemask” (claim 3, lin. 7-8). It appears applicant forgot to include “face - contacting” from (claim 1, lin. 9-10). Applicant is required to change claim language to –at least one face-contacting component of the facemask—to overcome objection. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation 5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “a pneumatic vibrating alert device” in (claim 1, lin. 8) (claim 1, lin. 9) (claim 2, lin. 5) A review of the specification appears to show the following corresponding structure: “a pneumatic vibrating alert device” … “may comprise a manifold body with an interior through-air pathway provided therein. In many convenient embodiments, manifold body may comprise a piece of metal, e.g. aluminum, with various passages provided therein, e.g. by drilling, machining, or the like, to form air pathway . Body comprises a chamber that is fluidly connected to air pathway; disposed partially within chamber is a plunger… ” (SPEC, pg. 5, lin. 1-10) Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 6. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claim(s) 1-20 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. Claim 1 is rejected due to an indefinite preamble. Claim limitation “ A self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) facemask with a mask-mounted regulator equipped with a pneumatic vibrating alert device, comprising :” (claim 1, lin. 1-2) is unclear. It is unclear which part of preamble “comprising” is being assigned to. Currently as written, claim could be interpreted to mean “ A self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) facemask comprising…” or “ a mask-mounted regulator equipped with a pneumatic vibrating alert device comprising ” separately. For purposes of examination, claim 1 is interpreted as including both the SCBA facemask and the mask-mounted regulator equipped with a pneumatic vibrating alert device. Claim(s) 2-18 are rejected d ue to incorrect use of a dependent claim preamble “The SCBA facemask of claim…”. These claims appear to pull their dependency from the original independent claim 1, but they do not match the preamble/system claimed at start of claim 1 . “ A self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) facemask with a mask-mounted regulator equipped with a pneumatic vibrating alert device, ” (claim 1, lin. 1-2). This makes it unclear if applicant is just claiming the “SCBA facemask” of claim 1 without the “ mask-mounted regulator equipped with a pneumatic vibrating alert device ”. For purposes of this examination, claim limitation is being interpreted to bring the full structure of claim 1’s preamble in to each dependent claim. Claim 19 is rejected because the of the limitation “ A self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) comprising the facemask of claim 1” (claim 19, lin. 1). It is unclear whether this limitation is only claiming the facemask of claim 1, or is including both the facemask and mask-mounted regulator (i.e. the entirety of claim 1) . For purposes of this examination, claim limitation is being interpreted to bring the full structure of claim 1 in to the dependent cla im. This interpretation avoids a potential 35 USC 112(d) issue for claim 19 not incorporating all of the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 20 recites the limitation "the SCBA system" in (claim 20, lin. 2). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Allowable Subject Matter 7. Claim s 1 -20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. The prior art of record does not disclose “a pneumatic vibrating alert device mounted in a housing of the regulator, wherein the pneumatic vibrating alert device is vibrationally coupled to at least one face-contacting component of the facemask and is acoustically isolated from the surrounding environment” (claim 1, ln. 8-11). The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are Obenchain (US 20180028769 A1) and Juergensen (US 20050183721 A1) . These prior art references are various SCBA alarm systems. Conclusion 8 . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ALEC ROBERT WAHL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9880 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Timothy Stanis can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-5139 . 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. /A.R.W./ Examiner, Art Unit 3785 /TIMOTHY A STANIS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785