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. Detailed Office Action Election In the paper received 11/24/2025 , Applicant elects without traverse the design shown in Group II (Embodiment 3 : Figs. 23-30 ). Accordingly, the design shown in Group I (Embodiment s 1 : Figs. 1-11 and Embodiment 2: Figs 12-22 ) stands withdrawn, and the corresponding drawings and figure descriptions are canceled from further prosecution. 37 CFR 1.142(b). Of note: The Specification amendment has not been entered into the record, specification objections are explained and given below. Further, Applicant cancelled the description of the broken lines, however, Fig. 7 of the amended drawings includes broken lines, this is also addressed below. Applicant filed both a set of amended drawings and a current, amended Specification. Both documents are considered and entered into the file wrapper. Drawings The drawings meet the requirements of 37 CFR 1.84; however, the drawings are objected to as follows: In Fig. 5, the sectional indicators and their arrows/labels are improper. 37 CFR § 1.84 (h-3). The origin view that is referenced by a sectional view should bear a cross-sectional indicator. A broken line should be used, extending from the distal and proximal peripheries of the claim. The ends of the broken line should be designated by Arabic numerals that correspond to the figure number of the sectional view. Bent arrows in solid line should point in the direction the sectional view is drawn. (See example drawing below.) Reminder to Applicant: This example is provided by Examiner for assistance only as a suggestion of how Applicant may amend Fig. 5. Applicant must provide their own drawing amendments in their formal reply. Any corrected drawings submitted in response to this Office action must be compliant with 37 CFR 1.121(d). An amended replacement drawing sheet should include all the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is amended. The figure (or figure number) of an amended view should not be labeled as amended. If a drawing figure is canceled, that figure must be removed from the replacement sheet and the remaining figures and their related figure descriptions must be renumbered, as necessary. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. If all the figures on a drawing sheet are canceled, a replacement sheet is not required. A marked-up copy of the drawing sheet (labeled as "Annotated Sheet") including an annotation showing that all the figures on that drawing sheet have been canceled must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change to the drawings. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either "Replacement Sheet" or "New Sheet" pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by Examiner, Applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. When preparing new or replacement drawings, be careful to avoid introducing new matter. New matter is prohibited by 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121(f). Specification The Specification is objected to as follows: The title, " Breathing Apparatus Including Mouthpiece ", is misdescriptive and unclear. MPEP 1503.01.I. The title of a claim must be directed to the name of the article in which the design is embodied or to which the design is applied, and may contribute to defining the scope of the claim. MPEP § 1504.04.I.A . See Curver Luxembourg , SARL v. Home Expressions, Inc ., 938 F.3d 1334, 1340, 2019 USPQ2d 341902 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The title is not entirely descriptive of the article of manufacture that is being claimed and may be interpreted in ways other than Applicant intends. An “ apparatus ” is not a single, specific article of manufacture known to the public. This term does not specifically nor clearly identify the nature and intended use of the claimed design. The drawings show a breathing trainer. An " apparatus " is typically defined as a collection of individual elements, working together to perform a specific function. This term is not supported by the drawings in the instant claim. 37 CFR 1.153 requires that the title must designate the particular article; Applicant is recommended to amend the title in view of the physical appearance of their claim. For proper description, clarity, so that t he title accurately describes the design by a name generally known and used by the public, and so that the nature and intended use of the design is clearly explained, the title should be amended throughout the application, original oath or declaration excepted. Upon a thorough review of pertinent prior art and within analogous fields of search, a title that describes the claimed design shown in the drawings (without narrowing the scope of the claim) is suggested below for Applicant's consideration in lieu of the current one. Examine r suggests: -- Breathing Trainer --, or another similar title. Descriptions of the drawings are not required to be written in a particular format; however, they should describe the views of the drawings clearly and accurately. MPEP 1503.01(II). As this is an election, figure descriptions frequently require amendments to the entire statement beyond just amending a drawing label and/or deleting a description. The descriptions for non-elected Figs. 1-22 should be deleted per Applicant's 11/24/2025 election. The descriptions for elected Figs. 23-30 should be amended to read as Figs. 1-8, respectively ( for the remainder of this document, the elected figures are referred to by their amended labels ). In the Fig. 1 description, the phrase “ third embodiment ” incorrectly references additional embodiments of the claim that may be disclosed. Statements that attempt to broaden the scope of the claimed design beyond that which is shown in the drawings, by describing or suggesting other embodiments of the claimed design that are not illustrated in the disclosure, are not permitted in the specification of an issued design patent. The design claim is limited to what is shown in the drawings . Further, the descriptions of Fig. 8 includes reference to a cross sectional view and is objected to for not clearly and accurately describing where the view is taken from as required by 37 CRF 1.84. Figure descriptions that mention cross sectional views must be amended to identify where the cross sectional view is taken from. Accordingly, for clarity, accuracy, grammar, proper form and antecedent basis, the following amendments are suggested: --Fig. 1 is an elevated bottom, right perspective view of a breathing trainer, showing my new design; Fig. 2 is a right side plan view thereof; Fig. 3 is a left side plan view thereof; Fig. 4 is a bottom plan view thereof; Fig. 5 is a top plan view thereof; Fig. 6 is a front plan view thereof; Fig. 7 is a rear plan view thereof; Fig. 8 is a cross-sectional view taken along section line 8-8 of Fig. 5 . -- Claim Rejection – 35 USC § 112 The claim is rejected under 35 USC 112(a) & (b) , as the claimed invention is not described in such full, clear, concise and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to make and use the same, and fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Specifically, the claim is indefinite and non-enabled because: The exact appearance and three-dimensional configuration of some of the surfaces of th e breathing trainer cannot be determined from the drawings, making the overall appearance of the claim unclear. These features are not shown elsewhere in the disclosure in enough detail to confirm their possible depth or probable dimension. Therefore, the appearance of these portions of the claim cannot be reproduced by one skilled in the art without resorting to conjecture. (See elements shaded in solid gray, below.) Fig. 7 The precise depth and dimension of the elements shaded in solid gray cannot be determined. The surfaces indicated may be recessed at differing depths, may have varying curves or may be at multiple angles. The peripheral edge of the indefinite portion is labeled with “ A ” . To attempt to resolve this issue, Applicant may reduce “A” to equal-length broken line. Additionally, Applicant may reduce all solid object lines (“B”) within the solid gray-shaded areas to equal-length broken lin. These features may also be shown in the other views. Applicant is suggested to review the entirety of the drawing disclosure for consistency as they execute any drawing amendments. Applicant may also reduce to legible, properly-spaced, equal-length broken lines the peripheral edges of the indefinite portions of th e breathing trainer (identified above by solid gray shading and “ A ") , thereby removing those surfaces from the claim. Applicant must further reduce any solid object lines (" B ") within the indefinite areas to equal-length broken line. Applicant is further cautioned to render any corresponding drawing details clearly and consistently in all applicable views. Applicant 11/24/2025 amendment cancelled of the Broken line statement; however Fig. 7 includes broken lines and t he aforementioned solution suggests reducing indefinite and non-enabled portions (indicated above) to equal-length broken lines. These new broken lines would depict those surfaces and elements as non- claimed portions of th e breathing trainer . Note that if broken lines are used to depict unclaimed portions of the design, then the meaning and purpose of these broken lines must be properly described in the Specification, immediately preceding the claim statement To properly describe the broken lines, Examiner suggests: -- In the drawings, the equal-length broken lines depict portions of th e breathing trainer that form no part of the claimed design. -- Any corrected drawings submitted in response to this Office action must be in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d). The corrected drawings must not contain new matter. 35 U.S.C. 132 and 37 CFR 1.121. Conclusion The claimed design stands rejected under 35 USC § 112(a)&(b). The references cited but not applied are considered cumulative art related to the claimed design. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Hoffman whose telephone number is (571) 272-9850. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 11:00-7:00pm EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Stout, can be reached at (408)-918-7558. 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. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should Applicant have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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 uspto.gov/ interviewpractice . Applicant may also contact a USPTO Customer Service Representative for assistance: 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /M. H./ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2919 /MICHAEL C STOUT/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2943