DETAILED ACTION Election/Restriction Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121: I. Claims 1-15, drawn to a semiconductor processing system, classified in H10P 14/6516. II. Claims 16-20, drawn to a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”, classified in G05B 11/00 FILLIN "Insert USPC class and subclass if classified using United States Patent Classification or CPC subclass and main group/subgroup if classified using Cooperative Patent Classification." . The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because: Inventions I and II are related as combination and subcombination. Inventions in this relationship are distinct if it can be shown that (1) the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed for patentability, and (2) that the subcombination has utility by itself or in other combinations (MPEP § 806.05(c)). In the instant case, the combination as claimed does not require the particulars of the subcombination as claimed because Claim 1 does not require a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium”. The subcombination has separate utility since the states steps would also be useful for operating a pizza oven to stabilize and densify a cheese layer on thin crust pizza in the chamber of an oven. See Fig. 2 from DePasquale (US Patent 5,119,719) and “door means is provided…in communication with the baking chamber” (1:41-44). The examiner has required restriction between combination and subcombination inventions. Where applicant elects a subcombination, and claims thereto are subsequently found allowable, any claim(s) depending from or otherwise requiring all the limitations of the allowable subcombination will be examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. See MPEP § 821.04(a). Applicant is advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply: the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter (semiconductors vs. control methods broad enough to be met by automated pizza oven control) the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). (semiconductors vs. control methods broad enough to appear in automated pizza oven control) Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention . The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention. Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention. During a telephone conversation Keith Taboada a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-15. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Interview Invitation Applicant’s representative is invited to contact the Examiner to discuss possible amendments to the claims prior to filing a written response. 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. Claims 1 - 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mui (US 8,278,224) . As to claim 1, Mui teaches a semiconductor processing system (Fig. 4). The Mui system comprises a processing chamber (Fig. 4, item 418) and a system controller comprising a processor (16:22, CPU) and memory storing instructions (16:19-44). The Mui apparatus is capable of and configured to perform a first process (6:22-30) on a substrate (6:5) in the processing chamber and a second process on the substrate (10:14-28). Although it is unclear whether the first process is actually a stabilizing process on a film deposited on a substrate and the second process is actually a densifying process performed on a stabilized film , these are statements of material worked upon that do not patentably distinguish the claimed apparatus from the prior art. Mui is capable and configured to supplying all claimed process conditions that result in the claimed stabilizing and densifying. As to claims 2-8 , these claims represent statements of material worked upon or process conditions such as the pressure (claim 2), gas composition (claims 3 and 6-8), temperature (claims 4 and 8), and composition conversion (claim 5). However, because Mui teaches that the apparatus adjusts gas pressure and gas flow (7:43-46; 9:34-35), valves which control flow of multiple compositions (6:25-30; 10:14-28) (including those recited in the instant claims) , and a device which controls temperature (9:30-35) (which could lead to composition conversion) , the Mui apparatus meets all structural features required by the claim. As to claim 9 , Mui teaches that a remote plasma generator (6:28-29) may be used in the first process or second process. Claims 1 0-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mui (US 8,278,224) in view of Tanabe (US 20030203646) . As to claim 1 0 , Mui teaches a semiconductor processing system (Fig. 4). The Mui system comprises a processing chamber (Fig. 4, item 418) and a system controller comprising a processor (16:22, CPU) and memory storing instructions (16:19-44). The Mui apparatus is capable of and configured to perform a first stabilizing process (6:22-30) on a substrate (6:5) in the processing chamber and a second process on the substrate (10:14-28). Although Mui does not specifically teach that the apparatus is capable of heating to 300C – 1000C, Tanabe teaches that a similar process can be performed at 850C ([0225]). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the Tanabe heating device into Mui because Mui teaches/suggests heating (100C at 9:33) and this is what Tanabe provides within the scope of the Mui teaching/suggestion. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in light of the similar processes performed in Mui and Tanabe. As to claims 11-14 , these claims represent statements of material worked upon or process conditions such as the pressure (claim 11-13) and densification within the film (claim 14). However, Mui teaches that the apparatus adjusts gas pressure and gas flow (7:43-46; 9:34-35) and valves which control flow of multiple compositions (6:25-30; 10:14-28) . Tanabe teaches an apparatus capable of heating to a temperature which would cause the claimed densifying. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mui (US 8,278,224) in view of Tanabe (US 20030203646) , and further in view of Lee (US 5,002,464) . Mui and Tanabe teach the subject matter of claim 10 above under 35 U.S.C. 103. As to claim 1 5 , Mui already teaches a device capable of performing a first process and second process, but is silent to the inner and outer chambers and valve assembly which isolates and provides fluid communication between the chambers. Lee teaches an inner and outer chamber (Fig. 2, items 4 and 6) with a hinged door (Fig. 2, item 14) that acts as a valve assembly to isolate/communicate the inner chamber and outer chamber. Other valves are also present (Fig. 1, item 18). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the inner/outer chamber of Lee into Mui motivated by providing a negligible pressure difference between the two chambers that would promote a leakfree-condition in the high vacuum inner chamber (5:53-65). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (313)446-4826 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 pm . 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 Christina Johnson can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1176 . 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. /MATTHEW J DANIELS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742