DETAILED ACTION Election/Restrictions Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-19 in the reply filed on 03/02/2026 is acknowledged. Order of Claims The claim order is now set, but it is noted for the applicants that per MPEP 608.01(m): Many of the difficulties encountered in the prosecution of patent applications after final rejection may be alleviated if each applicant includes, at the time of filing or no later than the first reply, claims varying from the broadest to which he or she believes he or she is entitled to the most detailed that he or she is willing to accept. Claim 1 is clearly narrower than claim 11. Claim Objections Claim s 14 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: - claim 14 appears to be missing “are” between “locations” and “located”. - claim 17 appears to be missing “more of” between “or” and “a”. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claims 1-3, 7, 11-14, and 1 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Hammond (2009/0221149) . Regarding clam 11 , Hammond teaches a chamber lid comprising: - a dielectric material having a disk shape, integrating a lid portion and gas delivery nozzle into a single structure – see Figs. 1 and 5 and [0023] wherein the depiction includes a nozzle 196 within lid 120, - in regard to the lid comprising a plurality of gas flow paths that each traverse a region of the chamber lid from one surface to another surface – see wherein the nozzle has an input on the top portion and outlets on the bottom portion (196c/r) to distribute gases to different parts of the chamber. In regard to etch gases, the use of any particular gas is intended use of the apparatus, it has been held that claims directed to apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. In re Danly , 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). Wherein the prior art teachings include that gas is flowed through the lid and nozzle, the system is capable of supplying an etch gas. In any case, the art teaches the application of etch gases [0006]. Regarding claim 12 , as described by Hammond, an antenna is coupled to the lid and it would be understood that the dielectric material allows the plasma to transfer though the lid into the chamber [0023] . Regarding claim s 13 , 14, 2 and 3 , the nozzle is a cylindrical protrusion in the region with at least two outputs on the sidewall of the cylinder as depicted. Regarding claim s 1 7 and 7 , the lid comprises ceramic [0026-29]. Regarding claim 1 , the semiconductor system of Hammond further comprises: - a chamber body with walls, see 122/130, - a substate support, see 150, - a plasma source, see 112/170/118, and - a chamber lid as described above. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 15 , 16, and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond (2009/0221149) in view of Rozenson (2015/0371826). The teachings of Hammond are described above, including a cylindrical portion in the lid to distribute gases, but, while teachings multiple outer group of gas paths (196r) does not explicitly teach multiple inner gas paths (196c). Rozenson teaches an equivalent (etch) system including a dielectric plate that comprises the lid and a nozzle to supply gases into a chamber, see Fig. 1 and particularly [0034-37]. Rozenson teaches that the nozzle that is integrated into the chamber lid comprises multiple inner and outer gas flow paths, see nozzle 114 with outer paths 118 and inner paths 116 , further per Fig. 7, there are multiple such ou t lets . It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the nozzle of Rozenson and/or modify the nozzle of Hammond as per the teachings of Rozenson as an alternative manner of dispersing the gases in the chamber. In combining the teachings, the nozzle of Hammond meets the require-ment of the inner and outer “groups” of gas paths as claimed – wherein the groups are respectively configured to distribute gases to the central region and the edge. It is further noted that Hammond in any case teaches “at least one port 196c” and therefore is not limiting and in any case/further as per MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. a duplication of parts is obvious without a showing of criticality. Regarding claim s 16 , 5 and 6 , as per Rozenson the outer gas paths are angled. In regard to the radius of the output location of the gas path, the prior art teaches that the radius is greater than the radius of the input location (as per claims 16 and 5). However, to form the outlets such that the radius is less than the input location would have been a small change in the shape and/or dimension of the part. As per MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. and B. the selection/change of size and/or shape is obvious without a showing of criticality. In this case, to alter the angle of the outlet portion of the outer group of nozzles would have been obvious based on the change of the size (radius) or shape of the outlet and in either case would have still resulted in a spread of the gases as taught by the prior art. Claim s 1 8 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond (2009/0221149) in view of Kim (KR2012/0079962). The teachings of Hammond are described above , t he teachings include the chamber lid, but do not include the plurality of concentric rings as claimed. Kim, however, teaches an analogous apparatus including a gas nozzle incorporated into a chamber, lid, see Fig. 3 particularly. The lid includes multiple injection units which comprise multip l e (concentric) rings of injection holes, see 210 and 220 and p7 halfway – p8 halfway. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the concentric rings of injection holes as taught by Kim in the apparatus of Hammond as a method of further distributing gas from the lid. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond (2009/0221149). The teachings of Hammond are described above, Hammond does not exemplify wherein the number of outlets is greater than the number of inlets – but such a modi-fication is a routine rearrangement of parts. As per MPEP 2144.04 IV. C. to rearrange parts is obvious without a showing of criticality. In this case it would be obvious to rearrange the flow paths to include for example multiple outlets from an inlet. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 10 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The te a chings of Long (10,431,434) include an etch system including a number of coils in holes in a lid, but the teachings do not explicitly include metal helical coils – furthermore, there are no teachings of embedded threaded plastic inserts within threaded holes. While “o ne of ordinary skill can use his or her ordinary skill, creativity, and common sense to make the necessary adjustments and further modifications to result in a properly functioning device ” . See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007 ), there is no reason to arrange the claimed coils in the system of Hammond in the claimed manner based on the teachings of Long or any other known teaching. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is (571)270-5825 and fax is (571)270-6825 . If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Michael Cleveland , can be reached on 571-272- 1418 . The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov . Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /JOSEPH A MILLER, JR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1712