DETAILED ACTION Election /Restrictions Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121: I. Claims 1- 15 , drawn to method, classified in C23C16/52. II. Claim 16-20 , drawn to control system, classified in H01L21/67259. The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons: Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the process can be performed manually. Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all these 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, and - the inventions require a different field of search (e.g. different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries). Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a n 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 with Mr. Chad Dougher t y on February 22, 2026 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. 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 1 -3, 10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable ove r Samir (2013/0019803) in view of Cook (2003/0049372). Samir teaches a method of substrate processing, comprising: - flowing gases onto a substrate in a chamber, such as per Figs. 3A-C wherein: - a first gas flow is in a first flow level of a process chamber, see 304, Fig. 3C, - flowing a second gas flow into the second flow level of the chamber simultaneously with the first level, see particularly [0037-38] wherein two gases are flowed at the same time in the different “levels” (based on the injector configuration). The teachings include heating the substrate [0042], but Samir does not teach a plurality of the first and second flow levels, exemplifying a single level. Cook, however , teaches , that is useful to treat multiple substrates at one time in order to increase production, see Fig. 3 vs Figs. 5 and 6, and [0007, 73]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to modify the system and method of Samir to treat multiple wafers at one time as per Cook such would increase production. In modifying the process, one would apply the first and second gases to multiple flow levels as taught per the Fig. 3C embodiment of Samir, thereby flowing the first and second gases respectively into the first and second sets of flow levels, wherein, once duplicated, the flow levels are alternating with respect to each other. It is further noted that the modification is also a routine duplication of parts – see MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. In this case, the duplication of the parts serves the purpose as noted by Cook in increasing throughput within one system. Regarding claim 2 , Per Samir, t he first gas and the second gas are defined as a first and second process gas [0037]. The teachings include that such gases are applied with an (inert) carrier gas [0051], therefore the use of the claimed gases in the first and/or second positions and flow levels is obvious. In regard to the moving of moving the substrate from a first position to a second position, the teachings include rotating the substrate [0059]. Regarding claim 3 , per the movement of the substrate from the first to the second position, one would understand that a layer is formed by the first process and then a second layer is formed by the second process after the substrate is rotated. In regard to the second composition different than the first, Samir makes changing the gases and therefore the combinations obvious, see [0029]. Regarding claim 10 , the teachings as described above include the moving to a second position, flowing an inert gas (at least with a reactive gas) [0051[ and changing the gas (to deposit a different layer) as per Samir [0029] . Regarding claim 1 2 , the teachings of Cook as noted include multiple substrates. The teachings of Samir as described include the repetition of any steps of applying the gases and the gases are repeated simultaneously as described. The movement to a second position is addressed above per claim 2 ( per Samir [0059] ). T he use of reactive and inert gases is described [005 1 ] as above. Regarding claim 13 , all elements are met as addressed per claim 12 above – the subset of the second set of flow levels is met by the art including the flowing to all of the entire set (i.e. the claim does not require that not of the set are utilized). Regarding claim 14 , the teachings of above include flowing the first gases, but then further as noted Samir makes changing the gases and therefore the combinations obvious, see [0029] , thereby encompassing the third and fourth gas flow. In regard to the additional flow levels, the teachings include two flow levels, the modification would require two additional flow levels. As per MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. a duplication of parts is obvious without a showing of criticality. Wherein Samir teaches multiple flow levels, to include more flow levels would have been obvious. Without further definition of the gases, the use for the same purpose is further obvious based on Samir’s teachings. Regarding claim 15 , further to claim 14, the teachings of Cook above include multiple substrates; the teachings of Samir as noted above include the reactive and inert gases [0051] and the rotation to a second position [0059]. Claims 4 -9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable ove r Samir (2013/0019803) and Cook (2003/0049372) in view of Dietze (2001/00 1 5168). Regarding claim 4 , as per Cook, a plurality of substrates are taught. In regard to the different sets of flow levels , the teachings do not include that different flow levels correspond to first and second sides of the substates. Dietze, however, teaches that it is useful to form layers on the front and back side of a substrate at the same time by simultaneously flowing gases in both regions [0039]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to provide gases to both sides of the substrate as taught by Dietze as it would allow films to be deposited on each as per Dietze. Regarding claim 5 , per the combined art, there is a different film formed on the front and the back, Dietze [0039]. Regarding claim 6 , as taught per Samir per claim 2, t he teachings include that such gases are applied with an (inert) carrier gas [0051], therefore the use of the claimed gases in the first and/or second positions and flow levels is obvious. In regard to the moving of moving the substrate from a first position to a second position, the teachings include rotating the substrate [0059]. Regarding claim 7 , per the combined art, there is a first gas flow including a reactive gas and a second gas flow that includes an inert gas, as per above the second reactive gas is flowed to the second sides of the substrates. All gases as per Samir are flowed with an inert gas as above [0051] . Regarding claim s 8 and 9 , i n regard to the moving of moving the substrate from a first position to a second position, the teachings include rotating the substrate [0059] and Samir further teaches changing the gases, see [0029 ]. Further to claim 9, Samir teach es that such gases are applied with an (inert) carrier gas [0051] . Regarding claim 11 , the teachings of Cook as noted include multiple substrates. The first and second flow levels are drawn to different sides of the substrate as further per Dietze to claim 4 (while claim 11 does not depend from 4, teachings of Dietze are applied in the manner as above and will not be repeated to teach the flow of gases to both the front and back sides) . The first and second positions are described per Samir as per [0059] and the use of reactive and inert gases is described [0051] as above. Claim Interpretation It is noted that there are aspects of the structure that are not claimed in the method claims. For example the first and second positions are met by the rotation of the substrate. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kato (2010/0068383) teaches a system that includes up and down movement to deposit different layers on substrates (see Fig. 2). 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