DETAILED ACTION 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 -4 , 15, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakajima (2015/0211113). Nakajima teaches a gas injector to deliver a process gas, the injector comprising an injector t ube extending along a first axis, see Fig. 5 and related text, wherein tube includes 51a and the tube is constructed to receive the process gas (exemplified as TDMAH) and deliver (to a chamber) along a second axis perpendicular to the first, see the perpendicular axis resulting from openings 52, and further comprising a cooling fluid conduit, see the conduit 33 /34 that surrounds the injector tube. In regard to the purpose of “constructed to cool”, the limitation is intended use. 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). In this case, the limitations related to “to a process chamber” as well as in in regard to cooling are met by the prior art apparatus, but the intended use is met by the capable of the prior art apparatus of doing the same function. Regarding claim 2 , as depicted, the injector tube has a plurality of injection holes, see holes 52. Regarding claim 3 , as depicted, there is a cooling fluid supply conduit and return conduit (34). Regarding claim 4 , the diameter of the conduits is depicted as the same. Regarding claim 15 , as depicted, the side of the injector tube with the holes uncovered along the first axis as claimed. Regarding claims 19 and 20 , as depicted by Nakajima, there is a semiconductor apparatus comprising a chamber and the injector tube of claim 1, wherein the apparatus is a vertical furnace (see Figs. 1-2). 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 4-6, 8, 9, and 1 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable ove r Nakajima. Regarding claim 4 , while the Office takes the initial position that the depictions and description generally include that the fluid supply conduit diameter is the same as that of the fluid return conduit, the Office takes the alternative position that in any case the selection of size and shape is not patentable without a showing of criticality, see MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. and B. In this case the prior art does not limit the size and shape of the cooling supply and return conduits and also the specification does not support any criticality of either being larger or the same size. Regarding claim 5 , as argued above over claim 4, the selection of size is obvious without a showing of criticality. In regard to each the cooling supply and return being on either side of the injector – the injector of Nakajima includes a common area for both supply and return on either side of the injector – the further arrangement such that each are in conduits on either side is a mere rearrangement of the parts, see MPEP VI. C. In this case, the system already has return and supply on each side surrounding the injector and requires separate conduits as claimed. Regarding claim 6 , the shape as depicted in Fig. 5 includes an inverted U-shape which surrounds the injector. The inlets and outlet are both connected as claimed per the figure wherein all elements are fluidly connected. Regarding claim 8 , as depicted, each the cooling fluid supply conduit and the cooling fluid return conduit is at least partially in thermal contact with the injector tube. Regarding claim 9 , there is no teaching of the conduit being insulated, but examiner takes Official Notice that to insulate a heat transfer or temperature controlled element (i.e. conduit) would have been obvious for the purpose of controlling heat loss. Regarding claim 16 , as per MPEP 2144.04 VI. B. duplication of parts is obvious without a showing of criticality. In this case one would have multiple gas tubes within, for example, one single chamber, one single apparatus or a plurality of apparatuses. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima in view of Silva (2015/0007771). Nakajima does not teach the cooling supply and return conduits being a material with different thermal conductivity, Silva teaches it is useful to control the thermal conductivity of chamber parts for the purpose of allowing or preventing heat [0018] . It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to vary the properties of the cooling fluid pipe in the apparatus of Nakajima as Silva teaches that it is useful to vary the thermal conductivity of parts that are used to control cooling as one would desire to promote conductivity where actively cooling and prevent conductivity after heat exchange has occurred. Claim 1 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima in view of Verbaas (2021/0156029) Regarding claim 17 , all elements of the claim are met as above, the process chamber is intended use as argued above. The tube extends along a first axis with the same configuration to deliver gas to a process chamber – the tube extends along a first axis – and the outlets are arranged to inject the gas along the first axis from the outlet (holes) as depicted. The cooling tube is presented is not positioned in the manner claimed with the with the return and supply coaxial to the injector tube, but as per MPEP 2144.04 VI. C. the rearrangement of parts is obvious without a showing of criticality. In this case it would be obvious to arrange the different tubes (i.e. injector and inlet / outlet) in any manner that effectively managed heat as described. Further, Verbaas teaches that it is operable to modify the arrangement of cooling tubes with respect to gas supply (i.e. injector) tubes, see particularly [0027-28]. It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to arrange the injector tube and cooling channels of Nakajima as claimed as a matter of effectively managing heat control which is the desired result. Instant teachings do not include any criticality of such an arrangement. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakajima in view of DuBois (2005/0098107). The gas injector of Nakajima does not include a heat shield, but t he teachings of DuBois include that it is known to use a heat shield in a process system including a nozzle in order to control heat flux between the system and elongate tubes [0133] . It would have been obvious at the effective date of the invention to apply the heat shield of DuBois to the gas injector of Nakajima to control heat flux. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 10-14 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 gas injector of Nakajima is the closed to the instant claims but the teachings do not specifically include wherein the claimed variation of dimensions combined with the claimed arrangement of coaxial alignment and the supply conduit between the injector tube and the return conduit. Nishimoto (2011/00 1 1341) teaches controlling the size of the conduits of a cooling path but is not sufficient to teach all of the claimed elements. As per MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. a change of size is obvious without a showing of criticality and per 2144.04 VI. C. a rearrangement of parts is obvious but the combination of all elements is not envisioned by Nakajima and any known teachings. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JOSEPH A MILLER, JR whose number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5825 and fax is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (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