DETAILED ACTION Election /Restrictions Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121: I. Claims 1- 6 , drawn to apparatus , classified in H10P72/7264 . II. Claims 7 , drawn to apparatus, classified in H10P72/7266 . The inventions are distinct, each from the other because of the following reasons: Inventions 1 and 2 are related as process of making and product made. The inventions are distinct if either or both of the following can be shown: (1) that the process as claimed can be used to make another and materially different product or (2) that the product as claimed can be made by another and materially different process (MPEP § 806.05(f)). In the instant case the plug is formable by another method such as by using a non-organic material. 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 . Stephen Burr on March 5, 2026 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of Group 1 , claims 1 -6 . Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 7 is are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention. Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i). 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. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) FILLIN "Insert either \“(a)(1)\” or \“(a)(2)\” or both. If paragraph (a)(2) of 35 U.S.C. 102 is applicable, use form paragraph 7.15.01.aia, 7.15.02.aia or 7.15.03.aia where applicable." \d "[ 2 ]" as being anticipated by Morgan ( WO2022020639 ) . Morgan teaches a plug that includes a plug body see body portion per Fig. 9 and a gas flow path that includes a plurality of linter flows that intersect each other, 233-236 as per [0082] and as depicted in Fig. 9, as per the citation the plug includes a number of fluidic inlets. The opening portions are not limited and while the claim requires an orientation as no other parts are claimed the claimed upper and lower surfaces are intended use of the apparatus (how it is applied determines the direction). I t 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) . Furthermore the use as a plug is likewise the intended use and for example the showerhead of Morgan is understood to be able to be inserted into an opening in a process system (and act as a plug in the opening). 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 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yoshikawa (2020/0294838). Yoshikawa teaches a member for a semiconductor apparatus comprising: - a ceramic plate with an upper surface having a wafer placement portion – see ceramic chuck 30 [0029] and Fig. 1A, - a plug, see 60 (screw member) that is installed in a hole (as depicted), the allowing of gas to pass through is an intended use, but in any case the prior art plug includes a hole and would allow the same (see intended use citation above), - in regard to the plug having a gas flow path including a plurality of linear flow paths combined such that they intersect each other – the teachings include, as per Fig. 4, that the plug is a porous device. The porous device as presented includes a plurality of passageways , based on the pattern of the passageways, the flow paths intersect each other. In regard to the flow paths including a plurality of linear flow paths, the office takes the alternative positions: - initially, the claims do not limit the linear flow paths to being completely through the plug, therefore it is understood as depicted and described that the porous plug includes such linear portions as claimed and the claimed is anticipated; in the alternative, - as per MPEP 2144.04 IV. A. and B. the size and shape of an object is not patentable without a showing of patentability. In this case, one would not expect a significant difference in the effect based on the porous structure of the prior art and the ‘linear flow paths’ of the instant claim, particularly wherein the porous part would be reasonably understood to include some porous portions. The term “linear flow paths” is further interpreted broadly particularly wherein as per independent claims it includes such paths in different directions and oblique. The opening portions are as presented in Fig. 1 which is a more generic plug but understood to have openings in the same manner. Regarding claim 3 , per both arguments as per above, there are flow paths in all different directions as required by the claim. Regarding claim 4 , the same arguments as per above are made in regard to the oblique direction of gas flow paths in both anticipation and obviousness. Regarding claim 5 , the screw body includes dense ceramics (wherein dense is broadly interpreted) and per Fig. 4 includes no opening portion on the side. Regarding claim 6 , the plug is taught as per claim 1 above. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshikawa (2020/0294838). Regarding claim 2, the teachings of Yoshikawa are silent on the length of the gas flow path, but as per above the selection of size is obvious without a showing of criticality, therefore the selection of 0.5 mm or less is obvious. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Shiraishi (2020/0286769) is analgous art teaching a plug in a support. 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