DETAILED ACTION Claim Interpretation Each of claims 1, 8, and 19 uses the phrase “a plurality of radially directed outlet lines connected to the hub reservoir”. The “radially directed” seems to suggest/ require that the hub reservoir is round/cylindrical since a n outlet line could not be “radially” connected to a polygon which has no radius. However, it is noted that the instant specification describes Fig. 3A as including a “hub reservoir 410”, and is a nearly solid octagon shape which (as shown in Fig. 3B) does not appear to contain any identifiable “reservoir”. In light of this figure, the “hub reservoir” is interpreted as the outer shape of the reservoir instead of the interior shape since it is unclear how Fig. 3B shows any internal hub “reservoir” other than the vertical channel 434, which is not the hub reservoir 410 . 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 -4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma (US 20240234167) in view of DeDontney (US 20120289057). As to claim 1 , Sharma teaches a gas hub manifold assembly (Fig. 6) for delivering a gas to a multi-station wafer processing system (Fig. 6, item 630). Sharma teaches a hub reservoir (Fig. 6, item 610) fluidically connected to and between a gas source (Fig. 6, item 615) and a plurality of wafer processing stations (Fig. 6, item 630). Sharma teaches an inlet (Fig. 7A, item 622) connected to the hub reservoir (Fig. 7A, item 610) and configured for receiving the gas into an internal reservoir volume of the hub reservoir (Fig. 7A 604) and a plurality radially directed outlet lines (Fig. 7A, item 608; Fig. 6, item 625) connected to the hub reservoir ( Fig. 6, item 61 0) and configured for delivering the gas to the plurality of wafer processing stations ( Fig. 6, item 6 30) . Comparing instant Fig. 3A and 3C to Sharma’s Fig. 7B , Sharma’s internal reservoir volume of the hub reservoir lacks rotational symmetry (except at 360 degrees) as claimed because Sharma’s inlet (Fig. 7B 622) is depicted as shorter because of recessed portion (Fig. 7B, item 616) . Sharma is silent to the “inlet connected to the hub reservoir…in an axial direction”. DeDontney teaches a similar device to that of Sharma which includes a gas inlet (Fig. 8B, item 865) on a side face, but which distributes gas in an axial direction through an intersecting passage (Fig. 8B, item 845) to distribution passages (Fig. 8B, item 830). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the DeDontney inlet configuration into Sharma because: (a) Sharma teaches/suggests providing an inlet extending through a side surface, and this is what DeDontney teaches, with a reasonable expectation of success being evident from the similarity of the Sharma and DeDontney references, or alternatively, (b) one would have recognized the DeDontney axial entry from a side surface inlet to be an obvious interchangeable alternative for the side surface inlet directly leading to the distribution passages, and one could have substituted one configuration for the other in the way already shown by DeDontney . As to claims 2-4 , although Sharma appears to depict four -fold (an integer) rotational symmetry (Fig. 7B, items 608) , any number of outlets would have been obvious based on the number of process stations. Claim s 8 -10 , 19-21, and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox (US 20130157466) in view of Han (US 20130206066 ). As to claim 8 , Fox teaches a gas hub manifold assembly (Fig. 4) for delivering a gas to a multi-station wafer processing system (Fig. 4, items 3262) . Fox teaches the manifold assembly comprising a hub reservoir (Fig. 4, mixing vessel item 3264) fluidically connected to and between a gas source (Fig. 4, nitrogen, argon, etc.) and a plurality of wafer processing stations (Fig. 4, item 3262). Fox teaches an inlet (Fig. 4, arrows into 3264) connected to the hub reservoir (Fig. 4, item 3264) for receiving gas into an internal reservoir volume (inherent in “vessel” in [0090]). Fox is interpreted to provide a plurality of radially directed outlet lines connected to the hub reservoir (Fig. 4, item 3264) and configured for delivering the gas to the wafer processing stations (Fig. 4, item 3264) surrounding the hub reservoir. Fox is silent to an inlet in an axial direction, wherein the inlet is configured to introduce the gas at a vertical level below the uppermost surface. Han shows that it is conventional to introduce gas into a vessel axially through a gas inlet (Fig. 1, item 81 and 82; Fig. 2) which is below the vertical level in the uppermost surface of the vessel . It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this feature from Han into Fox because this is a simple substitution of one known element/gas inlet for another which obtains a predictable result. Fox provides a base device which differed from the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above. However, Han shows the substituted component (axial inlet to a vessel below the uppermost surface of the vessel ) and its function (introducing gas) were known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the Fox gas inlet configuration with that of Han to provide the predictable result of introducing gas into a vessel. As to claims 9 and 10 , although Fox depicts two outlet lines (Fig. 4, leading from 3264 to 3262), in light of the fact that there are four wafer processing stations (Fig. 4, item 3262), one would have found it obvious to provide four equally angularly spaced outlet lines. As to claim 19, Fox teaches a gas hub manifold assembly (Fig. 4) for delivering a gas to a multi-station wafer processing system (Fig. 4, items 3262) . Fox teaches the manifold assembly compris es a hub reservoir (Fig. 4, mixing vessel item 3264) fluidically connected to and between a gas source (Fig. 4, nitrogen, argon, etc.) and a plurality of wafer processing stations (Fig. 4, item 3262). Fox is interpreted to provide a plurality of radially directed outlet lines connected to the hub reservoir (Fig. 4, item 3264) and configured for delivering the gas to the wafer processing stations (Fig. 4, item 3264) surrounding the hub reservoir. Fox is silent to (i) an internal reservoir volume of at least 10,000 cubic mm, (ii) the inlet connected to the hub reservoir in an axial direction. Regarding (i), although Fox does not teach the specific volume, this is an obvious change in the size of a prior art mixing vessel. Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of the relative dimensions (in this case the overall volume) and the claimed invention would not perform differently from the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see cases cited in MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). Regarding (ii), Han shows that it is conventional to introduce gas into a vessel axially through a gas inlet (Fig. 1, item 81 and 8 0 ; Fig. 2). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this feature from Han into Fox because this is a simple substitution of one known element/gas inlet for another which obtains a predictable result. Fox provides a base device which differed from the claimed invention for the reasons discussed above. However, Han shows the substituted component (axial inlet to a vessel) and its function (introducing gas) were known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the Fox gas inlet configuration with that of Han to provide the predictable result of introducing gas into a vessel. As to claim 20 , w here the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of the relative dimensions (in this case the size of wafers) and the claimed invention would not perform differently from the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device (see cases cited in MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). As to claim s 21 and 26 , these claims recite a capability or intended use which Fox is capable of performing or fulfilling. Particularly for claim 21, note that the claim recites “up to”, and any value below that would meet the claimed capability. As to claims 23, 24, and 25 , although Fox depicts two evenly spaced outlet lines (Fig. 4, leading from 3264 to 3262), in light of the fact that there are four wafer processing stations (Fig. 4, item 3262), one would have also found it obvious to provide four equally angularly spaced outlet lines. As to claim 2 7 , in the combination of Han with Fox described above, one would have found it obvious to provide the Han inlet ( Fig. 1, item 81 and 80 ) as depicted in Han at a lower vertical level of a vessel below the uppermost surface (Fig. 1, item 70 or 12) of the Han vessel. Claim s 18 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fox (US 20130157466) in view of Han (US 20130206066) , and further in view of Baerg (US 3,854,443) . Fox and Han teach the subject matter of claim 8 and 21 above under 35 U.S.C. 103. As to claim 1 8 , Fox does not specifically teach an outlet line location relative to a horizontal line vertically above a reservoir base of the internal reservoir volume. Baerg teaches a gas manifold ( Fig. 3, item 25) with multiple levels and outlets in each level (Fig. 3, item 56). Baerg depicts that the outlets (Fig. 3, item 56) are disposed at a horizontal plane above a reservoir base of the gas manifold internal reservoir volume). It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate this feature into the modified Fox device motivated by providing optimum flow in the gas manifold. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in light of the structural similarity between Fox and Baerg even if the cross section of the base Fox device is not specifically shown. As to claim 30 , Fox does not specifically teach an outlet line location relative to a horizontal line vertically above a reservoir base of the internal reservoir volume wherein a vertical distance between the plane and the reservoir base is 1-10 mm . Baerg teaches a gas manifold (Fig. 3, item 25) with multiple levels and outlets in each level (Fig. 3, item 56). Baerg depicts that the outlets (Fig. 3, item 56) are disposed at a horizontal plane above a reservoir base of the gas manifold internal reservoir volume). While Baerg does not specifically teach a distance, the vertical placement of the outlets in the Baerg gas manifold would have been an obvious matter of design choice and there is no evidence that the particular placement claimed achieves any unexpected result. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate this feature into the modified Fox device motivated by providing optimum flow in the gas manifold. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success in light of the structural similarity between Fox and Baerg even if the cross section of the base Fox device is not specifically shown. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5-7 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the internal reservoir volume of the hub reservoir having a circular base and a cylindrical sidewall having a non-uniform height is not taught by or obvious over the prior art. Claims 6 and 7 are indicated allowable by dependence on claim 5. Claims 11 -17 and 28-29 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: For claim 11, the internal reservoir volume of the hub reservoir having a circular base and a cylindrical sidewall having a non-uniform height is not taught by or obvious over the prior art. For claim 12, the elongated trench and its configuration are not taught by or obvious over the prior art . For similar reasons, the L-shape horizontal line portion and vertical line portion connected in the claimed manner is not taught by or obvious over the prior art. Claim 29 is indicated as allowable by dependence on claim 28. Claim 22 is 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The combination of the rotational symmetry in combination with the internal reservoir volume already in claim 19 is not taught by or obvious over the prior art. 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