DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Election/Restrictions Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-13) in the reply filed on 12/05/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 15 should have been listed with Group I the apparatus claims and not Group II, the method claims. Examiner agrees with this point and claim 15 is currently under examination with claims 1-13 as part of Group I . There are no arguments directed to the restriction between groups I and II as apparatus and method groupings and therefore any traversal to the restriction between groups I and II is not found persuasive. Applicant provided no arguments regarding the technical feature not being a special technical feature (see p3 of restriction mailed 11/05/2025) and the rejections provided herein below further demonstrate that claim 1 does not contain a special technical feature. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims 16-17 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 12/05/2025. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitations of claim 2-3 and 9-13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Note that only Fig 1-4 were filed as drawings. Applicant is kindly requested to file Fig 5-10 which were presented in the foreign priority document DE 102021114868.5 and PCT/EP2022/064846. Filing Fig 5-10 will provide support for the claimed limitations cited above. The instant specification as originally filed refers to Fig 5-10 and, as indicated above, the drawings were in the priority documents and therefore will not represent new matter if filed with the same drawings as were in the priority documents. No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Interpretation In claim 1, the limitations of line 16-18 “ so that an immersion depth (T) of the respective end portions (4') into the first section (5') of each of the first through openings (5) is smaller than a depth (P) of the first section (5') ” is interpreted as clarifying and being part of option (ii) of “is spaced apart therefrom” of line 15-16 (note option (i) is “abuts against a floor of the first section (5’)”) because this interpretation is consistent with the instant specification as filed and because logically the limitation could not modify option (i) of “abuts against a floor of the first section (5’)”. Applicant may wish to consider whether line spacing and breaks could be included to ensure the claim is read clearly each time such as by presenting the final paragraph of the claim as: wherein the diameter of the second section (5") is smaller than the outer diameter of the respective end portions (4'), which either (i) abuts against a floor of the first section (5') or (ii) is spaced apart therefrom so that an immersion depth (T) of the respective end portions (4') into the first section (5') of each of the first through openings (5) is smaller than a depth (P) of the first section (5'). The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “ cooling device ” in claim 7 interpreted as a cooling volume (12) [0017] , and equivalents thereof . “ heating device ” in claim 15 interpreted as an infrared heater, an RF-heater, or a resistance heater [0016], and equivalents thereof Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 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(s) 1, 4, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2000-144432 of Horie et al., hereinafter Horie (citing machine translation provided herewith) . Regarding claim 1, Horie teaches a gas-inlet element (Fig 2, 5-7) for a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) reactor (Fig 1 and [0001], [0014]) , the gas-inlet element comprising: a gas outlet plate (80 Fig 2, 5-6) ; a shield plate arrangement (60 Fig 2, 5-6) extending parallel to the gas outlet plate (Fig 2, 5-6) and comprising first through openings (78 Fig 2, 5-6) ; a first gas distribution volume (72 Fig 5-6 [0020] ) facing a first side of the gas outlet plate (Fig 5-6, volume 72 faces the upper side of gas outlet plate 80) ; and first pipes (88 Fig 5-6) having respective end portions protruding from a second (lower) side of the gas outlet plate (plate 80 Fig 5-6) opposite to the first side (Fig 5-6) , and extending into the first through openings (openings 78 Fig 5-6) of the shield plate arrangement (Fig 5-6) [0019] , wherein the first through openings each have a first section ( see version (i) or (ii) of annotated Fig 5 or version (iii) or (iv) of annotated Fig 6 below ) and a second section (see version (i) or (ii) of annotated Fig 5 or version (iii) or (iv) of annotated Fig 6 below ) , the first section disposed between the gas outlet plate and the second section (see version (i) or (ii) of annotated Fig 5 or version (iii) or (iv) of annotated Fig 6 below) , wherein a diameter of the first section is larger than an outer diameter of the respective end portions ( see annotated Fig 5-6 below , note for Fig 6 this is inclusive of the widest diameter ) , and is larger than a diameter of the second section ( see annotated Fig 5-6) , and wherein the diameter of the second section is smaller than the outer diameter of the respective end portions ( see annotated Fig 5-6 , note that for Fig 6 this is inclusive of the narrowest diameter) , which either (i) abuts against a floor of the first section (see annotated version (i) of Fig 5 below)) or (ii) is spaced apart therefrom (see annotated version (ii) of Fig 5 or version (iii) or version (iv) of Fig 6) so that an immersion depth (T) of the respective end portions into the first section of each of the first through openings is smaller than a depth (P) of the first section (see annotated version (ii) of Fig 5 or version (iii) or version (iv) of Fig 6) . Regarding claim 4, Horie teaches a first broadside surface of the shield plate arrangement (upper surface of 60 Fig 5-6) facing the gas outlet plate (plate 80 Fig 5-6) is separated from a broadside surface of the gas outlet plate (lower surface of plate 80 Fig 5-6) by a distance (D) (see Fig 5-6, note this distance is the height of space 70) . Regarding claim 15, Horie teaches a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) reactor (Fig 1) , comprising: a susceptor (18 Fig 1 [0014]) ; a heating device (heater 56 Fig 1 [0016]) for heating the susceptor [0016] ; the gas-inlet element of claim 1 (see citations of Horie regarding claim 1 above) ; an d a process chamber (10 Fig 1) located between the shield plate arrangement and the susceptor (Fig 1) , wherein the susceptor carries substrates that are coated in the process chamber [0016], [0014] . 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. Claim(s) 2-3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horie in view of US Patent Application Publication 2011/0212624 of Hudson, hereinafter Hudson , and US Patent 6,006,694 of DeOrnellas et al., hereinafter DeOrnellas . Regarding claim 2, Horie a gas-inlet element (Fig 2, 5-7) for a chemical vapor deposition (CVD) reactor (Fig 1 and [0001], [0014]) , the gas-inlet element comprising: a gas outlet plate (80 Fig 2, 5-6) ; a first gas distribution volume (72 Fig 5-6 [0020]) facing a first side of the gas outlet plate (Fig 5-6, volume 72 faces the upper side of gas outlet plate 80) ; first pipes (88 Fig 5-6) having respective end portions protruding from a second (lower) side of the gas outlet plate (plate 80 Fig 5-6); and a shield plate arrangement (60 Fig 2, 5-6) that extends parallel to the gas outlet plate (Fig 2, 5-6) and faces a second side of the gas outlet plate opposite to the first side (Fig 2, 5-6, faces the lower side of the gas outlet plate which is opposite the first or upper side), the shield plate arrangement with at least one shield plate (plate 60 Fig 2, 5-6) and first through openings (78 Fig 2, 5-6) . Horie fails to teach the shield plate arrangement (10, 11) has a first section with a first thermal conductivity and an adjoining second section with a second thermal conductivity that is higher than the first thermal conductivity, and wherein the first section is disposed between the gas outlet plate and the second section. In the same field of endeavor of a gas inlet element (abstract, Fig 1), Hudson teaches the lowermost plate of the gas inlet structure (112 and 114) includes a first section with a first thermal conductivity (114 Fig 1 “insulating layer”) and an adjoining second section (112 Fig 1 “third conductive layer”) with a second thermal conductivity that is higher than the first thermal conductivity (note that by nature of layer 114 being “insulating” the thermal conductivity would be expected to be lower than the “conductive layer”) , and wherein the first section (114 Fig 1) is disposed between the gas outlet plate (plates above) and the second section (112 Fig 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Horie to include this stacked plate arrangement as the lowest plate of the gas inlet (plate 60 Fig 2, 5-6) because Hudson teaches that it allows for directing plasma [0038] , [0030], [0050] and because Hudson teaches the materials are suitable for the lowest layers of the gas inlet. If applicant argues that electrical conductivity is not a proxy for thermal conductivity, it is noted that in the same field of endeavor of a gas inlet, DeOrnellas teaches quartz is an insulating material (col 4, ln 20-25, window 38 is made of quartz col 3, ln 65-67) and teaches it may be contacted with a conductive graphite material (col 6, ln 50-57, conductive shield 50). The instant specification and claim 3 identify quartz as the lower thermal conductivity material and graphite as the higher thermal conductivity material. Regarding claim 3, the combination remains as applied to claim 2 above. The combination as applied to claim 2 teaches the first section of the shield plate arrangement consists of quartz, and the second section of the shield plate arrangement consists of graphite or coated graphite . Further Horie teaches first pipes (88 Fig 5-6) having respective end portions protruding from a second (lower) side of the gas outlet plate (plate 80 Fig 5-6) opposite to the first side (Fig 5-6) , and extending into the first through openings (openings 78 Fig 5-6) of the shield plate arrangement (Fig 5-6) [0019]. Regarding claim 13, Horie remains as applied to claim 1 above and the combination remains as applied to the analogous limitations of claim 2 above. In the combination as applied, teaches the shield plate includes first and second broadside surfaces running parallel (upper and lower surfaces of 60 of Horie Fig 5-6), the first through openings (78 of Horie Fig 5-6) are uniformly distributed [0019] over both surfaces and extend between both surfaces (Fig 5-6 of Horie ). The combination as applied to the analogous limitations of claim 2 render obvious the upper portion of 68, which includes the upper broadside surface having the first thermal conductivity and the lower portion of 68 which includes the lower broadside surface having the second, higher thermal conductivity. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horie in view of US Patent Application Publication 2021/0035780 of Oh et al., hereinafter Oh. Regarding claim 5, Horie remains as applied to claim 4 above. Horie fails to teach the distance (D) is smaller than the immersion depth (T) because Horie is silent as to these values or their relative values. Initially it is noted that this appears to represent routine optimization of the spacing of the plates and the gas outlet pipe length. Further, in the same field of endeavor of gas inlet elements (abstract, Fig 1-4), Oh teaches the vertical space (D2 Fig 2-4) between a gas outlet plate (3 Fig 1-4) and the shield plate (4 Fig 1-4) [0054], which is referred to as distance (D) in the claims, is adjustable (Fig 3-4) [0036], [0058-0060], and may be set to be larger than the immersion depth (T) of the end portions (6 Fig 3-4, note Fig 16 demonstrates structure 6 as gas inlets). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Horie to include the distance (D) and immersion depth (T) may be adjusted such that the distance (D) is smaller than the immersion depth (T) because Oh teaches these values are adjustable and teaches adjusting them to control where plasma may be formed [0058-0060]. Claim(s) 6, 9, and 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horie in view of US Patent Application Publication 2012/0067971 of Byun et al., hereinafter Byun. Regarding claim 6, Horie fails to teach a second gas distribution volume that is flow connected with second pipes, whose openings facing away from the second gas distribution volume are directed toward second through openings of the shield plate arrangement because Horie only teaches one gas distribution volume. In the same field of endeavor of a gas inlet structure (abstract), Byun teaches a second gas distribution volume (volume in 110 Fig 1) that is flow connected with second pipes (111 Fig 1) , whose openings facing away from the second gas distribution volume (Fig 1) are directed toward second through openings of the shield plate arrangement (plate of 140 Fig 1). Byun teaches this in addition to a first gas distribution volume (120 Fig 1) with first pipes (121 Fig 1) that are directed toward first openings of the shield plate arrangement (plate 140 Fig 1). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Horie to include the second gas distribution volume (volume in 110 Fig 1) that is flow connected with second pipes (111 Fig 1) , whose openings facing away from the second gas distribution volume (Fig 1) are directed toward second through openings of the shield plate arrangement (plate of 140 Fig 1) as taught by Byun because Byun teaches that this arrangement allows for supplying two reactive gases to the chamber [0010] this increases the number and type of layers that may be deposited using the apparatus. Regarding claim 9, the combination remains as applied to claim 6 above. Byun as applied in the combination teaches respective end portions of the second pipes each protrude into the second through openings (Fig 1). Horie as applied to claim 1 teaches the arrangement of end portions protruding into the first section and that the second section have a smaller diameter than the outer diameter of the end potions. In the combination in which Horie is modified to have two gas delivery, the positioning of the end portions in the through holes and shape of the through holes in the shield plate would be the same as for the first gas (see Horie Fig 5-6) because Byun demonstrates the positioning of end portions and shape of the through holes in the shield plate (140 Fig 1 of Byun) is the same for both gases (Fig 1). Regarding claim 11, the combination remains as applied to claim 6 above. Also note that the analysis remains as applied to claim 6 above regarding the first and second through openings having the same shape. Horie teaches the first through openings expand like a funnel (i) toward a first broadside surface of the shield plate arrangement facing the gas outlet plate ( see first section in version (iv) of annotated Fig 6 above ) or (ii) toward a second broadside surface of the shield plate arrangement (facing away from the gas outlet plate ( see second section in version (iii) or (iv) of annotated Fig 6 above ). Regarding claim 12, the combination remains as applied to claim 9 above. Horie teaches a cylindrical area of the first section of the first through opening adjoins a cylindrical area of the second section of the first through opening with a first step (see annotated Fig 5 version (i) or (ii) above). Note that in the combination as applied to claim 9, the second through openings have the same shape as the first through openings and therefore condition (ii) of the claim – a cylindrical area of the first section of the second through opening adjoins a cylindrical area of the second section of the second through opening with a second step – is also met by the applied combination. Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horie . Regarding claim 7, Horie remains as applied to claim 1 above. Horie teaches a volume (28a Fig 5-6) for circulating heat exchange medi um [0015] and indicates a cooling water circulation unit may be used [0015]. Therefore It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have volume 28a as the cooling volume. Regarding for cooling the gas outlet plate, having the cooling volume in close proximity without a thermal insulator between would be expected to provide some cooling of the gas outlet plate, particularly of the first pipes which may be considered a structure of the gas outlet plate. Therefore Horie renders obvious a cooling device for cooling the gas outlet plate . Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horie in view of US Patent Application Publication 2015/0007771 of Silva et al., hereinafter Silva . Regarding claim 6, Horie fails to teach a second gas distribution volume that is flow connected with second pipes, whose openings facing away from the second gas distribution volume are directed toward second through openings of the shield plate arrangement because Horie only teaches one gas distribution volume. In the same field of endeavor of a gas inlet structure (abstract), Silva teaches a second gas distribution volume (volume in 6 Fig 3) that is flow connected with second pipes (9 Fig 3) , whose openings facing away from the second gas distribution volume (Fig 3-4) are directed toward second through openings (18 Fig 3-4) of the shield plate arrangement (plate of 14 Fig 3-4). Silva teaches this in addition to a first gas distribution volume (5 Fig 3) with first pipes (8 Fig 3) that are directed toward first openings (17 Fig 3-4) of the shield plate arrangement (plate 14 Fig 3-4). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Horie to include the second gas distribution volume (volume in 6 Fig 3) that is flow connected with second pipes (9 Fig 3) , whose openings facing away from the second gas distribution volume (Fig 3-4) are directed toward second through openings (18 Fig 3-4) of the shield plate arrangement (plate of 14 Fig 3-4) as taught by Silva because Silva teaches that this arrangement allows for supplying two reactive gases to the chamber [00 42 ] and this increases the number and type of layers that may be deposited using the apparatus. Regarding claim 7, Horie remains as applied to claim 1 above and as applied to claim 7 above. This rejection is provided additionally and/or alternatively to the obviousness rejection over Horie in the event applicant can persuasively argue that the arrangement of Horie would not provide cooling of the gas outlet plate. Silva teaches a cooling volume (7 Fig 3) that is adjacent to a gas outlet plate (plate 11 Fig 3) such that it provides cooling of the gas outlet plate [0043]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Horie to include a cooling device (volume) adjacent to a gas outlet plate because Silva teaches this provides temperature control of the gas inlet [0043]. Regarding claim 8, the combination remains as applied to the analogous limitations of claim 7 above. Silva teaches the cooling volume (7 Fig 3) adjoins the gas outlet plate (11) and contains a coolant [0018]. Horie has taught water is a known coolant [0015] and teaches other liquid heat exchanging media [0015]. Therefore the cooling volume containing a cooling liquid is rendered obvious. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horie in view of Byun as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Oh. Regarding claim 10, the combination remains as applied to claim 6 above. Horie teaches the shield plate arrangement has a central area (Fig 2, 5-6). Horie fails to teach the respective end portions of the first pipes plunge more deeply or less deeply into the first through openings and/or the respective end portions of the second pipes plunge more deeply or less deeply into the second through openings in the central area of the shield plate arrangement than in an edge area of the shield plate arrangement surrounding the central area. In the same field of endeavor of a gas inlet (abstract), Oh teaches the end portions of the gas supply pipes (6 Fig 16) plunge more deeply into the first through openings (13 Fig 3) in the central area of the shield plate (CA Fig 13) arrangement than in an edge area of the shield plate arrangement (SA Fig 13) surrounding the central area (SA Fig 13) [0074-0075]. Oh also teaches the peripheral area may extend more deeply [0076]. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Horie to include the central area has first or second pipes that extend more or less than the surrounding area because Oh teaches this is an alternative arrangement to all pipes protruding the same distance and teaches it allows for having different center and edge effects [0073-0074] (note that this is often used to improve uniformity or provide a specifically desired layer thickness variation on the substrate). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2013/0118405 teaches first and second gas outlets having a stepped shape (Fig 2A) and the openings having a uniform distribution (Fig 2B-D). US 2007/0272154 teaches first and second gas outlets with the first gas outlets having gas pipes extending into them (Fig 3). US 2009/0095221 teaches stepped gas holes in a lower plate (254 Fig 2A) with gas pipes extending into the stepped gas holes (pipes 147 Fig 2A). US 2020 /0360943 teaches stepped gas holes in a lower plate (plate 202 Fig 2-3) with gas pipes extending partially into the stepped gas holes (Fig 2-3 see 209 extending from plate 201). US 2007/0163440 teaches gas outlet pipes (125b Fig 2) extending into holes of a lower plate (130 Fig 2). US 2007/0068798 teaches a conductive lower layer (38 Fig 2) below an insulating upper plate (48 Fig 2). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MARGARET D KLUNK whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5513 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon - Fri 9:30-5:30 . 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 Parviz Hassanzadeh can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1435 . 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. /MARGARET KLUNK/ Examiner, Art Unit 1716 /KEATH T CHEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1716