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 .
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, 7, 9, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Itaya et al. (JAPAN 2004-217956 A).
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 1:
Regarding claim 1, Itaya et al. teach utilizing a heat shield structure (5) for a substrate support (16) in a substrate processing system, the heat shield structure (5) comprising: an outer shield (5) configured to surround a stem (17) of the substrate support (16), wherein the outer shield (5) is further configured to, define an inner volume between the outer shield (5) and the stem (17) of the substrate support (16), and define an inner volume between the outer shield (5) and a lower surface of the substrate support (16); and an edge guard extending upward from the outer shield, wherein the edge guard is configured to, surround an outer perimeter of the substrate support, and define a gap between the edge guard and the substrate support. (See Abstract; Fig. 1)
PNG
media_image1.png
766
564
media_image1.png
Greyscale
DEPENDENT CLAIM 7:
Regarding claim 7, Itaya et al. teaches wherein the outer shield is not in direct contact with either one of the stem and the lower surface of the substrate support. (See Fig. 1)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 9:
Regarding claim 9, Itaya et al. teach wherein the substrate support corresponds to a pedestal configured to support a substrate during at least one of chemical vapor deposition and atomic layer deposition. (See Abstract; Fig. 1)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 10:
Regarding claim 10, Itaya et al. teach the system further comprising a gas source (22) configured to flow a purge gas into the inner volume. (See Abstract; Fig. 1)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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, 5, 6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itaya et al. (JAPAN 2004-217956 A) in view of Horio et al. (JP 2013-131555A).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 2:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising at least one heat shield plate configured to be arranged below the substrate support in the inner volume between the outer shield and the lower surface of the substrate support.
Regarding claim 2, Horio et al. suggest at least one heat shield plate configured to be arranged below the substrate support in the inner volume between the outer shield and the lower surface of the substrate support. (See Abstract; Figs. 1, 4)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 3:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the at least one heat shield plate includes a plurality of heat shield plates spaced apart within the inner volume between the outer shield and the lower surface of the substrate support.
Regarding claim 3, Horio et al. teach wherein the at least one heat shield plate includes a plurality of heat shield plates spaced apart within the inner volume between the outer shield and the lower surface of the substrate support. (See Abstract; Figs. 1, 4)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 5:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising an inner shield arranged between the outer shield and the stem.
Regarding clam 5, Horio et al. teach further comprising an inner shield arranged between the outer shield and the stem. (See Abstract; Figs. 1, 4)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 6:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the inner shield extends downward from the at least one heat shield plate and defines a second inner volume between the inner shield and the stem.
Regarding claim 6, Horio et al. teach wherein the inner shield extends downward from the at least one heat shield plate and defines a second inner volume between the inner shield and the stem. (See Fig. 4)
DEPENDENT CLAIM 8:
The difference not yet discussed is wherein the heat shield plate is not in direct contact with any one of the lower surface of the substrate support, the stem of the substrate support, and the outer shield.
Regarding claim 8, Horio et al. teach wherein the heat shield plate is not in direct contact with any one of the lower surface of the substrate support, the stem of the substrate support, and the outer shield. (See Abstract; Figs. 1, 4)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Horio et al. is that it allows for suppressing generations of deposits. (See Abstract)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Itaya et al. by utilizing the features of Horio et al. because it allows for suppressing generations of deposits.
Claim(s) 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Itaya et al. in view of Horio et al. as applied to claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 above, and further in view of Emerson et al. (U.S. Pat. 7,645,342).
DEPENDENT CLAIM 4:
The difference not yet discussed is further comprising a plurality of insulator pins arranged between adjacent ones of the heat shield plates.
Regarding claim 4, Emerson et al. teach utilizing a plurality of insulator pins to separate heat shield plates. (Fig. 4; Column 7 lines 53-60)
The motivation for utilizing the features of Emerson et al. is that it allows for avoiding conducting heat among the shields. (Column 7 lines 53-60)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have utilized the features of Emerson et al. is that it allows for avoiding conducting heat among the shields.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s filing of a terminal disclaimer has overcome the obviousness type double patenting rejection.
Applicant correcting priority overcomes the prior rejections.
Newly cited references are applied to address the claims.
This action will be made NON-FINAL based on the newly cited references.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODNEY GLENN MCDONALD whose telephone number is (571)272-1340. The examiner can normally be reached Hoteling: M-Th every Fri off.
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, James Lin can be reached at 571-272-8902. 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.
/RODNEY G MCDONALD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794
RM
May 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights