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 .
The response of the applicant has been read and given careful consideration. The applicant has been made aware that to meet claims 1-12, not lift off process is required. The 112 rejection is withdrawn. Rejections of the previous action, not repeated below are withdrawn based upon the arguments and amendment of the applicant. Responses to the arguments of the applicant are presented after the first rejection they are directed to. The examiner agrees with the argument that the polyimide underlayer of Suda et al. and Oberlander are not soluble in the resist developer as required by claim 1
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Ockenfuss 20140168761.
Ockenfuss 20140168761 in figure 1F, an interference filter with positive sloped (tapered) edges formed after a lift off deposition process. (see figure 1E). figure 3 shows multiple filters (300) [0051] as does figure 8 [0069].
PNG
media_image1.png
136
346
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
182
342
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
135
352
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
229
370
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The positive slope of the interference filter is clearly illustrated in figures 1F,3 and 8. The lift-off resist had a negative slope as illustrated in figure 1E, the exact dimensions and slope of the sides of the resultant target/filter material will be dependent upon the height of the resist (resist and BARC) layers, the slope of the resist wall, height and degree of resist overhang, the thickness of the deposition, the width of the openings and the position of the substrate relative to the coating/deposition source. None of these are recited in the claims. The applicant has the burden as discussed at MPEP 2113 to establish when a product by process is claimed, that the recited limitations inherently result in artifacts which produce a materially different result than the prior art. The prior art relied upon is evidenced to yield an interference filter with a positive slope/tapers sides which meets the recited structure of the target material of claims 13-15.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Holenarsipur et al. 20120187513.
Holenarsipur et al. 20120187513 in figure 1A shows a light sensor having a plurality of colored interference filters (114) with tapered/sloped sides [0016,0026-0029]
PNG
media_image5.png
611
336
media_image5.png
Greyscale
The positive slope of the interference filter is clearly illustrated in figures 1A, the exact dimensions and slope of the sides of the resultant target/filter material will be dependent upon the height of the resist (resist and BARC) layers, the slope of the resist wall, height and degree of resist overhang, the thickness of the deposition, the width of the openings and the position of the substrate relative to the coating/deposition source. None of these are recited in the claims. The applicant has the burden as discussed at MPEP 2113 to establish when a product by process is claimed, that the recited limitations inherently result in artifacts which produce a materially different result than the prior art. The prior art relied upon is evidenced to yield an interference filter with a positive slope/tapers sides which meets the recited structure of the target material of claims 13-15.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by
Li et al. 5619059.
Li et al. 5619059 teaches with respect to figures 7A-7E, the formation of dielectric/interference color filters (88a,88b,88c) through successive lift off deposition processes. While the photoresists (86a,86b,86c) illustrated are single layers. a multilayer-layer photo-resist structure may be used. For example, a three layer structure having a photo-resist layer, an anti-reflection coating and a PMMA layer, normally result in a better lift-off than a single layer photo-resist (8/65-9/47).
PNG
media_image6.png
594
497
media_image6.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image7.png
418
506
media_image7.png
Greyscale
The positive slope of the interference filter is clearly illustrated in figure 7E. The lift-off resist had a negative slope as illustrated in figure 7C and 7D, The positive slope of the interference filter is clearly illustrated in figures 7E, the exact dimensions and slope of the sides of the resultant target/filter material will be dependent upon the height of the resist (resist and BARC) layers, the slope of the resist wall, height and degree of resist overhang, the thickness of the deposition, the width of the openings and the position of the substrate relative to the coating/deposition source. None of these are recited in the claims. The applicant has the burden as discussed at MPEP 2113 to establish when a product by process is claimed, that the recited limitations inherently result in artifacts which produce a materially different result than the prior art. The prior art relied upon is evidenced to yield an interference filter with a positive slope/tapers sides which meets the recited structure of the target material of claims 13-15.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Tsubokawa JP 2017-130551.
Tsubokawa JP 2017-130551 (machine translation attached) in the first embodiment (illustrated in figure 1), coats a first resist (2) on the substrate (1), followed by a second resist (3) which is not photosensitive and has antireflection properties, followed by the coating of a third resist (4) which can be either a negative or positive resist. The laminate is exposed and developed to form the negative sidewalls illustrated in figure 1d. This can be used as a lift-off structure is evidenced in figure 2a.
PNG
media_image8.png
118
225
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
126
258
media_image9.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image10.png
180
384
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
149
387
media_image11.png
Greyscale
and multiple depositions as evidenced in figure 2c and 2d. [0021-0039].
The multiple depositions meet the limitations of claims 14.
In the response of 10/21/2025, the applicant states that Tsubokawa JP 2017-130551 requires an overall overhang. The examiner points out that layers 2,3 and 4 have a negative profile and therefore meet the claims rejection under this heading. The claims require the BARC layer to have a negative profile, but do not preclude the photoresist or other unrecited layers from having a negative profile.
Also with respect to the device claims, the resist and BARC layers are removed after the liftoff process, leaving the deposited material. The applicant has not evidenced that the device has any artifacts which can be traced to the deposition mask profile.
In the response of 3/10/2026, the applicant argues that the 365 nm (i-line) exposure is not taught. The examiner recognizes this and interprets the scope of coverage sought to embrace any “device” “formed “following a process that comprises forming a lift-off mask structure” and holds that there are no artifacts in the deposited material structure attributable to the process recited, specifically the exposure wavelength and any difference in the refractive indices of the resist and the BARC layer. The applicant bears the burden as discussed in MPEP 2113 of establishing that the process limitations of a product by process claim necessarily results in a materially different product.
In the response of 6/2/2026, the applicant argues that the resist and BARC layers recited in the claim 1 are not used in the process of forming the structure. The positive slope of the interference filter is clearly illustrated in figure 2d. The exact dimensions and slope of the sides of the resultant target/filter material will be dependent upon the height of the resist (resist and BARC) layers, the slope of the resist wall, height and degree of resist overhang, the thickness of the deposition, the width of the openings and the position of the substrate relative to the coating/deposition source. None of these are recited in the claims. The applicant has the burden as discussed at MPEP 2113 to establish when a product by process is claimed, that the recited limitations inherently result in artifacts which produce a materially different result than the prior art. The prior art relied upon is evidenced to yield an interference filter with a positive slope/tapers sides which meets the recited structure of the target material of claims 13-14.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Ghosh 6844215.
Ghosh 6844215 describes with respect to figure 3A, an organic anti-reflection layer 72 is first coated over the SiO.sub.2 layer 14 and over the drain electrodes D12 and D13, for example by spin-coating from a solution of an anti-reflection coating (ARC) material that is commercially available from Brewer Science Corporation of Rolla, Mo., U.S.A. The anti-reflection layer 72 is then baked at a temperature and for a duration selected to provide a selected lateral dissolution rate in a liquid developer. A positive-working photoresist layer 74 is formed over the baked anti-reflection layer 72, for example by spin-coating from a photoresist solution that is commercially available. The photoresist layer 74 is also baked at a selected temperature and for a selected duration. A first-pattern radiation exposure 92 of activating radiation is directed at the photoresist layer 74. This first-pattern exposure extends symmetrically with respect to the drain electrodes D12 and D13 by a selected distance (not identified in the drawings). FIG. 3B depicts the patterned photoresist layer 74d after development of the exposed first pattern in a typical liquid developer such as tetramethyl ammonium hydroxide (TMAH). As the liquid developer has completed removal of the previously exposed pattern in the photoresist layer, the developer dissolves in lateral directions portions of the anti-reflection layer 72 to provide an undercut first pattern of developed anti-reflection layer 72d. The drain electrodes Dl2 and D13 are now revealed and are centered with respect to the patterned photoresist layer 74d and with respect to the patterned anti-reflection layer 72d. FIG. 3C shows schematically the process of forming electrically conductive drain-to-anode connectors DAC112 and DAC113 over respective drain electrodes D12 and D13. A vapor deposition process is used to form metallic drain-to-anode connectors. Particularly useful vapor deposition processes include sputter deposition and electron beam deposition. Such processes provide a relatively wide angular distribution of vapors that can be molecular or atomic vapors. The directions of incidence of such vapors are indicated by arrows at 103. It will be appreciated that the deposition process is carried out within a chamber (not shown) held at reduced pressure. The drain-to-anode connectors DAC112 and DAC113 are formed by a line-of-sight deposition in which lower edges (not identified) of the photoresist pattern 74d cast a shadow with respect to the directions 103 of the vapors with the undercut regions defined by the pattern 72d of the anti-reflection layer. Thus, the drain-to-anode connectors formed over the drain electrodes Dl2 and D13 extend laterally beyond these electrodes and have tapered portions DAC112t and DAC113t, respectively, which are identified in FIG. 3D. These tapered portions are also called tapered side walls (page 7/lines 3-53)
PNG
media_image12.png
308
533
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
202
536
media_image13.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image14.png
265
507
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
209
498
media_image15.png
Greyscale
The depositions in different areas is held to meet the limitation of claim 14.
In the response of 10/21/2025, the applicant argues the undercutting. The position of the examiner is that Ghosh 6844215 teaches a developer soluble BARC overcoated with a positive resist as in the instant application. The exposure will have a Gaussian profile and the radiation is absorbed as it penetrates deeper into the resist, so the top of the positive resist will have a higher exposure then lower in the resist and result in a positive profile and a negative profile in the BARC layer. While the reference shows idealized vertical profiles, these will have sloped sidewalls. In particularly, the BARC layer will have a negative profile as it is soluble in the developer. The examiner agrees that the treatment with the developer continues until an overhang is produced as illustrated in the figure, but there is an intermediate profile formed which meets the claim limitations.
Also with respect to the device claims, the resist and BARC layers are removed after the liftoff process, leaving the deposited material. The applicant has not evidenced that the device has any artifacts which can be traced to the deposition mask profile.
In the response of 3/10/2026, the applicant argues that the 365 nm (i-line) exposure is not taught. The examiner recognizes this and interprets the scope of coverage sought to embrace any “device” “formed “following a process that comprises forming a lift-off mask structure” and holds that there are no artifacts in the deposited material structure attributable to the process recited, specifically the exposure wavelength and any difference in the refractive indices of the resist and the BARC layer. The applicant bears the burden as discussed in MPEP 2113 of establishing that the process limitations of a product by process claim necessarily results in a materially different product.
In the response of 6/2/2026, the applicant argues that the resist and BARC layers recited in the claim 1 are not used in the process of forming the structure. The positive slope of the interference filter is clearly illustrated in figure 3D. The lift-off resist had a negative slope as illustrated in figure 3B and 3C, the exact dimensions and slope of the sides of the resultant target/filter material will be dependent upon the height of the resist (resist and BARC) layers, the slope of the resist wall, height and degree of resist overhang, the thickness of the deposition, the width of the openings and the position of the substrate relative to the coating/deposition source. None of these are recited in the claims. The applicant has the burden as discussed at MPEP 2113 to establish when a product by process is claimed, that the recited limitations inherently result in artifacts which produce a materially different result than the prior art. The prior art relied upon is evidenced to yield an interference filter with a positive slope/tapers sides which meets the recited structure of the target material of claims 13-14.
Claims 1,3-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Nishi et al. JP 08-179509.
Nishi et al. JP 08-179509 (machine translation attached) teaches in example 1, a polyvinyl alcohol/alizarin yellow mixture, which is coated on a silicon wafer and then dried by heating at 180 degrees C for 60 seconds to yield a thickness of 0.2 microns, this is then coated with a positive naphthoquinone diazide resist, which is dried, exposed using an i-line stepper (365 nm), post baked and developed to form a series of 0.5 micron lines separated by 0.5 microns openings [0033-0038]. Example 2 is similar, but uses 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzophenone-5-sulfonic acid as the absorber and the exposure uses a KrF laser (248 nm).
The claims do not recite a material deposition or resist removal step, therefore the lift-off language is considered an intended use.
In the response of 10/21/2025, the applicant argues that the Nishi et al. JP 08-179509 teaches only vertical profile as desirable at [0050]. The reference clearly describes the undercutting in some of the examples with reference to figure 1b. The position of the examiner is that Nishi et al. JP 08-179509 teaches a developer soluble BARC overcoated with a positive resist as in the instant application. The exposure will have a Gaussian profile and the radiation is absorbed as it penetrates deeper into the resist, so the top of the positive resist will have a higher exposure then lower in the resist and result in a positive profile and a negative profile in the BARC layer. In particularly, the BARC layer will have a negative profile as it is soluble in the developer. The examiner does not have a translation of the table. If the applicant has a translation of the table, the examiner would appreciate a copy with the next response.
Also with respect to the device claims, the resist and BARC layers are removed after the liftoff process, leaving the deposited material. The applicant has not evidenced that the device has any artifacts which can be traced to the deposition mask profile.
In the response of 3/10/2026, the applicant argues that the 365 nm (i-line) exposure is not taught. The disagrees, pointing out that example 1 uses and i-line stepper (see instant specification at [0011]. The position of the examiner is that the BARC layer of the examples which is provided to reduce the reflection of light from the substrate is also (refractive) index matched to prevent reflection form the resist/BARC interface.
With respect to claims 13 and 14, there are no artifacts in the deposited material structure attributable to the process recited, specifically the exposure wavelength and any difference in the refractive indices of the resist and the BARC layer. On this basis, the examiner holds that the deposited material using the light off in examples 1 and 2 of Nishi et al. JP 08-179509 meet the claims. The applicant bears the burden as discussed in MPEP 2113 of establishing that the process limitations of a product by process claim necessarily results in a materially different product.
In the response of 6/2/2026, the applicant argues that the refractive indices of the antireflection layer and the resist are not disclosed in the reference. The examiner points out that the resist is a naphthoquinone diazide resist, which is a positive resist taught in the prepub of the instant specification at [0050], which uses a polymeric binder as does the antireflection layer. As these are similar, polymeric materials, their refractive indices are inherently within 5% of each other.
Claims 1,3-6,8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama JP 2005070154.
Nakayama JP 2005070154 in example 1 coats a silicon wafer with an antireflection composition including polyhydroxystyrene, cyclohexane dimethanol divinyl ether, an acid generator tri-n-decyl amine, 2,2’,4,4’-tetrahydroxybenzophenone, XR-=104 (surfactant in methyl amyl ketone and baked at 150 degrees C for 180 seconds to form a 0.5 micron (500 nm) thick BARC coating. This was overcoated with an i-line photoresist (TDMR-AR87) to form a 1 micron resist layer. This was exposed using an i-line stepper (365 nm), post exposure baked at 110 degrees C for 60 seconds and developed in TMAH to yield a positive tone pattern [0086-0089]. Example 2-5 are similar [0090-0101]. A material that generates an acid component is selected depending on the exposure wavelength of the process for forming the lift-off resist pattern. Photolithography using i-line (365 nm) as a light source is currently most widely used, and therefore a material with high acid generation efficiency for i-line exposure is preferable from the viewpoint of manufacturing cost. [0053]
In the response of 3/10/2026, the applicant argues that the 365 nm (i-line) exposure is not taught. The disagrees, pointing out that examples 1-4 [0089,0100] use an i-line stepper (see instant specification at [0011]. The position of the examiner is that the BARC layer of the examples which is provided to reduce the reflection of light from the substrate is also (refractive) index matched to prevent reflection form the resist/BARC interface. The claims rejected under this heading merely require the formation of the photoresist/BARC structure. The recited process steps do not include deposition of materials in the openings.
In the response of 6/2/2026, the applicant argues that the refractive indices of the antireflection layer and the resist are not disclosed in the reference. The examiner points out that the resist is a positive resist taught in the prepub of the instant specification at [0050] and is based upon a novolak or polyhydroxystyrene binder [0019], the latter being the same polymer as used in the BARC layer. As these are similar, polymeric materials, their refractive indices are inherently within 5% of each other.
Claim 1,3-6,8 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakayama JP 2005070154.
Nakayama JP 2005070154 does not exemplify embodiments where the antireflection layer is less than 500 nm (0.5 microns)
.
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the examples of Nakayama JP 2005070154 by reducing the thickness of the absorbing DBARC layer to 0.1 microns (100 nm) based upon the disclosure of this being within the preferred range at [0012].
The response above is relied upon here without further comment.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Suda et al. JP 2005166258.
Suda et al. JP 2005166258 (machine translation attached) teaches with respect to figures11A-B, On the other hand, in this embodiment, after the step of FIG. 11A, the anisotropic dry etching step of FIG. 9E is omitted, and directly corresponds to the isotropic dry etching step of FIG. Step (B) is executed. However, in this embodiment, the resist film R2, and therefore the resist pattern R2A, is formed to a thickness of 460 nm with an i-line Si-containing positive resist (trade name STPI-050) commercially available from Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd. The antireflection film 27 is formed to a thickness of 160 nm using an ARC-XL20 film (commercial surface) of Brewer Science. However, the ARC-XL20 film is a polyimide film and is insoluble in a resist developer such as a TMAH solution after baking. Referring to FIG. 11B, in this embodiment, dry etching is performed in an ICP type dry etching apparatus as in the previous embodiment, but CHF .sub.3 gas and oxygen gas are used as etching gases in the processing chamber. Are introduced at a flow rate of 5 SCCM and 25 SCCM, respectively, and a high frequency of 13.56 MHz is supplied to the high frequency coil with a power of 50 W under a pressure of 1 Pa, so that fluorine radical F * in addition to oxygen radical O * is introduced into the processing chamber. And CF radical CF * are formed. At this time, in this embodiment, no high frequency power is applied to the substrate holder, and therefore, isotropic etching of the antireflection film 27 by the various radicals occurs in the processing chamber. By performing such isotropic etching, for example, for 7 minutes, the antireflection film 27 is patterned using the resist pattern R2A as a mask, and an organic polymer film pattern 27A is formed immediately below the resist patterning R2A. At the same time, the resist pattern R2A is formed. The formed organic polymer film pattern is also subjected to lateral etching, and its size is reduced. When a Si-containing resist is used as the resist film R2 and the ARC-XL20 film is used as the antireflection film 27, the etching rate ratio between the resist pattern R2A and the organic polymer film 27A is about 1: 2. Thus, it was confirmed that when the resist pattern R2A is subjected to slimming, an undercut 27B is simultaneously generated in the organic polymer film 27A. For example, in this embodiment, when the resist pattern R2A has a width of 110 nm, undercuts 27B each having a length of about 30 nm are formed on both sides of the organic polymer film pattern 27A. As a result, the organic film pattern 27A is formed. It is patterned to have a width of about 50 nm. Accordingly, the overlay type magnetic sensor of this embodiment has a core width of about 50 nm. In this embodiment, when the depth of the undercut 27B is insufficient on both sides of the organic polymer film pattern 27A, after the slimming process of FIG. 11B, only the organic polymer film pattern 27A is dried with oxygen. A further undercut depth can be ensured by further lateral etching in the etching process. This additional etching step is not limited to a plasma treatment process using oxygen gas, but is performed by ozone treatment, for example, treatment in an ozone atmosphere formed by irradiating excimer light having a wavelength of 172 nm in an oxygen atmosphere. It is also possible. It is also possible to immerse this in ozone water. In this embodiment, the dry etching process of FIG. 11B is not limited to the case of using CHF .sub.3 gas and oxygen gas, but other fluorocarbon gases such as CF .sub.4 , CO, CO .sub.2 , NO It is also possible to use other oxygen-containing gases. Further, nitrogen gas or Ar gas can be mixed with these etching gases. As described in the previous embodiment, the isotropic etching process in FIG. 11B can also be performed using ozone treatment. For example, oxygen gas is allowed to flow through the processing chamber under no-bias conditions, and ozone is generated by irradiating excimer light having a wavelength of 172 nm in this state, and the resist pattern R2A and the antireflection film 27A are formed by the generated ozone. Isotropic dry etching is also possible. Further, the ozone treatment may be a wet process. For example, a substrate on which a lift-off pattern is formed may be immersed in ozone water. In this case, more isotropic etching is possible [0070-0079].
Figures 8-10 show the same process where a KrF resist was used and a Ta/Au/Ta metal film (33a-33c) laminate was formed. And then the patterned antireflection layer (27a), patterned resist (R2A) and overlaying material are removed [0048-0069, particularly 0053,0058]
PNG
media_image16.png
316
470
media_image16.png
Greyscale
The position of the examiner is that the embodiment described with respect to figures 11A and 11B which uses a 365 nm i-line silicon containing resist coated on a BARC layer meets the claims as no material deposition in the openings in the resist/BARC layer pattern is recited.
In response to the arguments of 6/2/2026, the examiner points out that the edges of the deposited materials are tapered. As discussed above, there are a number of different dimensions and profiles which define the final shape of the material deposited in the lift off process, but these are not recited in the claims. The applicant has the burden under MPEP 2113 of evidencing that artifacts form the process inherently are found in the article produced. The examiner agrees with the argument that the polyimide underlayer is not soluble in the resist developer as required by claim 1.
Claims 1,3-6 and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Chen et al. 6586560.
Chen et al. 6586560 in example 1 formed a BARC underlayer of a terpolymer, which is coated to form a 432 nm coating and dried at 165 degrees C. A positive resist (PF181 A7) was coated and dried to the thickness of 0.6 microns., this was exposed using patterned/masked light from a Hg-Xenon source emitting light across the 330-450 nm range and then developed and the undercut profile evaluated (col. 8/line 20-col 9/line 14). Examples 2-13 are similar and evaluate the resist/BARC layer undercut using the same process as example 1.
In the response of 6/2/2026, the applicant argues that the refractive indices of the antireflection layer and the resist are not disclosed in the reference. The examiner points out that the resist is a includes a polymeric binder as does the antireflection layer. As these are similar, polymeric materials, their refractive indices are inherently within 5% of each other.
Claims 1,3,5,6,8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Yun et al. 20110189608
Yun et al. 20110189608 teaches with respect to figure 10-11, a the coating of a photosensitive bottom antireflection coating (1040) on a substrate which is to be etched and baked/dried. This is then coated with an i-line (365 nm) resist (1060) which is dried. And exposed using i-line radiation through a photomask, post baked and developed. The resist and the BARC can both be negative tone or both be positive tone [0109-0120].
In the response of 6/2/2026, the applicant argues that the refractive indices of the antireflection layer and the resist are not disclosed in the reference. The examiner points out that the resist is a includes a polymeric binder as does the antireflection layer. As these are similar, polymeric materials, their refractive indices are inherently within 5% of each other.
Claims 1,3-6, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)as being fully anticipated by Nishi et al. JP 08-179509, Chen et al. 6586560, or Nakayama JP 2005070154, as evidenced by Subramanian et al. 6475905 or alternatively under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishi et al. JP 08-179509, Chen et al. 6586560 or Nakayama JP 2005070154, in view of Subramanian et al. 6475905. (modified to remove Suda)
Subramanian et al. 6475905 teaches that organic anti-reflective materials work to prevent reflectivity by matching the refractive index of the anti-reflective material with that of the resist. If there is no difference in refractive index, then there will be no reflection at the resist-BARC interface. These organic films are also designed to absorb light, so the light that penetrates the anti-reflective material gets absorbed before it reaches the next interface, where it could get reflected again (or, if reflected, absorbed before it reaches the resist) (col. 5/lines 24-32).
The position of the examiner is that the BARC and photoresists used in the examples of Nishi et al. JP 08-179509, Chen et al. 6586560, Suda et al. JP 2005166258 or Nakayama JP 2005070154 would be matched (no difference in them) to prevent reflections form the BARC/resist interface as this is old and well known in the art as evidenced by Subramanian et al. 6475905.
If this position is not upheld, the examiner holds that it would have been obvious to modify the resist or BARC compositions of used in the examples of Nishi et al. JP 08-179509, Chen et al. 6586560 or Nakayama JP 2005070154 so that the refractive indices are matched (no difference in them) to prevent reflections form the BARC/resist interface as this is old and well known in the art as evidenced by Subramanian et al. 6475905.
In the response of 6/2/2026, the applicant argues that the refractive indices of the resist and BARC layers are not taught. The examiner has cited Subramanian et al. 6475905, who teaches that there should be not difference between the refractive indices of the resist and underlying BARC/antiflection layer so that there is no reflection back into the resist resulting in inadvertent exposure. As the purpose of adding a BARC/antiflection layer between the resist and the underlying substrate is to prevent reflections (anti-reflection layer/coating), it is reasonable to presume that resist and the BARC/antiflection layer would be chosen to match (zero difference) their refractive indices to minimize reflection from the interface between them. Subramanian et al. 6475905 supports this being a known consideration in choosing the resist and BARC antifelection layer which was either taken into account in the cited examples of Nishi et al. JP 08-179509, Chen et al. 6586560 or Nakayama JP 2005070154 or if this position is not upheld, it would have been obvious to modify the examples to minimize the refractive index difference. The effect of index mismatch is clearly appreciated in the art prior to the applicant’s filing. The rejection stands.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Edlinger et al. 20020196568 teaches with respect to figure 1, lift off deposition to form colored interference filters
PNG
media_image17.png
130
402
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Martin J Angebranndt whose telephone number is (571)272-1378. The examiner can normally be reached 7-3:30 pm EST.
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, Ching-Yu (Coris) Fung can be reached at 571-270-5713. 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.
MARTIN J. ANGEBRANNDT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1737
/MARTIN J ANGEBRANNDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1737 June 23, 2026
Prosecution Insights