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 The 112 is withdrawn. Rejections of the previous action, not repeated below are withdrawn based upon the arguments and amendment of the applicant.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 following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
It is not clear in the claim if the “device” requires the lift-off mask pattern or if it embraces just the deposited material or electronic/semiconductor devices which include the deposited material. If the “device” is the photoresist/BARC structure, then the claims should recite this. The examiner points out that resist/BARC laminates are also used in etching processes and that without a step requiring the deposition of materials, the claims do not distinguish themselves from processes using resist/BARC laminates and then etching rather than a deposition followed by removal of the resist/BARC structurer and any overlying material of a lift off process.
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 13-14 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_image1.png
118
225
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
126
258
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
180
384
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
149
387
media_image4.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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Niihori JP 2006018017.
Niihori JP 2006018017 (machine translation attached) teaches with respect to figure 1, a silicon wafer substrate (a), coated with a magnetic material (2), an alkali soluble BARC material, such as polymethyl glutarimide which is spin coated and dried and a positive resist, which is prebaked, exposed using KrF (248 nm) the desired mask pattern, post exposure baked and developed (together with the uncovered portions and adjacent covered portions of the BARC layer) which yields the undercut structure in figure 1b. [0041-0045].
PNG
media_image5.png
165
215
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
199
170
media_image6.png
Greyscale
In example 1, the standing waves were suppressed and a positive resist was used. The exact composition of the BARC layer is not clearly described, but is likely polymethyl glutarimide dyed with 9-hydroxymethylanthracene.
This rejection could be overcome by requiring the deposition of a target material” and the dissolution of the resist (and BARC) layer.
In the response of 10/21/2025, the applicant argues that the Niihori JP 2006018017 teaches only the reverse tapered (positive slope) of the photoresist. The examiner points out that the BARC layer is described as soluble in the alkali developer and the same developer is shown to yield a positive slope in the photoresist. The position of the examiner is that while figure 1a shows severe undercutting, the initial BARC profile will inherently have a negative profile. The instant application states “the BARC is soluble in the developer solution, particularly in an isotropic manner. Therein, the chemistry of the BARC is not influenced or altered by the electromagnetic radiation during the exposure.” As the BARC layer of the reference is also soluble , the examiner holds that at some time in the development, the BARC layer will have a negative profile. 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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Yamaguchi et al. JP 2002367877.
Yamaguchi et al. JP 2002367877 in embodiment 1 describes a silicon substrate coated with a BARC layer from Brewster scientific which is dried by heating at 173 degrees C for 60 seconds to yield thickness of 200 nm, which is then overcoated with a positive resist, which is then exposed using ultraviolet and developed and the BARC layer is subsequently dissolved by the over-developing to yield a useful overhang profile [0017-0025]. In second embodiment, a lithium niobate substrate is provided with a pattern as in example 1, electrode patterns of Ti/Al bilayers (11) are formed [0026-0031].
PNG
media_image7.png
212
545
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
450
221
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
233
178
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The depositions in different areas (11) and the successive deposition are held to meet the limitation of claim 14.
In the response of 10/21/2025, the applicant argues that the Yamaguchi et al. JP 2002367877 teaches only vertical profile. The position of the examiner is that Yamaguchi et al. JP 2002367877 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.
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_image10.png
308
533
media_image10.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image11.png
202
536
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
265
507
media_image12.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image13.png
209
498
media_image13.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.
Claims 1,3-6 and 8-14 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.
Claims 1,3-6,8 and 10-14 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’-tetrahydroxybenmzophenone, 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.
Claim 1,3-6,8 and 8-14 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].
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. 5619059, in view of Hanrahan 5360698 and Neisser et al. 20030129547.
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_image14.png
594
497
media_image14.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image15.png
418
506
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Hanrahan 5360698 teaches a substrate (10), a positive resist (12) and second positive resist (22) which is patterned using other wavelengths than deep UV , the resist 22 is exposed, and developed, then used as a mask for exposing resist (12) to DUV which results in an overhang structure , which is used in a lift-off process for depositing dielectric filters (28). In examples 1, the DUV sensitive resist was coated upon a silicon wafer, and dried to a thickness of 3.2 microns, this was then overcoated with the second resist, which was dried, exposed at 350-450 nm and developed. The result was then flood exposed to DUV (220-350 nm) and developed. Example 2 is similar. Example 3 extends the process of example 2 by depositing dielectric filter stacks of SiO2/TiO2
PNG
media_image16.png
630
394
media_image16.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image17.png
611
334
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Neisser et al. 20030129547 in example 4 coats a BARC solution of a co-polymer of benzyl methacrylate/methacrylic acid ester of mevalonic lactone together with triphenyl sulfonium triflate (photoacid generator), tridecyl amine, fluororad FC-4430 (surfactant) and a solvent on a silicon wafer to a thickness of 30 nm, which was then dried/baked at 110 degrees C for 60 seconds and overcoated with a positive (AZ) resist, which was exposed using 193 nm, post exposure baked and developed [0060,0065-0067]. Examples 5 and 6 were similar [0068- 0074]. Example 8 coats a BARC solution of a co-polymer of 9-anthracene methacrylate monomer/methacrylic acid ester of mevalonic lactone together with tripheny! sulfonium triflate (photoacid generator), tridecyl amine, fluororad FC-4430 (surfactant) and a solvent on a silicon wafer to a thickness of 30 nm, which was then dried/baked at 110 degrees C for 60 seconds and overcoated with a positive (AZ) resist, which was exposed using 193 nm, post exposure baked and developed [0076-0078]. The thickness of the BARC layer is optimized for minimum reflectivity and acts as a interference device [003 1-0032,0038]. The use with positive or negative resists is disclosed [0034-0035]. The BARC can also include a strong absorber for the absorber wavelength, such as anthracene [0039]. The BARC can be developer soluble, but non- Organic Developer Soluble aaa = photosensitive [0057-0058]. Sos . The developer soluble B.A.R.C.s are typically materials that are slightly soluble in the developer and dissolve isotropically as soon as the resist above them dissolves during the development process. The logical consequence of this is that there is significant undercutting of the resist as the B.A.R.C. dissolves away underneath it, and there is a sloped B.A.R.C. edge profile. The undercutting and sloped profile promote lift-off of small resist features and limits the resolution of such B.A.R.C.s. Thus currently available developer soluble B.A.R.C.s do not have the needed high resolution (e.g., in the sub-quarter micron range) and do not meet the needs of processes such as shallow implants, described below. Therefore, all high resolution B.A.R.C.s that are currently used are developer insoluble. Thus, generally inorganic B.A.R.C.s are of the developer insoluble class, as are most of the high resolution organic B.A.R.C.s. The reason for this has been set forth above--i.e., due to the problem of avoiding footing or undercuts with what is essentially an isotropic wet etch process of the B.A.R.C. Even if the B.A.R.C. dissolution rate is exactly matched to that of the resist in the correct exposure state for imagewise printing, an undercut-free and foot free, vertical profile is achieved at best only for an infinitesimally short moment. While this can be accepted for larger features, this behavior leads to a low process latitude for high resolution imaging (see FIG. 1) [0006]. The sidewalls of the resist are near vertical [0052
Li et al. 5619059 does not exemplify the claimed process including the use of a developable BARC layer.
It would have been obvious to modify the process of Li et al. 5619059 by providing a developable BARC layer such as those taught by Neisser et al. 20030129547 which would allow an overhang structure to be formed similar to that taught in Hanrahan 5360698, but without the need for a second exposure or second development steps with a reasonable expectation of forming a useful deposited filter with improved lift-off compared to single layer resists as discussed in Li et al. 5619059 at (8/65-9/47).
In response to the arguments of 10/21/2025, 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.
With respect to claims 13-15, 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 examiner 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.
Claims 1,3-6 and 8-14 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_image18.png
316
470
media_image18.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.
Claims 1,3-6,8,9 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being fully anticipated by Oberlander et al. 20030215736
Oberlander et al. 20030215736 forms BARC coating composition at [0072-0079]. In lithographic example 3, The BARC coating of example 1 is coated on a silicon wafer and dried at 90 degrees C to form coatings which are 30 nm (300 angstroms thick). A 1.0 micron thick negative resist is then coated upon these. This is exposed using a photomask with a line/space patten using 365 nm radiation, post baked and developed (to remove the unexposed areas) [0082]. Lithographic examples 4 and 5 are similar, but use other BARC coating formulations [0082-0083].
Claims 1,3-6 and 8-14 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.
Claims 1,3,5,6,8 and 10-14 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].
Claims 1,3-6,8-14 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, Suda et al. JP 2005166258 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, Suda et al. JP 2005166258 or Nakayama JP 2005070154, in view of Subramanian et al. 6475905.
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, Suda et al. JP 2005166258 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Guo CN 103137441 (machine translation attached) teaches with respect to figures 2A-E, that to make elongate isolated line pattern of substrate I, the slender line width of the isolated line is 0.3-10 microns, and the length is more than 9 microns, an aspect ratio of greater than 30. Preferably, the elongate line width of the isolated line is 0.5 microns, and the length is 20 microns As shown in FIG. 2 (A), on the substrate I to developable bottom antireflective material 2 of spin coating and baking; the developable bottom antireflective material 2 cannot be dissolved in the step (3), the photoresist 3 used in the solvent, but can be dissolved in common of tetramethyl ammonium hydroxide (TMAH) developing liquid and common photoresist stripping liquid, the developable bottom antireflective material 2 is capable of reducing 1-1ine (365 nm). KrF (248 nm) and ArF (193 nm) wavelength reflection in any one of light material; the thickness of the developable bottom antireflective material spin coating and baking after coating is 0.2-30 microns; As shown in FIG. 2 (B), spin coating and baking on developable bottom antireflective material 2 for the photoresist 3 of the photoresist 3 is a positive or negative photoresist, the exposure wavelength is 436 nanometer (G-1ine) or 365 nm (1-1ine) or 248 nm (KrF) or 193 nm (ArF); As shown in FIG. 2 (C), removing the exposed portion by exposing and developing the photoresist 3 and developable bottom antireflective material 2. forming a resist narrow T-like shape is wide at 3 and developable bottom antireflective material 2 the combination pattern after one-time exposure with the mask, the upper photoresist 3 exposing area and lower layer developable bottom antireflective material 2 can be dissolved in developing liquid, so the developing process of this step, due to the lateral development of the developing material in the developing liquid. can be formed as shown in FIG. 2 (C) - type T-shaped with wide upside and narrow underside of photoresist 3 and developable bottom antireflective material 2 the combination pattern, the photoresist of the substrate I groove is exposed shown in FIG. 2, using a low-temperature deposition or low temperature sputtering method for the resist pattern (resist 3) and resist opening of the substrate I groove is grown on a layer of film layer are disconnected 4 the film layer 4 can use low temperature deposition or low temperature sputtering method on the photoresist 3 grew on the surface of the material, the low temperature refers to temperature lower than 250 degrees centigrade, the film layer 4 is the following dielectric film of silicon dioxide, silicon nitride or silicon oxynitride; or the film layer refers to the following metal film of aluminum, copper, gold, titanium, nickel, silver, molybdenum, chromium, or a combination thereof, the material of the thin film layer 4 is formed of an elongated type isolated line pattern of the material 4 the thickness of the film layer is 0.1-30 microns, and in order to prevent the thin film photoresist layer 3 on the film layer 4 and the substrate 4 on the I from adhering, step to be less than 4 of the thickness of the film layer(2) said developable bottom antireflective material 2 of thickness; As shown in FIG. 2 (E), using resist stripping to remove photoresist 3 and developable bottom antireflective material 2, photoresist film layer 3 is 4 with the photoresist are removed, while the film layer on the substrate I 4 retained to form the required elongated type isolated line; The photoresist stripper capable of stripping step (2) said developable bottom antireflective material 2, but also can be separated from the step (3), the photo-resist 3, preferably, the resist stripping liquid is N-methyl pyrrolidone (NMP) and/or gamma-butyrolactone (GBL) and/or ethyl lactate (EL) [0029-0034].
PNG
media_image19.png
206
409
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Guerrero et al. 20080044772 teaches Using Formulation 3 described above, a double-patterning scheme as shown in FIG. 3 was demonstrated. The formulation was spin-coated at 1,500 rpm for 60 seconds onto a silicon substrate and then baked at 160.degree. C. for 60 seconds. A photoresist (AR1682J) was spin-coated at 3,200 rpm for 60 seconds on top of the bottom anti-reflective coating. The resist and bottom anti-reflective coating films were then baked at 110.degree. C. for 60 seconds. A test (contact) mask was placed on top of the wafer, and the films exposed under a mercury-xenon lamp for 5 seconds (at 20 mJ/sec using a 254 nm dose meter). The wafer was post-expose baked at 110.degree. C. for 60 seconds then immersed in developer (PD523, obtained from Moses Lake Industries) for 60 seconds. The wafer was rinsed with deionized water and spin-dried. A second coat of photoresist was applied (AR1682J, 3200 rpm, 60 sec.). The resist and bottom anti-reflective films were then baked again at 110.degree. C. for 60 seconds. The mask was then turned approximately 90 degrees from its previous orientation, and then the films were exposed for another 5 seconds. The wafer was post-expose baked at 110.degree. C. for 60 seconds and then immersed in developer for 60 seconds. The wafer was rinsed with deionized water and spin-dried. Overlapping images were observed, showing the imageability of both resist and anti-reflective films [0078].
Hatanaka et al. KR 20070048237 (machine translation attached) in example 1 teaches a BARC layer coated and dried to a thickness of 70 nm on a silicon wafer, overcoated with an i-line resist, which was exposed using 365 nm light to a line/space mask pattern and then developed (pages 21-22)
JP 3835823 (machine translation attached) teaches in example 10, coating the with the BARC coating of examples 8 and 9 and baked at 170 degrees C, followed by AZ-7805 resist which was baked/dried, exposed using an i-line stepper, post baked and developed with table 2 showing the effect of the bottom antireflection coating (page 15)
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, Mark F Huff can be reached at 571-272-1385. 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 March 26, 2026