Evaluation of wet-developable KrF organic BARC to improve CD uniformity for implant application

Guilmeau, I.; Guerrero, Alice; Blain, Vincent; Kremer, Stephanie; Vachellerie, V.; Lenoble, D.; Nogueira, Patrícia; Mougel, Sebastien; Chapon, Jean-Damien

doi:10.1117/12.538061

Cited by 9 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The significance of the silicon oxide is that photoresist patterns for an implant mask may be opened on the same substrate. 8 The light source selected for the modeling was conventional-partially coherent, the numerical aperture (NA) was 0.75, and the photoresist was A. The first and second reflectivity minimum BARC thicknesses and the percent reflectance on the two substrates are given in Figure 3.…”

Section: Optical Parameters and Prolith Modeling Of Reflectivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of 193-nm wet BARCs for implant applications

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes the chemistry and performance of a new family of wet-developable (wet) bottom anti-reflective coatings (BARCs) that have been developed for 193-nm implant layer applications. These BARCs, which are light sensitive and positive working, are imaged and developed in the same steps as the covering 193-nm photoresist. The BARCs are spin coated from organic solvents and then insolubilized during a hot plate bake step. The resulting cured films exhibit minimal solubility in numerous organic solvents. Resolution of a photoresist A and light-sensitive BARC I at optimum exposure (Eop) on a silicon substrate was 150-nm L/S (1:1), with good sidewall angle and no scumming. These best-case results utilize a first reflectivity minimum BARC thickness and meet the desired resolution goals for noncritical implant layers. BARC optical parameters can easily be adjusted by altering the polymeric binder. PROLITH™ modeling shows that near zero reflectance can be achieved on a silicon substrate for both a first and a second reflectivity minimum BARC thickness. The light-sensitive, wet BARCs are both spin-bowl and solution compatible with most industry standard solvents. A selected BARC from this family of wet products was shown to be stable, providing reproducible film properties over several months of ambient storage conditions.

show abstract

Section: Optical Parameters and Prolith Modeling Of Reflectivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Development of 193-nm wet BARCs for implant applications

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Developing for long periods of time has an effect similar to lower bake temperatures and can produce undercut as shown in Figure 1a (4,5). So both bake temperature and develop time must be balanced to achieve optimum performance (6,7,8).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Study of Photosensitive Versus Non-Photosensitive Developer-Soluble Bottom Anti-Reflective Coating Systems

Lowes¹,

Stroud²,

Guerrero³

et al. 2010

ECS Trans.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Developer-soluble bottom anti-reflective coatings (DBARCs) were originally designed for use in implant lithography processes. Throughout the development cycle, two main DBARC platforms emerged, nonphotosensitive DBARC (non-PS DBARC) and photosensitive DBARC (PS DBARC). While both platforms have been able to achieve acceptable performance for implant processes, each has advantages and disadvantages. The characteristics of each system are used to recommend a platform for use in various implant processes. DBARC processes are now being compared to single-layer resist and dry BARC processes due to additional applications such as wet-etch layers for high-k dielectric metal gate (HKMG). Integrating a new technology into production is complicated. Therefore, for each of these new applications, the different DBARC platforms have been reviewed to compare performance. The analysis allows us to recommend a DBARC and a favorable process for each application, thereby decreasing development time and cost.

show abstract