High resolution mask process and substrate for 20nm and early 14nm node lithography

Faure, Tom; Akutagawa, Shinichi; Badger, Karen; Kindt, Louis; Kotani, Jun; Mizoguchi, Takahiro; Nemoto, Satoru; Seki, Kazunori; Senna, Tasuku; Wistrom, Richard; Igarashi, Shinich; Inazuki, Yukio; Nishikawa, Kazuhiro; Yoshikawa, Hideki

doi:10.1117/12.898889

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The new mask process was found to yield highly inspectable features with good pattern fidelity and acceptable defect levels at both 257 and 193 nm inspection wavelengths. [1] OMOG is a binary material and relative to mask inspection, it is similar in nature to chrome on glass, in that the low-transmissive nature of the film minimizes the attenuator's impact on mask inspectability. Transmission characteristics of thin versus standard OMOG are nearly identical when inspecting at a 257 nm or 193 nm mask inspection wavelength.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of a thinner binary mask absorber on 22nm and beyond mask inspectability and defect sensitivity

Badger¹,

Seki

2011

SPIE Proceedings

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As part of 20 nm/22 nm process development, an evaluation was performed to determined the impact of Thin OMOG on mask inspection. Despite significant improvements in mask inspectability and reduced database modeling errors, thin OMOG demonstrated lower defect sensitivity as compared to Standard OMOG at the same inspection conditions (calibration, sensitivity). Stack height aside, the primary difference between standard and thin OMOG is attenuator reflectivity. It is surmised that the reduction in sensitivity is due to a lower reflected light contrast on thin-OMOG. This characteristic was noted for both 257 nm and 193 nm inspection wavelengths.In addition to the reduction in defect sensitivity, an unexpected phase interference was noted at the image edge with a 193 nm inspection wavelength, for Standard OMOG, but not for Thin OMOG. This interference, or undershoot is due in part to the low difference in reflectivity and phase between the quartz and the attenuator on the Standard OMOG substrate. This difference is more than five times greater for the Thin OMOG attenuator.The primary focus of this paper is on the characterization of thin OMOG relative to the interaction between attenuator reflectivity, image quality, database modeling and tool calibrations as they relate to mask inspectability and defect sensitivity. This paper will also address the changes required to compensate for the loss of sensitivity induced by the introduction of the thin OMOG absorber.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%