Ultrathin photoresists for 193-nm lithography

Peters, Richard D.; Amblard, Gilles R.; Lee, Jen‐Jiang; Guenther, T.

doi:10.1117/12.485132

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[21][22][23][24][25][26] Since many PAGs are dissolution rate inhibitors, 7,27 the PAG segregation to the top of the film can cause surface inhibition. We reasoned that higher concentrations of PAG at the top of the resist films would result in flatter tops of the lines and thereby produce better LER.…”

Section: Pag Attachmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

LER Limitations of Resist Thin Films

Cardineau

Early

Fujisawa³

et al. 2012

J. Photopol. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes fundamental studies of the degradation of LER in EUV resists as a function of film thickness. This research focused on the influence of three variables on this LER film thickness problem:  Substrate interaction (primed silicon vs. organic underlayer)  Changes in optical density (variations in fluorine content)  PAG attachment (bound and unbound)Our experimental approach struck a balance between using resists prepared by commercial resist vendors and using open-source resists with custom-designed polymers to address specific variables listed above. One key feature of this research was our development of a mathematical method for evaluation of the extent of the LER deviation in thin films, called φ LER .Our results showed that the effect of substrate was not significant for two different resists (one commercial and one open source). Additionally, we found that increasing optical density actually made the LER degradation (φ LER ) worse-which was contrary to what was predicted by other researchers. Most significant was our demonstration that PAG attachment plays the most important role in the degradation of LER in thinner resist films; polymer-bound PAGs showed a dramatic 3X improvement in φ LER over a similar blended system.

show abstract

Section: Pag Attachmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

LER Limitations of Resist Thin Films

Cardineau

Early

Fujisawa³

et al. 2012

J. Photopol. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It can originate from a myriad of factors such as the photon or chemical shot noise, molecular stacking, development process, and low image contrast [1,[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21]. Recently, mask roughness gained significant attention as one of the contributors to the wafer LER [2-9, 22, 23].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mitigating mask roughness via pupil filtering

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The roughness present on the sidewalls of lithographically defined patterns imposes a very important challenge for advanced technology nodes. It can originate from the aerial image or the photoresist chemistry/processing [1]. The latter remains to be the dominant group in ArF and KrF lithography; however, the roughness originating from the mask transferred to the aerial image is gaining more attention [2-9], especially for the imaging conditions with large mask error enhancement factor (MEEF) values. The mask roughness contribution is usually in the low frequency range, which is particularly detrimental to the device performance by causing variations in electrical device parameters on the same chip [10][11][12]. This paper explains characteristic differences between pupil plane filtering in amplitude and in phase for the purpose of mitigating mask roughness transfer under interference-like lithography imaging conditions, where onedirectional periodic features are to be printed by partially coherent sources. A white noise edge roughness was used to perturbate the mask features for validating the mitigation.

show abstract