Chemical Infiltration through Deep UV Photoresist

Garnier, Philippe; Neyens, Marc

doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/ssp.255.117

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It can be explained by the size of the etchant species. Indeed the free volume of the tested resist is 0,28nm [11]. HF and HF2-(representative of BOE) molecule sizes are respectively 0,09nm and 0,23nm.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Wet Etchants Penetration through Photoresist during Wet Patterning

Garnier

2018

SSP

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Wet Etchants Penetration through Photoresist during Wet Patterning

Garnier

2018

SSP

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such HF penetration difference could be attributed to the free volume size of polymer after coating. Free volume size of KrF A resin ranges 0.277~0.289nm [1][2], which may be larger than the free volume size of KrF B polymers. HF molecular size 0.09 nm can readily penetrate through KrF A resin [1].…”

Section: B Resist Type Studymentioning

confidence: 91%

“…Free volume size of KrF A resin ranges 0.277~0.289nm [1][2], which may be larger than the free volume size of KrF B polymers. HF molecular size 0.09 nm can readily penetrate through KrF A resin [1].…”

Section: B Resist Type Studymentioning

confidence: 91%

“…It means that HF can penetrate through soft bake only KrF C 10000A within 10 min and react with oxide under resist. Such penetration is because HF molecular size is 0.09 nm [1] and is much smaller than KrF C polymer free volume size. HF can slowly diffuse through the 10000A resist and react with bottom oxide [2].…”

Section: Materials Production and Processingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The exposed area is soaked in HF-based wet etch chemicals to remove the oxide. The compatibility between photoresist and wet HF etchants are of great importance, because an incompatible resist to HF-based wet etch chemicals can result in resist lifting and/or HF penetration during wet oxide etching process [1][2][3]. As advance nanoscale patterning technology requires new resist types with high resolution lithography [4,5], the compatibility study on new resist types is also essential.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

HF Compatibility Study on KrF and I-Line System Resist

Chen,

Lim,

Chai

2023

KEM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advance nanoscale patterning technology requires high resolution lithography, from ultraviolet (UV, i-line system) to deep ultraviolet (DUV, KrF system) until extreme ultraviolet (EUV), but the compatibility study of new resist types and wet etchant is lacking. The compatibility is defined as the duration of a photoresist being able to withstand in wet oxide etchant. Poor compatibility has potential resist lifting and/or penetration during wet etch process, which causes electronic device performance drifting. Currently, wet oxide etching is widely used in the gate oxide wet etch using patterned resist, as well as in the backside oxide removal with blanket resist front-side coverage. In this paper, we explore the compatibility and understand the impact factors, based on commonly used resist (i.e., KrF and i-line system resist) and wet etch chemicals (i.e. HF based etchant) in industry. It is important to do a quick and straightforward compatibility check before we implement new resists on actual product wafers, to prevent poor compatibility caused resist lifting and/or penetration during wet etch process. Based on oxide thickness check and resist lifting phenomena, it is found that resist baking condition, resist polymer type, resist composition, and lag time from resist coating to wet oxide etching all will affect the compatibility between HF based etchant and resist.

show abstract

Generalized Formal Model-Verifier: A Formal Approach for Verifying Static Models

Somogyi,

Mezei

2024

SN COMPUT. SCI.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The field of software modeling has gained significant popularity in the last decades. By capturing the static aspects of the software requirements, model-driven engineering eases the development and maintenance of software. However, additional constraints, such as invariants on model elements, that the solution must conform to may be too complex to include in the structure of the model itself. External solutions are often used to describe static constraints on models, the most prevalent approach being the Object Constraint Language (OCL) and its formal variants. This paper proposes the Generalized Formal Model-Verifier (GFMV), which is a general approach for verifying static constraints on software models. GFMV employs different formal verification methods based on Kripke Structures. Kripke Structures are used to capture the static structure of the model, then the constraints are formalized using a first-order branching-time logic, the Computational Tree Logic (CTL). Finally, the NuSMV model checker is reused to verify whether the constraints formalized in CTL hold on the formal Kripke Structure. When compared to existing solutions, GFMV offers increased generality and formal proof that the constraints hold on the model. The expressive power and runtime-scalability of the approach are evaluated on a real-world example model and OCL invariants cited from literature.

show abstract

Chemical Infiltration through Deep UV Photoresist

Cited by 4 publications

References 6 publications

Wet Etchants Penetration through Photoresist during Wet Patterning

Wet Etchants Penetration through Photoresist during Wet Patterning

HF Compatibility Study on KrF and I-Line System Resist

Generalized Formal Model-Verifier: A Formal Approach for Verifying Static Models

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About