2011
DOI: 10.1117/12.879380
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Investigation of processing performance and requirements for next generation lithography cluster tools

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2
2

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As shown in Figure 3 (b), the film density was correlated to the initial formulation wt solid% even though the final film coating thickness were all close to 450 Å. The formulation A1 with the highest initial solid% of 1.11x wt% had the highest film density of 1.28 g/cm 3 while the formulation B3 with the lowest initial solid% of 0.89x wt% had the lowest film density of 1.23 g/cm 3 . Assuming that the chemical compositions are homogeneous across the entire thin film, a higher film density could be resulted from a denser packed of photoresist components, which could potentially impact the lithographic performance.…”
Section: Xrr Analysis On Film Densitymentioning
confidence: 84%
“…As shown in Figure 3 (b), the film density was correlated to the initial formulation wt solid% even though the final film coating thickness were all close to 450 Å. The formulation A1 with the highest initial solid% of 1.11x wt% had the highest film density of 1.28 g/cm 3 while the formulation B3 with the lowest initial solid% of 0.89x wt% had the lowest film density of 1.23 g/cm 3 . Assuming that the chemical compositions are homogeneous across the entire thin film, a higher film density could be resulted from a denser packed of photoresist components, which could potentially impact the lithographic performance.…”
Section: Xrr Analysis On Film Densitymentioning
confidence: 84%
“…It is obvious that controlling the amount and type of contamination is difficult using this approach, but part of the purpose was to assess the capability of a backside brush to remove particles generated on production wafers that will induce focus deviations during lithography. Other studies with more controlled deposition of backside contamination can be found in literature [3]. Those wafers were used as starting material for the evaluation of the backside brush cleaning performance.…”
Section: Backside Cleaning Of Wafers By Brush Scrubber Cleaningmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bubble, antibubble, blister, watermark (W/M), microbridging defect, non-visible, protrusion, blob, print particle, stain defect, dust, line deformation, and water droplet are several immersion lithography defects that have been studied by several authors [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. Out of these experiments, solutions like thicker topcoat, lower PAB, smaller filter pore size, longer developer time, longer rinse time, longer spin dry time, using Nikon Engineering Evaluation Tool (EET), using BF/3D DUV inspection tool, using Dark Field inspection SP2 tool UV laser light, using Defect source analysis (DSA), using Sokudo post developer rinse technique, improving material and rinse composition, using Advance Rinse Process (ADR) rinse process, optimizing rinse cycle time, using filtering system, using "on-the-fly" automatic defect classification (OTF-ADC), using surfactant rinsing, and pumping with filtration stability are all viable solution to further reduce defect at lithography step [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][23][24][25][26][27]…”
Section: Transferable Defectsmentioning
confidence: 99%