2005
DOI: 10.1143/jjap.44.5560
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Laser Shock Removal of Nanoparticles from Si Capping Layer of Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography Masks

Abstract: A new dry laser shock wave generated by a Nd:YAG laser was applied to remove nanosized polystyrene latex (PSL) particles on the silicon capping layer of an extreme ultraviolet lithography (EUVL) mask. UV laser was irradiated on the surface before irradiation with laser shock waves to increase the removal efficiency of the organic PSL particles. Owing to the expected damage to the surfaces, the energy of the UV laser was reduced to 8 mJ and the gap distance between the laser shock wave and the surface was incre… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“…2,4 However, previous studies also reported that LSC is far less effective in removing organic particles, such as polystyrene latex (PSL), than in removing inorganic particles. 5,6 For example, when 300 nm PSL particles and 280 nm silica particles were tested using the LSC setup employed in the present work, the particle removal efficiency was substantially lower ($30%) than that of the silica particles ($90%). Also, the fact that the removal of PSL particles is ineffective even when the cleaning experiment is conducted right after the particle deposition indicates that the adhesion-induced deformation 7 cannot explain the low removal efficiency.…”
mentioning
confidence: 79%
“…2,4 However, previous studies also reported that LSC is far less effective in removing organic particles, such as polystyrene latex (PSL), than in removing inorganic particles. 5,6 For example, when 300 nm PSL particles and 280 nm silica particles were tested using the LSC setup employed in the present work, the particle removal efficiency was substantially lower ($30%) than that of the silica particles ($90%). Also, the fact that the removal of PSL particles is ineffective even when the cleaning experiment is conducted right after the particle deposition indicates that the adhesion-induced deformation 7 cannot explain the low removal efficiency.…”
mentioning
confidence: 79%
“…Consequently, the laser-induced damage of the confining structure resulting in secondary particle generation is an important barrier to the practical implementation of the proposed LSC process to increase the cleaning performance. Previous studies indicate that the LIP produces thermal damage to a nearby silicon substrate [18]. In this work, laser-induced damages of three different materials (glass, silicon and quartz) were examined.…”
Section: Laser-induced Damage In the Confining Platementioning
confidence: 99%
“…8. Various pinpoint cleaning methods that address particle removal have been proposed (28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33). These pinpoint cleaning techniques are used by combining with wafer-surface inspection equipment that accurately maps the location and size of the nano-particles on the wafer (34).…”
Section: Pinpoint Cleaningmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The use of laser-induced plasma shock waves instead of direct laser irradiation onto the substrate surface has been recently tried to clean EUVL masks (33). This method has been used, in combination with a x-y-z translation stage, for whole-wafer (or whole-mask) cleaning rather than local-area, pinpoint cleaning.…”
Section: Laser Irradiationmentioning
confidence: 99%