Process optimization of developer soluble organic BARC and its characteristics in CMOS devices

Lim, Yeon Hwa; Kim, Young Keun; Choi, Jae Sung; Lee, Jeong Gun

doi:10.1117/12.600437

Cited by 8 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One of previous works observed the dBARC process applied to implant level, had impacted on device characteristics, and implied dBARC residues might have caused the electrical difference. 5 The additional de-scum process after development would solve this issue on residue and defectivity. A light-sensitive dBARC, which can be imaged and provide optical properties during exposure, may be a more complete solution for this.…”

Section: Defectivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4,5 The best condition should be selected during a course of deep thought about process controllability and stability, as well as its imaging performance. After evaluating process windows in terms of temperature and time in dBARC curing process, the best curing condition has to be chosen at a condition, which shows more stable and large window.…”

Section: Process Controllabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Message to the undecided: using DUV dBARC for 32 nm node implants

Lee

Popova²,

Rolick³

et al. 2009

Advances in Resist Materials and Processing Technology XXVI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, implant (block) level lithography has been transformed from being widely viewed as non-critical into one of the forefronts of material development. Ever-increasing list of substrates, coatings and films in the underlying stack clearly dictates the need for new materials and increased attention to this challenging area. Control of the substrate reflectivity and critical dimension (CD) on topography has become one of the key challenges for block level lithography and is required in order to meet their aggressive requirements for developing 32nm technology and beyond.The simulation results of wet-developable bottom anti-reflective coating (dBARC) show better reflectivity control on topography than the conventional top anti-reflective materials (TARCs), and make a convincing statement as to viability of dBARC as a working solution for block level lithography. 1 Wet-developable BARC by definition offers substrate reflectivity and resist adhesion control, however there is a need to better understand the fundamental limitations of the dBARC process in comparison to the TARC process. In addition, some specific niche dBARC applications as facilitating adhesion to challenging substrates, such as capping layers in the high-k metal gate (HK/MG) stack, can also be envisioned as most imminent dBARC applications. 2 However, most of the engineering community is still indecisive to use dBARC in production, bound by uncertainties of the robustness and lack of experience using dBARC in production.This work is designed to inspire more confidence in the potential use of this technology. Its objective is to describe testing of one of dBARC materials, which is not a photosensitive type, and its implementation on 32nm logic devices. The comparison between dBARC and TARC processes evaluates impacts of dBARC use in the lithographic process, with special attention to OPC behavior and reflectivity for controlling CD uniformity. This work also shows advantages and future challenges of dBARC process with several 248nm and 193nm resists on integrated wafers, which have shallow trench isolation (STI) and poly gate pattern topography.

show abstract

Section: Defectivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Process Controllabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Message to the undecided: using DUV dBARC for 32 nm node implants

Lee

Popova²,

Rolick³

et al. 2009

Advances in Resist Materials and Processing Technology XXVI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Developing for long periods of time has an effect similar to lower bake temperatures and can produce undercut as shown in Figure 1a (4,5). So both bake temperature and develop time must be balanced to achieve optimum performance (6,7,8).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Study of Photosensitive Versus Non-Photosensitive Developer-Soluble Bottom Anti-Reflective Coating Systems

Lowes¹,

Stroud²,

Guerrero³

et al. 2010

ECS Trans.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Developer-soluble bottom anti-reflective coatings (DBARCs) were originally designed for use in implant lithography processes. Throughout the development cycle, two main DBARC platforms emerged, nonphotosensitive DBARC (non-PS DBARC) and photosensitive DBARC (PS DBARC). While both platforms have been able to achieve acceptable performance for implant processes, each has advantages and disadvantages. The characteristics of each system are used to recommend a platform for use in various implant processes. DBARC processes are now being compared to single-layer resist and dry BARC processes due to additional applications such as wet-etch layers for high-k dielectric metal gate (HKMG). Integrating a new technology into production is complicated. Therefore, for each of these new applications, the different DBARC platforms have been reviewed to compare performance. The analysis allows us to recommend a DBARC and a favorable process for each application, thereby decreasing development time and cost.

show abstract