Creating nonideality: enabling cross-platform process matching solutions with MPC (and a lot of hard work)

Charles Whiting; Ingo Bork; Peter Buck; Robin Chia; Bharadwaj Durvasula; Daniel M. Hill; Gazi Huda; Ken Jantzen; Matthew Leuthold; Jianliang Li; Joerg Mellmann; Kushlendra Mishra; Jed Rankin; Nageswara Rao; Malavika Sharma; Rachit Sharma; Adam Smith; Michaela Wentz

doi:10.1117/12.2538347

16 October 2019 Creating nonideality: enabling cross-platform process matching solutions with MPC (and a lot of hard work)

Charles Whiting, Ingo Bork, Peter Buck, Robin Chia, Bharadwaj Durvasula, Daniel M. Hill, Gazi Huda, Ken Jantzen, Matthew Leuthold, Jianliang Li, Joerg Mellmann, Kushlendra Mishra, Jed Rankin, Nageswara Rao, Malavika Sharma, Rachit Sharma, Adam Smith, Michaela Wentz

Author Affiliations +

Proceedings Volume 11148, Photomask Technology 2019; 1114805 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2538347
Event: SPIE Photomask Technology + EUV Lithography, 2019, Monterey, California, United States

Abstract

The bulk of photomask demand is in technology nodes ≥65nm, using equipment, processes, and materials developed more than two decades ago1. Despite mature processes and tools, mask makers are challenged to meet continuing demand. The challenge comes not only in the forms of increased demand, but also that much of the equipment is approaching the end of its viable lifetime to support and maintain due to parts or expertise availability2. Mask writers in particular are problematic from a technical and financial perspective. Modern equipment and processes can be “too good” to simply use as a direct substitute when original equipment or processes become unavailable During initial lithography and device integration, device manufacturers tailored Optical Proximity Correction (OPC) and other wafer processing conditions based on the original mask signature for multiple mask layers. Changing to state-of-the-art mask fidelity would actually represent a liability, as the altered mask character could result in device shifts, yield reduction, or even unanticipated reliability failures. To account for the improved fidelity, re-optimization of the synergistic patterning between mask, wafer lithography and etch is required. Even on mature technologies, reintegration can require costly, difficult, and time-consuming requalification. While this path has often been pursued when manufacturers declare EOL of tools, we propose instead to contain the change in the mask shop by using Mask Process Corrections (MPC)3. Instead of using MPC to maximize mask fidelity, as is done in advanced nodes, we use MPC to replicate the original mask non-idealities on a new mask process.

Conference Presentation

Citation Download Citation

Charles Whiting, Ingo Bork, Peter Buck, Robin Chia, Bharadwaj Durvasula, Daniel M. Hill, Gazi Huda, Ken Jantzen, Matthew Leuthold, Jianliang Li, Joerg Mellmann, Kushlendra Mishra, Jed Rankin, Nageswara Rao, Malavika Sharma, Rachit Sharma, Adam Smith, and Michaela Wentz "Creating nonideality: enabling cross-platform process matching solutions with MPC (and a lot of hard work)", Proc. SPIE 11148, Photomask Technology 2019, 1114805 (16 October 2019); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2538347

ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE

INSTITUTIONAL
Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.

SELECT YOUR INSTITUTION

PERSONAL
Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.

PERSONAL SIGN IN

No SPIE Account? Create one

PURCHASE THIS CONTENT

SUBSCRIBE TO DIGITAL LIBRARY

50 downloads per 1-year subscription

Members: $195

Non-members: $335 ADD TO CART

25 downloads per 1 - year subscription

Members: $145

Non-members: $250 ADD TO CART

PURCHASE SINGLE ARTICLE

Includes PDF, HTML & Video, when available