Impact of development chemistry on extreme ultraviolet resist performance
Top-down SEM images for near-resolution patterning of the 2004 (left) and 2008 (right) champion resists. The failure mode is seen to change from image blurring to pattern collapse.
Contrast curves for an acrylate resist developed with TMAH (solid line) or TBAH (dashed line) developer. There is no apparent dose difference between the two developers, but TBAH appears to result in a higher dissolution rate near the substrate interface.
Comparison of various fully dense half pitches for TMAH and TBAH developed acrylate resist at best dose/best focus. Dose at each dimension is the same for the two development chemistries. Cross-section SEM analysis demonstrates that there is no appreciable difference in the profiles between both developer chemistries.
Comparison of various fully dense half pitches for TMAH and TBAH developed ESCAP resist at best dose/best focus. Dose at each dimension is the same for the two development chemistries.
Contact angle of TMAH and TBAH developed partially deprotected ESCAP (left) and acrylate (right) resist as a function of exposure dose. For reference, the contrast curve of both materials is included in the graphs as well.
Comparison of 32 and 28 nm dense line/space imaging for TMAH and TMAH developed acrylate resist at best dose/best focus.
Exposure latitudes (in %) for an acrylate and an ESCAP resist upon TMAH or TBAH development. The numbers in parentheses give LWR values (in nm). Exposure latitudes and LWR values are considered to be identical within experimental error. For the TMAH developed acrylate material at the 28 nm half pitch there are insufficient dose steps without scumming or pattern collapse to allow determination of the exposure latitude. For the TMAH and TBAH developed ESCAP material the same is true at the 32 nm half pitch.
Article metrics loading...
Full text loading...