25 March 2016 Comparative study of line roughness metrics of chemically amplified and inorganic resists for EUV
Author Affiliations +
We present a comprehensive study of the roughness metrics of different resists. Dense line/space (L/S) images of polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), hydrogen silsesquioxane (HSQ), different chemically amplified resists (CARs), and metal oxide based resists have been patterned by extreme ultraviolet interference lithography (EUV-IL). The three line width roughness metrics: r.m.s. value σLWR, correlation length ξ and roughness exponent α, were measured by metrological analysis of top down SEM images and compared for the different resists imaged here. It was found, that all metrics are required to fully describe the roughness of each resist. Our measurements indicate that few of the state-of-the- art resists tested here can meet the International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors (ITRS) requirements for σLWR. The correlation length ξ has been found to be considerably higher in polymer-based materials in comparison to non-polymers. The roughness exponent α, interpreted using the concept of fractal geometry, is mainly affected by acid diffusion in CARs where it produces line edges with a higher complexity than in non-CAR resists. These results indicate that different resists platforms show very different LWR resist metrics and roughness is not only manifested in the σLWR but in all parameters. Therefore, all roughness metrics should be taken into account in the performance comparison of the resist, since they can have a substantial impact on the device performance.
© (2016) COPYRIGHT Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE). Downloading of the abstract is permitted for personal use only.
Roberto Fallica, Roberto Fallica, Elizabeth Buitrago, Elizabeth Buitrago, Yasin Ekinci, Yasin Ekinci, } "Comparative study of line roughness metrics of chemically amplified and inorganic resists for EUV", Proc. SPIE 9779, Advances in Patterning Materials and Processes XXXIII, 97790K (25 March 2016); doi: 10.1117/12.2217766; https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2217766

Back to Top