16 March 2016 Process window variation comparison between NTD and PTD for various contact type
Author Affiliations +
Abstract
As technology node has been shrinking for bit growth, various technologies have been developed for high productivity. Nevertheless, lithography technology is close to its limit. In order to overcome these limits, EUV(Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography) and DSA(Directed Self-Assembly) are being developed, but there still exists problems for mass production. Currently, all lithography technology developments focus on solving the problems related to fine patterning and widening process window.

One of the technologies is NTD(Negative Tone Development) which uses inverse development compared to PTD(Positive Tone Development). The exposed area is eliminated by positive developer in PTD, whereas the exposed area is remained in NTD. It is well known that NTD has better characteristics compared to PTD in terms of DOF(Depth of Focus) margin, MEEF(Mask Error Enhancement Factor), and LER(Line End Roughness) for both small contact holes and isolated spaces [1]. Contact hole patterning is especially more difficult than space patterning because of the lower image contrast and smaller process window [2]. Thus, we have focused on the trend of both NTD and PTD contact hole patterns in various environments. We have analyzed optical performance of both NTD and PTD according to size and pitch by SMO(Source Mask Optimization) software. Moreover, the simulation result of NTD process was compared with the NTD wafer level performance and the process window variation of NTD was characterized through both results. This result will be a good guideline to avoid DoF loss when using NTD process for contact layers with various contact types.

In this paper, we studied the impact of different sources on various combinations of pattern sizes and pitches while estimating DOF trends aside from source and pattern types.
© (2016) COPYRIGHT Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE). Downloading of the abstract is permitted for personal use only.
Doyoun Kim, Hyoungsoon Yune, Daejin Park, Joohong Jeong, Woosung Moon, Mingu Kim, Seyoung Oh, Chanha Park, Hyunjo Yang, "Process window variation comparison between NTD and PTD for various contact type", Proc. SPIE 9780, Optical Microlithography XXIX, 97800D (16 March 2016); doi: 10.1117/12.2218858; https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2218858
PROCEEDINGS
9 PAGES


SHARE
RELATED CONTENT

The new OPC method for obtaining the stability of MBAF...
Proceedings of SPIE (March 28 2017)
Hurdles in low k1 mass production
Proceedings of SPIE (May 12 2004)
Lithographic alternatives to PSM repair
Proceedings of SPIE (June 01 1992)
Emergence of assist feature OPC era in sub 130 nm...
Proceedings of SPIE (January 22 2001)

Back to Top