New tools not only need to check for errors but repair them as well.
The entire photomask design chain needs to be considered in the adoption of curvilinear photomasks. A broad look at the ecosystem impact was addressed in a previous video but a more in-depth look at the design chain of photomasks raises the next question – will MRC be harder and take more time? Aki Fujimura of D2S opens the nine-minute panel video with industry luminaries by providing a conceptual explanation of how curvilinear (curvy) MRC would work based on a paper presented by Ryan Pearman at Photomask Japan in 2019 as shown in figure 1.
Fig. 1: Conceptual explanation of curvilinear mask rule checking (MRC).
Ezequiel Russell from Micron Technology sees curvilinear masks adding complexity to MRC but that clever solutions are being discussed. He goes on to say that new tools not only need to check for errors but repair them as well. Fast algorithms for checks and repair will be key in order to make sure this new capability provided by curvilinear masks comes at the minimum cost possible in terms of processing time. Danping Peng from TSMC has an applied mathematics background, and based on that he believes there is an opportunity to simplify MRC for curvilinear masks. He provides some conceptual examples in the video and encourages electronic design automation (EDA) vendors to pursue a simplified approach. Noriaki Nakayamada from NuFlare Technology wraps up the video by discussing how their choice of data format in MBF 2.0 described in a previous blog could make curvilinear MRC easier. He calls for the industry to work together to converge on a solution.
You can watch the full 90-minute panel discussion for the eBeam Initiative’s virtual event at SPIE Advanced Lithography here.
Increasing complexity, disaggregation, and continued feature shrinks add to problem; oversight is scant.
Academia, industry partnerships ramp to entice undergrads into hardware engineering.
Packaging and inspection companies draw funding; 124 startups raise over $2.3 billion.
Pitches continue to decrease, but new tooling and technologies are required.
Buried features and re-entrant geometries drive application-specific metrology solutions.
While terms often are used interchangeably, they are very different technologies with different challenges.
Technology and business issues mean it won’t replace EUV, but photonics, biotech and other markets provide plenty of room for growth.
Commercial chiplet marketplaces are still on the distant horizon, but companies are getting an early start with more limited partnerships.
Existing tools can be used for RISC-V, but they may not be the most effective or efficient. What else is needed?
How customization, complexity, and geopolitical tensions are upending the global status quo.
The industry is gaining ground in understanding how aging affects reliability, but more variables make it harder to fix.
Key pivot and innovation points in semiconductor manufacturing.
Tools become more specific for Si/SiGe stacks, 3D NAND, and bonded wafer pairs.
Leave a Reply