|
楼主 |
发表于 2022-10-26 03:55:25
|
显示全部楼层
对于关键层,一般来说, 没有使用国产光刻扫描仪和蚀刻机,
对以下反馈进行翻译
Etcher:
I could infer the problem are probably related to:
- etch uniformity across wafer (CD uniformity, sidewall angle, pattern fidelity, etc.)
- etch precision & repeatability (mean CD, CDU variation wafer-to-wafer, lot-to-lot, & even day-to-day).
- etch chamber fingerprint/uniformity matching chamber-to-chamber
- defectivity performance.
Requirements for the Metal0, Metal1, Contact Poly are very strict due to the aggressive pattern density and feature size, this makes it even harder to achieve or hit all the uniformity, wafer-to-wafer, lot-to-lot, day-to-day type error specifications. These are all LAM's differentiations from other WFE's etcher equipment and why they get a higher margin for these systems. most expensive LAM systems are used for the critical layers I identified, and etchers from TEL, AMAT, and AMEC are used for less critical etch steps to optimize the overall cost to build the chips.
Lithography scanner:
The type of HVM features required to support 90nm are simply not on the SSA600/20 nor the old ASML PAS system that it was reverse engineered off of. Besides, the only known SMEE (shanghai microelectronics) SSA600/20 accepted and delivered to customer is a 200mm system . Able to demonstrate system could meet Factory Acceptance Test specification on 200mm is a lot easier than meeting specification on 300mm wafer.
The basic correction mechanism to adjust for inter & intradie overlay, inter/intra die CD & focus, correction for error induced by reticle heating, wafer heating effect correction, and defectivity performance are all impediments that this system did not demonstrate. Based on industry standard, that system could only be considered as an Alpha system (having only passed internal testing at factory)...it's not even a Beta system (passed testing in the field and ready to run HVM). A system can not be claimed as HVM ready until it's able to pass beta testing at minimum of 2-3 fabs. Upon addressing all open issues identified during the beta test, only then the system could be identified as a HVM system. SSA600/20 clearly did not even hit actual beta testing. So any claim that it is a HVM system for any design node is just inappropriate and inaccurate
|
|