Hello David, Thanks a lot for the reply. I’ll check out the link ASAP. Are there any ongoing known research about this approach? Is it cost efficient for test wafers?

On Feb 9, 2019, at 7:10 PM, David Lanzendörfer <david.lanzendoerfer@o2s.ch> wrote:

You're already on the right track, but biological 3D printers aren't it. In the NFF lab we'll be using the Nanoscribe 3D printer, but it's for producing nano stamps. The life span of those stamps is limited. If you wanna go submicron you need a laserscriber with a proper resolution, as well as an exposure unit which can handle this resolution. Using direct transfer isn't suitable for mass manufacturing.

Cheers David

http://www.nff.ust.hk/en/equipment-and-process/equipment-list/photolithograp...

...

Hello list, I’d like to know if it is feasible/suitable to use 3D printers “like" the following (something with better resolution) to create our own photomasks?

http://www.microlight.fr/bioprinters.html

I think we should work on the process using an existing fab with existing machines, as it is hard work to do. So let alone the optics (dispersion, wavelength) of a photo lithography machine. If you get to structure widths that are in the range of the wavelength of the light being used things become difficult as there are interference patterns which are formed with the mask and the light which forces the user to generate special masks that compensate the effects of interference like it is used in holographic technology. Or go for a shorter wave length and use UV lasers for the lithography which are now available. In times where the 1000nm processes were made UV lasers were not commonly available to my knowledge, but just using another laser with an old machine might be a problem because the optics were made for a different wave length but maybe, this can be adjusted by changing the distance of the optics to the waver and/or mask thus forcing major changes to the machine. It is not that easy, one thing after the other. Cheers, Ludwig On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 3:55 AM David Lanzendörfer < david.lanzendoerfer@o2s.ch> wrote:

Hi

...

Thanks a lot for the reply. I’ll check out the link ASAP. Are there any ongoing known research about this approach? Is it cost efficient for test wafers? We're not at this point yet, so I couldn't tell.

Cheers David

_______________________________________________ Libre-silicon-devel mailing list Libre-silicon-devel@list.libresilicon.com http://list.libresilicon.com/mailman/listinfo/libre-silicon-devel

Hi Manili No worries. After all. This list is intended to coordinate efforts of introducing our process in as many fabs as possible, making use of the broad know-how of folks on here. Of course, the hints we can get from fabbing professionals here are limited because of the NDAs they had to sign together with their work contracts at their proprietary employers, but still... It's good to have discussions like this in our mailing list history, so that we can go and lookup up possible solutions for a problem we encounter in new fabs. -lev

David, Ludwig

Thanks a lot for the replies, the answers were so useful. However I am so sorry for misleading the main topic of the mailing list.

Best regards, Manili