Q: Let` s start to discuss about the current situation of nanoimprint technology and how do you see it as of now. There were a lot of expectations behind nanoimprint a few years ago, do you think nanoimprinting lithography has delivered as promised or not?
A: Until a few years ago, nanoimprinting lithography was one of the candidates of the so-called next-generation lithography that should have replaced conventional optical lithography for the production of ICs in large scale. In this sense, I believe that nanoimprint, along with other technologies as multi-beam and direct self-assembly, can not be seen today as a replacement of conventional stepper lithography. However, I do not think that nanoimprint technology has proven to be a failure, I see many areas of applications outside the conventional IC processing market and I believe that most of the potential of nanoimprinting lithography has yet to be tapped
Q: You have said that nanoimprint, along with other technologies, have not delivered as someone hoped as a potential replacement of optical lithography. Can you explain to us the reasons why this did not happen?
A: There are various reasons why nanoimprinting lithography and other technologies are having a hard time in replacing conventional (stepper) optical lithography, despite the enormous cost of the soon-to-come iteration of stepper machines (namely, EUV steppers). The main reason is that stepper lithography has so many advantages compared with other technologies that it has proven difficult for other candidate technologies to match them. For example: in the case of nanoimprint, alignment and defect control have been the two critical areas where nanoimprint could not match optical lithography. Simply put, a nanoimprinting lithography machine can do not deliver the same level of alignment accuracy that a stepper does. Another problem is defectivity: it is extremely difficult to keep the master mold clean after a large number of imprints and this inevitably translates into defects and impurities being transferred to the imprinted wafers. Therefore, stepper lithography is superior to nanomprinting lithography in such regards
Q: Since there has been a lot of discussions about the skyrocketing costs of stepper lithography for volume IC and DRAM production, do you think new technologies can provide different solutions?
A: Unfortunately, despite the high costs, I do not see viable alternatives other than stepper lithography for ICs and DRAM production,. There are a few companies out there that are promoting nanoimprinting lithography for IC production but I really do not see this change happening in the next few years, unless some really huge technological breakthrough comes forward. It is true that for stepper technology costs are going up with the future adoption of EUV machines but I do not see any alternative to both immersion lithography and EUV. Maybe direct self-assembly will be useful as a complementary technology but still the main lithography process will be stepper based
Q: Being this the case, what do you think about the future of nanoimprint. Will you see nanoimprinting lithography as a niche market application in the future or there is some hope that nanoimprint will become the technology of choice in some bigger markets?
A: As I was saying before, I believe the future for nanoimprinting lithography is bright. The reason being that many markets that today are regarded as niche or even are yet to be tapped and will grow extensively in the future. Nanoimprinting lithography has a lot of advantages in terms of cost and easiness of process when you do not need high alignment capabilities and you have some tolerance in terms of defects: LED patterning, patterning of substrates for cell culture, production of anti-reflecting films are just some of the markets where nanoimprint can be applied easily. I believe that the existing markets I have just listed and other markets will grow exponentially in the next few years
Q: LED patterning and other potential applications have been discussed for quite a while but still we do not see nanoimprinting lithography widely used. Is there a reason for this?
A: One of the reasons has historically been that most of nanoimprint research has focused on replacing stepper technology for volume IC and DRAM production, a technological application nanoimprint is not really fit for. This misconception has led the industry to ignore other potential applications where nanoimprint could have been the technology of choice as such markets were still too small. On the opposite, I believe that the role of nanoimprint will be exactly that of making such niche market grow and create new exciting applications. Let` s take for example roll-to-rollnanoimprint. It is now possible to pattern literally square meters of polymer with a nanopattern at a cost that is orders of magnitude lower than other technologies. Same goes for LED patterning, nanoimprint can be successfully used to pattern sapphire substrates at a cost unmatched by conventional lithography. I believe such are the markets where we should focus on.
Q: You are talking about roll-to-roll nanoimprint. What is the status of this particular technology?
A: Roll-to-roll nanoimprint is a technology that has been plagued by a number of issues in the past, such as keeping the film flow at a constant rate and at a constant thickness. Keeping thickness variation control has especially been a challenge for wide films. However, I see such hurdles being overcome so I think roll-to-roll will be definitely be used in many applications that require to have polymer surfaces patterned at a low cost and in high quantities, such as in the anti-reflection film market for example.
Q: Thank you for your time
A: Thank you.
If you are interested in nanoimprint lithography, please visit our nanoimprint lithography service page.
Subscribe to our newsletter to receive our new articles directly in your mail box.
If you liked this article, please give it a quick review in StumbleUpon, Facebook or Pinterest.