| Literature DB >> 30400504 |
Qinyuan Deng1,2, Yong Yang3, Hongtao Gao4, Yi Zhou5,6, Yu He7, Song Hu8.
Abstract
A maskless lithography method to realize the rapid and cost-effective fabrication of micro-optics elements with arbitrary surface profiles is reported. A digital micro-mirror device (DMD) is applied to flexibly modulate that the exposure dose according to the surface profile of the structure to be fabricated. Due to the fact that not only the relationship between the grayscale levels of the DMD and the exposure dose on the surface of the photoresist, but also the dependence of the exposure depth on the exposure dose, deviate from a linear relationship arising from the DMD and photoresist, respectively, and cannot be systemically eliminated, complicated fabrication art and large fabrication error will results. A method of compensating the two nonlinear effects is proposed that can be used to accurately design the digital grayscale mask and ensure a precise control of the surface profile of the structure to be fabricated. To testify to the reliability of this approach, several typical array elements with a spherical surface, aspherical surface, and conic surface have been fabricated and tested. The root-mean-square (RMS) between the test and design value of the surface height is about 0.1 μm. The proposed method of compensating the nonlinear effect in maskless lithography can be directly used to control the grayscale levels of the DMD for fabricating the structure with an arbitrary surface profile.Entities:
Keywords: arbitrary surface; exposure dose; maskless lithography; micro-optics elements; nonlinear effect
Year: 2017 PMID: 30400504 PMCID: PMC6190032 DOI: 10.3390/mi8100314
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Micromachines (Basel) ISSN: 2072-666X Impact factor: 2.891
Figure 1(a) Schematic view of the digital micro-mirror device (DMD)-based maskless photolithography system; (b) pulse width modulation based on 8-bit planes; and (c) the fabrication procedure based on grayscale mask exposure.
The tested data between intensity and grayscale level.
| Grayscale | Intensity (mW/cm2) | Standard Deviation (mW/cm2) | Grayscale | Intensity (mW/cm2) | Standard Deviation (mW/cm2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 30 | 0 | 0 | 150 | 6.51 | 0 |
| 40 | 0.13 | 0 | 160 | 7.85 | 0.02 |
| 50 | 0.26 | 0 | 170 | 9.95 | 0.02 |
| 60 | 0.43 | 0 | 180 | 11.5 | 0.02 |
| 70 | 0.7 | 0 | 190 | 15.73 | 0.02 |
| 80 | 1.03 | 0 | 200 | 18.91 | 0.02 |
| 90 | 1.5 | 0 | 210 | 26.15 | 0.015 |
| 100 | 2 | 0 | 220 | 32.46 | 0.02 |
| 110 | 2.78 | 0.005 | 230 | 36.22 | 0.04 |
| 120 | 3.63 | 0.005 | 240 | 42.6 | 0.025 |
| 130 | 4.47 | 0.01 | 250 | 42.63 | 0.015 |
| 140 | 5.37 | 0.005 | - | - | - |
Figure 2(a) Relation between intensity of ultraviolet (UV) light at a wavelength of 365 nm and grayscale levels; and (b) the relation between the exposure depth and exposure dose.
The tested exposure depth data under different exposure doses.
| Exposure Dose (mJ/cm2) | Exposure Depth (μm) | Standard Deviation (μm) | Exposure Dose (mJ/cm2) | Exposure Depth (μm) | Standard Deviation (μm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18.9 | 1.05 | 0.025 | 151.2 | 8 | 0.25 |
| 37.8 | 2.25 | 0.2 | 170.1 | 8.6 | 0.23 |
| 56.7 | 3.85 | 0.1 | 189 | 9.12 | 0.19 |
| 75.6 | 5 | 0.15 | 207.9 | 9.6 | 0.18 |
| 94.5 | 5.9 | 0.15 | 226.8 | 10 | 0.15 |
| 113.4 | 6.7 | 0.2 | 245.7 | 10.26 | 0.18 |
| 132.3 | 7.45 | 0.25 | 264.6 | 10.53 | 0.19 |
Figure 3(a) Grayscale maps (30 to 150 grayscale levels) of a grating with a period of 400 μm (200 pixels in the horizontal direction) for the calibration; and (b) calibration curve between the exposure depth and grayscale level.
The exposure depth measurement result under a 20 s exposure time.
| Grayscale | Exposure Depth (μm) | Grayscale | Exposure Depth (μm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 30 | 0 | 100 | 2.86 |
| 40 | 0.14 | 110 | 4.06 |
| 50 | 0.25 | 120 | 4.98 |
| 60 | 0.52 | 130 | 6.1 |
| 70 | 0.91 | 140 | 7.12 |
| 80 | 1.36 | 150 | 8.08 |
| 90 | 2.1 | - | - |
Figure 4(a) Designed spherical micro-lens array (MLA) model and cross-section of the grayscale map of a single lens; and (b) grayscale mask with a 6 × 8 lens array.
Figure 5Microscope image (a) and scanning electron microscope (SEM) image (b) of a concave spherical MLA in photoresist; (c) SEM image of a convex spherical MLA in polydimethysiloxane (PDMS); and (d) the measured and designed cross-sections of the convex spherical MLA.
Figure 6(a) Test of the focusing performance of convex spherical MLA in PDMS; (b) the image of focused light spots; (c) the normalized intensity distribution of focused light spots; and (d) an image of the normalized intensity of a single typical single spot.
Figure 7(a) Test of the imaging performance of convex spherical MLA in PDMS; and (b) the arrayed images of the letter “M” observed by charge-coupled device (CCD).
Figure 8(a) SEM image of the aspherical MLA in PDMS and the cross-sections of measurement and design; and (b) SEM image of the conic MLA in PDMS and the cross-sections of measurement and design.