Category Archives: Metrology

May 12, 2006 – KLA-Tencor (Nasdaq: KLAC) unveiled its third-generation magnetic metrology system for the hard disk drive and semiconductor memory markets. Based on the MRW200 platform, the company says the MRW3 measures the magnetic properties of HDD recording heads and magnetoresistive random access memory (MRAM) on product wafers for production control and early detection of process issues that could adversely impact yield.

The MRW3 system has completed a beta evaluation at a semiconductor manufacturing company. The company will begin shipping the system this month.

April 25, 2006 – Nova Measuring Instruments Ltd., Rehovoth, Israel, a provider of metrology and process control systems, has agreed to acquire the assets of HyperNex for approximately $4.5 million in an all-stock transaction. The former wholly owned subsidiary of ATMI has developed a wide-angle X-Ray Diffraction (“XRD”) standalone metrology system for 65nm-and-below semiconductor manufacturing. The technology, in production since 2004, targets characterization of microstructures to enable quality control for thin metal layers such as copper, tungsten, seed, and barrier layers.

The added business likely will account for about 10% of Nova’s revenue this year. Once completed, the transaction is expected to be accretive to full-year earnings on a pro-forma basis (excluding nonrecurring acquisition-related charges).

The HyperNex purchase “will strengthen our offering in the high-end standalone metrology market and expands our array of process control solutions,” stated Giora Dishon, Nova president and CEO. “HyperNex’s X-ray-based process control capabilities complement our spectrophotometry and scatterometry based solutions, which will enable us to provide complete metrology solutions for critical steps such as gate structures and copper interconnect.”

Click here to enlarge image

April 12, 2006 — Imago Scientific Instruments Corp., a Madison, Wis., maker of atom probe tomography tools, announced on Tuesday that it has acquired Oxford nanoScience Ltd., a UK-based competitor, from Polaron plc.

The deal, which was for a total of $4.35 million, includes $2.25 million in cash and the issue of $2.1 million in preferred stock, according to a Polaron regulatory filing with the London Stock Exchange, where its stock is listed. The stock will be issued in stages, starting with $1.5 million at completion of the deal, $500,000 after 12 months and the rest after 18 months. Polaron makes control systems for a variety of markets and had operated Oxford nanoScience as its nanotechnology division.

“We are very excited about this acquisition and the contributions it will make to our business going forward,” said Timothy Stultz, Imago president and CEO, in a prepared statement. He said he believed that combining Oxford’s technology, products, intellectual property and atom probe team with those of Imago would strengthen the company’s ability to deliver better tools.

Click here to enlarge image

Atom probe tomography tools are used to generate a three-dimensional map of a sample of material. Imago’s tools excite the material sample with an electric field, which causes the atoms to peel off and be pulled toward a detector. The time-of-flight and position on the detector of each atom tells the system what kind of atom it was and where in the material it was located. For example, the tool can be used to examine the distribution of metals in an alloy in order to correlate nanoscale patterns with macroscale phenomena.

Since the tools can be used to analyze a wide variety of materials, the company is specifically targeting them for metrology and analysis in the semiconductor, data storage and advanced materials markets.

Joe Stelzer, chief executive of Polaron plc, said in a prepared statement that he believed that combining the two companies’ technologies together would result in the atom probe being adopted as a tool of choice by the semiconductor industry. Polaron will now concentrate on running its controls business, which provides systems for lighting products, building systems and other applications.

April 7, 2006 – The “Metrology Using X-Ray Technology” (MUXT) consortium, a project funded by the European Commission and carried out by Crolles2 partners ST Microelectronics, Philips Semiconductors, and CEA-LETI to evaluate and assess prototype equipment for next-generation semiconductor technologies, has added Jordan Valley Semiconductors Inc. to its roster. The project is working to develop a 300mm x-ray metrology platform for monitoring backend-of-line (BEOL) copper/low-k processes.

Phase 1 of the project involves evaluating second-generation x-ray reflectivity (XRR) and small-angle x-ray scattering (SAXS) technology for 65nm and 45nm manufacturing. Small-angle x-ray scattering is capable of measuring pore sizes below 10Angstroms; the project will focus on improving the technology for high scatter samples, and improve XRR performance with ultrathin films (<30Angstroms).

Phase II of the project will evaluate fast wide-angle micro-XRD (WAXRD) to monitor phase growth of Ta, TaN, and Cu grains to confirm that deposition processes meet 65nm- and-beyond manufacturing requirements. Teams will examine the crystallographic properties of the crystalline layers (allotropic form, texture, and grain size), in order to achieve fast measurement, microspot, and automated processing. WAXRD is seen as becoming either a standalone metrology tool or integrated with the XRR and SAXS channels for Cu process ramp-up and control.

“Our first partnership with the SEA, to bring our XRR/XRF technology to market, was extremely valuable,” commented Sean Jameson, Jordan Valley VP. “They really helped to validate our current technologies on a broad range of applications. Similarly, we look to the MUXT project to qualify our recent developments in SAXS and our future developments in low-res XRD.”

April 5, 2006 – Accent Optical Technologies has developed a new scatterometry acceleration tool to provide advanced critical dimension (CD) metrology for 65nm device manufacturing.

The Matchbox computation engine enhances productivity of scatterometry-based CD and profile metrology systems by processing grating diffraction signature matching in parallel to signal acquisition by the CD metrology tool, increasing throughput by up to 20% and giving users more flexibility in sampling strategy, line balancing, and using multiple libraries, the company claims. Matchbox is compatible with Accent’s PCM3 library generation system and CDS200 metrology system.

“Leading semiconductor manufactures are seeking CD metrology solutions with one second MAM time (move-acquire-measure) and computation time can be a significant portion of the MAM budget for complex multi-parameter problems,” stated David Doyle, Accent’s product marketing manager. “Maximizing metrology tool throughput enables greater sampling and improves the robustness of lot-to-lot or wafer-to-wafer control in high volume manufacturing.”

Click here to enlarge image

April 4, 2006 — FEI Co., a Hillsboro, Ore., maker of focused ion- and electron-beam tools for nanoscale characterization and research, announced late Monday that Vahe Sarkissian has stepped down as the company’s chairman, president and chief executive officer and will be leaving the company.

Sarkissian, who joined the company in 1998, would also resign as a director prior to the company’s annual shareholder meeting on May 11, according to an FEI release.

Raymond Link, chief financial officer, has been appointed to act as interim chief executive officer and will retain his chief financial officer role while the company conducts a search for a successor CEO. Link joined FEI in July 2005 from TriQuint Semiconductor Inc., where he held the position of chief financial officer and vice president of finance and administration.

Click here to enlarge image

In the meantime, FEI has formed an internal management committee comprised of Peter Frasso, executive vice president and chief operating officer; Robert Fastenau, senior vice president and general manager of the nanoresearch, industry and nanobiology market divisions; and Robert Gregg, executive vice president of worldwide sales and service.

FEI has been on the slate to be merged or acquired at least twice in recent years. At the end of 2002, a $1 billion deal to merge with Veeco Instruments of Woodbury, N.Y., fell through. Based on combined 2001 revenues, it would have made the combined company the third largest U.S. supplier of metrology equipment. More recently, FEI terminated discussions to be acquired by Carl Zeiss AG of Germany.

FEI does not expect to make any additional executive leadership changes, according to the release.

William Lattin, lead director of FEI’s board, said in a prepared statement that the company is on track to renew its growth and that now is the appropriate time for a leadership transition. The company’s board has formed an executive search committee to find a new CEO.

The company’s stock, which trades on the Nasdaq under the symbol FEIC, could trade down as a result of the uncertainty, according to a research note published this morning by W.R. Hambrecht nanotechnology analyst John Roy. Roy reiterated his hold rating on the stock and his price target of $18.50. The stock closed Monday at $19.81.

“We continue to like the nano-tool space, but execution is critical,” Roy wrote. “The company has been trying to right-size itself, but while the vision and markets are solid, the execution has not been. Hiring a new CEO could be an improvement, but we recommend waiting until a new leader is identified before making a decision.”

March 16, 2006 – Barely a month after it acquired scatterometry pioneer Accent Optical Technologies Inc. for roughly $80 million, Nanometrics Inc., Milpitas, CA, is back at it again, snapping up overlay metrology firm Soluris Inc. for $7.0 million in cash.

Soluris was formed in 2003 through a management buyout of optical and electron metrology assets of Schlumberger Ltd.’s semiconductor group. The flagship IVS 155 product is used for 200mm semiconductor overlay and CD measurement. Soluris boasts a user base of 150 installed systems worldwide. CEO Alain Bojarski will continue to run the unit from its Concord, MA headquarters.

With the deal, Nanometrics says it will add about $8-$10 million in annual revenues, along with 37 employees at sites in the US, Europe, and Asia. Soluris also has “compelling” IP not only in overlay and CD measurement but also in the CD-SEM area, Nanometrics noted.

Mar. 16, 2006 – Nanometrics Inc. (Nasdaq: NANO), a supplier of advanced integrated and standalone metrology equipment to the semiconductor industry, announced that it has acquired privately-held Soluris Inc., an overlay metrology company headquartered in Concord, Mass.

Total consideration to purchase all the outstanding stock and to retire all the outstanding debt of Soluris was $7 million in an all-cash transaction.

Soluris was formed in 2003 through a management buyout of certain optical and electron metrology assets of the Schlumberger Ltd. semiconductor group. Their flagship product, the IVS 155, is a tool for 200mm semiconductor overlay and CD measurement. Soluris’ overlay equipment has been in the market for more than 20 years, with an installed base of over 150 systems worldwide.

The company also brings a compelling portfolio of intellectual property, including not only the overlay and CD measurement technology but also significant patents in the CD-SEM arena, according to a news release. Nanometrics’ acquisition of Soluris adds 37 employees in the U.S., Europe and Asia and is expected to contribute annual revenues of approximately $8 million to $10 million.

METROLOGY TOOLS PROVIDE SOLUTIONS

By Thomas Fries, Paul Flynn, And Paul Lamm, FRT of America

Manufacturing a micro- or nano-device must be done with sub-nm precision; the range of the radius of a gold atom. However, it is nearly impossible to produce this accuracy, which is required to enable integration and packaging. Parts must be selected by metrology.

Instruments to measure the precision of micro devices and the alignment should have nanometer resolution. Such ultra-precise quality control systems like atomic force microscopy (AFM) or an optical, 3-D profiler must be used near, or integrated in the production.

Integration and assembly by nanorobotics can be precise, but without related sensors and automated process, may not be possible. Metrology tools provide possible solutions. These systems use AFM, optical sensors, or a combination of the two; and may be integrated into the production line or set up as stand-alone instruments in the metrology lab. They enable the characterization of roughness, profiles, shape, topography, lateral dimensions, film thickness, bow and warp, total thickness variation (TTV), or mechanical properties of surfaces. It is possible to cover a range of nine orders of magnitude for measurements, reaching from nanometers to meters.

Motivation

Investigation of structure and roughness of surfaces is gaining technological relevance. Demands on components and finished surfaces have increased. Quality assurance and global competition aggravate the situation, especially as nanotechnology becomes a complete new industry. Assembly and integration is a growing field. There is also the challenge of finished product size, which leads to a surface roughness in microelectronics on the atomic scale.

To establish real systems, a perfect supplier industry is needed. To get a perfect supplier industry, standards in dimensions and instruments to measure these dimensions are needed. Topography, roughness, and contour must be measured precisely and non-destructively. Existing ISO standards do not meet these needs, because existing procedures do not fit to relevant dimensions. There is a need for new characteristic data sets specially defined for nano-applications.

Instruments like tactile profilometers, confocal microscopes, or 3-D interferometers do not fulfill the combination of high resolution with significant, high dynamical ranges in 3-D and non-destructive, metrological measurement. Problems include: low resolution, destructive measuring, bad aspect ratio, restriction to 2-D evaluation for tactile profilometers, bad performance at edges, small range of view, missing metrology for 3-D interferometers, poor height, and X-Y measuring range of confocal microscopes.

Bridging the Dimension Gap

Even with the high performance of AFM, it can’t bridge the gap of dimensions from state-of-the-art industrial metrology and the nano range; restricting the application of AFM to research labs and some high-tech companies.

One company’s* tools are equipped with a chromatic optical sensor and an AFM, both mounted permanently. Without changing the measuring device, the chromatic optical sensor measures complete component parts for industrial purposes, while the AFM allows the investigation of the surface at specific positions with nanometer resolution. The optical sensor allows rapid and accurate topography measurements on samples ranging from 200 × 200 µm up to 600 × 600 mm using precision X-Y scanning stages. The X-Y resolution of this sensor is 1 µm. The Z range may be chosen from 300 µm to 25 mm, giving a maximum vertical resolution of 3 nm.


Figure 1. Metrology tool equipped with chromatic optical sensor and AFM.
Click here to enlarge image

The optical sensor is complemented by a positioning camera, which makes it possible to define the scanning area (Figure 1). The optical sensor is mounted on a motorized linear axis to facilitate an automatic approach into the measuring range of the sensor. It uses the physical effect of chromatic aberration to create a chromatic-coded measuring head, which allows accurate height measurements without any moving parts within the sensor.

Optical Principle

Light from a white-light source is transferred via a fiber to the measuring head. One focus point along the optical axis corresponds with a color wavelength, indicating one specific height value in the Z direction. On the surface, there is always the spot of one single wavelength in focus. For this wavelength, the spectrum of the reflected light shows a significant maximum. Spectral evaluation investigates the maximum wavelength, and from this, obtains the height of the measured sample at the respective X-Y position. Fast profiles are taken by scanning along one direction in the X-Y plane. 3-D topography is gained by scanning in the X and Y directions by the use of a passive, small, and light measuring head. There are no moving components within the sensor. The measurements are independent of the materials properties; in each measurement, the complete measuring range is taken. Steps do not lead to artifacts. This results in a robust measuring system for production with the specifications of a lab instrument. Working distances range from 4.5 to 20 mm.

Atomic-force Microscope

The AFM has scanning ranges between 20 × 20 µm and 80 × 80 µm. The Z range is from 2 to 6 µm. The AFM resolution is better then 1 nm. It is mounted on a separate axis to allow independent approach and retraction of the AFM head. The sample is positioned under the AFM head with the X-Y scanning stage, using either the positioning camera, or a previously recorded topography image with the optical sensor.

The AFM may be equipped with various modes like magnetic force, lateral force, force modulation, phase shift, Kelvin probe, liquid compatibility, and atomic force acoustical microscopy (AFAM). AFAM allows for investigating mechanical properties and elastic modulus of surfaces.

During AFM measurements, the scanning stage is blocked and seated on the granite base. Both sensors may be mounted on a rigid, manually adjustable slide to cover a large range in specimen thickness.

Due to the scanning range, the calibration of the multi-sensor metrology tools is important. Both sensors have to be calibrated separately. To calibrate the AFM, known AFM standards are used. These standards include a grid coordinate system, with 10-µm spacing used to calibrate the AFM X-Y scanner to determine the offset between AFM scanning area and the spot of the optical sensor.

The chromatic sensor is calibrated by an interferometer. The calibration is performed once at the factory, and can be checked using a gauge block or a height calibration standard.

The X-Y staging of the tools is controlled by a closed-loop feedback system using Heidenhain glass scales. The original height deviation of the stage for the whole range is better than 1 µm. By measuring a reference plane with the instrument on an optical flat, and by deducting this “zero plane,” reproducibility in height is achieved. This high-precision stage allows metrological measurements for the whole range of movement.

Solder Bumps

Figure 2 shows a solder bump array; a complete, 25 × 25-mm device. The 3-D topographic measurement gives the overall structures, containing all necessary information, to characterize this device. So a high-resolution topography may be extracted, and details of the top of the bumps may be evaluated. To estimate the height and diameter of the solder bumps, 2-D profiles are taken. These give exact data of all features within the surface.


Figure 2. Solder bumps application.
Click here to enlarge image

Another important point is warp of the substrate. Here, the bumps are eliminated by the software, resulting in the bare substrate surface topography. The Z-scale of the warpage is around 3 µm, while the bump heights are about 37 µm. The information of the coplanarity of the bumps, in combination with the warpage of the substrate, allows for a complete functionality check of the device.

Packaging

Another field of application is thick-film technology. Printed circuits are an essential regime of electronics applications. All substrate materials are relevant, especially ceramic substrates. One of the main advantages of metrology tools is the ability to measure ceramics, bright or dark surfaces, or transparent surfaces.

The key features of printed circuits include step height, width of the structures, and the topography of junctions. The roughness of the substrates and the identification of defects play a role. All this can be done manually or fully automated.

High Dynamics in Range

Most instruments for surface metrology can’t measure both roughness and flatness, and are not equipped to do variable modes of one kind. A new instrument** has been developed that is able to perform local, high-resolution 3-D measurements, or high-resolution single profiles across the complete sample. If the local resolution doesn’t meet the application requirements, the AFM is used within the same system, allowing all available modes of operation with nanometer resolution. The sample positioning for AFM measurement is performed using either the camera or a previous optical sensor measurement. The point of investigation for the AFM is always found quickly and precisely.

Transparent Films on Wafers

Hybrid polymers are deposited as thin, transparent films on wafers. As the film has been partially removed, the film thickness could be determined from a profile across the wafer surface and film upper surface. Thickness would equal height difference. Conventional contact stylus measuring systems are unsuitable for this application, as they use mechanical contact techniques and scratch the soft surfaces being measured. Non-contact, optical measuring systems using confocal, auto focus, or triangulation sensors fail for the profile measurement on thin, transparent films, because the reflected light from the film’s upper and lower surfaces cannot be individually evaluated.

The sensor used measures the light reflected from each of the film surfaces, and determines the interference of the two light beams for each wavelength. In the multi-sensor metrology tool, the interferometric measurement enables highly resolved 3-D mapping of a layer thickness. This combination measures both film thickness and surface topography with highest local thickness resolution.

PCB, PGA, Die, and Bonding Pad

The whole back-end process, up to packaging and integration, brings the same measuring tasks. For bumps, conductive layers, and coatings, the central question is for step height. Coplanarity, bow, and warpage data are always deducted from planarity. An instrument that measures large areas, high-resolution profiles, and 3-D scans, with software options to evaluate the gathered data under various aspects, can cover all those applications necessary in PCB, PGA, die, bonding pads, etc. (Figure 3).


Figure 3. Microelectronics application.
Click here to enlarge image

null

Conclusion

The main advantages of optical measurement are non-destructive measurement, high measuring speed, and long working distance. These instruments are used from workers self-testing to lab applications, or integrated in the line for fully automated operation. Large dynamics in range, combined with good resolution, especially in the Z direction, are achieved. With nanometer and sub-nanometer resolution, the range is limited. Here, the combination of AFM technologies allows for maximum resolution. Combining the various tools achieves the best performance for respective applications.

*FRT of America
**FRT MicroProf

THOMAS FRIES, president, FRT GmbH; PAUL FLYNN, director, FRT of America; and PAUL LAMM, regional sales manager, may be contacted at FRT of America, 48 South Road, #1, Somers, CT 06071; 866/378-7763; E-mail: [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected].


Clayton Teague
Click here to enlarge image

Last fall, Clayton Teague sat under fire as members of Congress peppered him with questions about nanotechnology’s potential for a big oops: nano-based materials or products that could harm people or the environment. As director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office, Teague works with more than 20 agencies that participate in the National Nanotechnology Initiative to ensure communication and collaboration among them.

He’s also the face of nano in Washington, D.C., and abroad. When concerns arise about the adequacy of funding for research on nano’s adverse effects, lawmakers turn to him for answers. When international committees want a representative for global cooperation on nano, they tap his shoulder. Teague is in demand – a lot, as he demonstrates in this exchange with Small Times’ Candace Stuart.

Q: What are the most pressing issues facing the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office in 2006?

One is our expectation of the delivery of the assessment report (on how we can improve the National Nanotechnology Initiative) from the National Academies. That’s supposed to be coming up sometime in the spring. What the report says and how we’ll respond will be at the forefront of what we do.

Q: Is this a follow-up to the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology report that came out last May?

The law requires both an assessment by PCAST and an assessment by the National Academies. There were a number of specific requests in the law that the academies were to address (such as) how we’re doing internationally, how we’re doing in technology transfer.

Q: What are you working on now?

We are working very closely with all the agencies to prepare the next supplement to the president’s 2007 budget, which will lay out the plan that the NNI and participating agencies have for the year 2007.

We laid out a strategic plan about a year ago (including) a very important vision statement with four goals, one of which is the responsible development of nanotechnology. The next step in further refining the strategic plan is to lay out research targets.

Over the next six to eight months that’s going to be a major effort. We hope to identify some very specific targets. Just to give you some examples, one that the NIH (National Institutes of Health) has identified is the $100 genome. The intent is to have all the instrumentation, validation and everything in place so that a person could walk into a clinic with a sample of blood or other sources of DNA, and for $100 walk out with a complete layout of their DNA.

Q: That’s using nanotechnology to accelerate this analysis?

Yes, to use nanoscale sensors, nanotechnology-based instrumentation, to provide this kind of service. Another potential example is to have nanotechnology-based solar cells or photovoltaic cells that are some number of times more efficient than current solar cells and a fraction of the cost.

I give those two examples to indicate the kind of specificity we’re talking about. None of those has been totally agreed upon by the agencies at this point.

We’re pushing very hard (on) the drafting of a document for environmental and health safety R&D. We hope it will be in the final review process in the next month or so. Finally, we will be planning for and conducting a number of public participation activities.

Q: At the House Science Committee hearing in November, witnesses and members of Congress indicated that we needed to put more resources into research on environmental and health effects. But it was unclear where that money should come from.

Almost from the inception of the NNI we placed a very high priority on what we call responsible development of nanotechnology. We meant that you achieve an appropriate balance between investing in R&D to advance the technology and commercialization with research to understand any potential adverse effects or impacts the technology may have for human health, the environment or society.

We really want to expand the knowledge of how we control matter at the nanoscale with the usual goals of strengthening the U.S. economy, supporting national and homeland security, and enhancing the quality of life for all citizens – as well as making our national contribution to improving the health and environment for the world.

Q: But the sense I got from the hearing was that some participants felt there aren’t sufficient allocations right now.

I think that is true, and what I was trying to say when Congressman Bart Gordon kept cutting me off (laughs) is that we identified for ’06 $38.5 million specifically for R&D on environmental health and safety implications for nanotechnology. But that identification was based on a very narrow and strict selection criteria.

We developed a definition that we sent to the agencies and said, “What R&D do you have that meets the criteria.” (The definition: R&D whose primary purpose is to understand and address potential risks to the health and the environment posed by these technologies.)

That’s fairly restrictive. We had earlier tried to make an estimate with a request to the agencies that said, “Tell us what you are doing with nanotechnology implications, applications or fundamental research related to environmental health and safety.” We got back a number that was something like $100 million. We were roundly criticized by some of the NGOs (non-governmental organizations). By including basic research and applications, (they said) that we had appeared to inflate the number.

This time we decided to narrow the definition. By doing so we got back a fairly limited scope of projects. For instance, none of the NIH research on understanding the interactions between nanoscale materials and biosystems is included because its primary purpose is aimed toward improving human health, better diagnostics and better treatment.

Q: Should industry bear some of the financial burden?

I think that is the case. Within the U.S, regulatory system, it is the responsibility of the manufacturers to ensure the safety of their products before they come into the marketplace. The regulatory agencies step in if there is evidence that that has not been the case and the product does prove to be unsafe and have adverse effects on human health or the environment.

Where the money would come from – that is actually a very important policy question. The final funding decisions about what money is going to be allocated where is based largely upon individual agencies. We provide an effective means of communication, collaboration and coordination among the agencies.

If you’re in the tight budget situation that we’re currently in, the most likely way would be for several of the agencies that would be most affected saying, “OK, if we increase funding for the (NIH’s) National Toxicology Program, where would it come from?” No one is probably going to advocate that you draw it from the National Cancer Institute. You have to ask those difficult questions when you think about this.

Q: In its report last May, PCAST encouraged the NNI to facilitate tech transfer from labs into industry. What are you doing on that front?

We organized a second meeting on the regional and state initiatives in nanotechnology. One of the goals is to improve communication to assist in states effectively supporting commercialization at the state and local level.

We keep improving our communications with small and large industries, giving them more effective understanding and knowledge about the research under way at the NNI, and to emphasize the tremendous number of facilities that are being made available for their use.

Q: Many state and local organizations aren’t government funded, so how effective can they be with few resources?

I am not aware of direct federal funding that goes to any of these state initiatives. However, if you look to some of the more successful ones, the state efforts have leveraged (state) investment to get additional support. One example would be Albany in New York.

Q: But not all states have equal resources.

I think that’s true. Certainly it depends on the local economies and their willingness to dedicate significant amounts of their resources toward this.

However, to point out another example where a state took the initiative is Arizona. The citizens decided to increase their sales tax to support educational development, and part of this was the development of facilities to do R&D at universities.

Q: What standards projects are you involved in right now?

I’m primarily involved through the American National Standards Institute (ANSI), who are acting as the administrator and secretariat for the technical advisory group (TAG) between the U.S. standards activities and the International Standards Organization (ISO). I’m serving as chair of the TAG. ANSI is the official representative of the United States to the ISO Technical Committee on Nanotechnologies.

We now have about 50 members. I encourage any industry to join in the ANSI technical advisory group. It is very important that the TAG has as thorough and broad representation across industry, academia and government as we can have. When we go to the technical committee meeting (in Japan this summer), we want to have the best and most solid scientific- and technological-based documents as we can possibly produce. That really holds weight at the international level.

The Teague file

Clayton Teague is director of the National Nanotechnology Coordination Office (NNCO), which was created to provide technical and administrative support for the Nanoscale Science, Engineering and Technology subcommittee (NSET). NSET represents the numerous departments and agencies involved in the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Before joining the NNCO, Teague was chief of the manufacturing metrology division at the National Institute of Standards and Technology. He also has worked on the technical staff at Texas Instruments.