1 / 108

Full-Field feature profile models in process control

SPIE (2005) Vol 5755 - 16. Full-Field feature profile models in process control. Terrence E. Zavecz – TEA Systems Inc. http://www.TEAsystems.com March 3, 2005. Contact tzavecz@TEAsystems.com (+01) 610 682 4146. Models for Reticle Performance. Introduction

keiran
Download Presentation

Full-Field feature profile models in process control

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. SPIE (2005) Vol 5755 - 16 Full-Field feature profile models in process control Terrence E. Zavecz – TEA Systems Inc. http://www.TEAsystems.com March 3, 2005 Contact tzavecz@TEAsystems.com (+01) 610 682 4146

  2. Models for Reticle Performance • Introduction • Physical Process Window description and Perturbations • The Best Focus Feature Contour • Formalization • Removal of metrology and exposure systematic error • Examples • Duty Cycle • BARC • High k1 applications • Full-Field Process Window • Optimum Field Response • With tool defocus removed • Depth of Focus & Focus Contours • Application to Full-Wafer responses • Formalization • Addressing Film and Feature systematic • Exposure tool artifacts • Final Note • Exposure artifact influence on the Process Window • Conclusions Models for reticle performance

  3. Two-variable process window Collapsed line BCD • The number of un-Collapsed lines visible in a group were rated from SEM photos ranging from 0 to “7” • Results are shown for an 80 nm feature width Models for reticle performance

  4. Properties of the PW Surface C. Ausschnitt et al SPIE 5378 p38-47 C. Mack et al SPIE 5038-39 Models for reticle performance

  5. CD-SEM with PW CD vs Dose Optimum Focus (for this case) • CD vs Dose is not linear • Surface “fit” quality can vary! deFocus CD vs Focus Models for reticle performance

  6. Wafer flatness Device topography Effective Dose Why “Process Window” fit-quality varies? • Primary disturbances causing CD Uniformity (CDU) variations grouped upon their sources. Reticle Scanner Track & Process Substrate BARC coat Transmission Exposure Dose Flatness Resist Film coat Slit Uniformity CD’s PEB Temp & Time Focus SetUp Develop Chuck Flatness Up-Down Scan Effective Focus Scan Linearity CDU Models for reticle performance

  7. Best Focus – Feature Contour • Derive CD @ Dose & Best Focus • Relationship functional for • Feature Widths • Side Wall Angle (SWA) • Resist & BARC thickness • Line Edge Roughness Best Focus (for Critical Dimension or CD) Set derivative = 0 & solve for “F” CD @ Best Focus Models for reticle performance

  8. Dose Response of Best Focus (BF) & CD • Feature vs Dose • Will be near-linear if feature profiles are well resolved • Best Focus vs Dose • Slope should be ~0 if lens is near aberration free and films do not influence focus response Dose Best Focus Models for reticle performance

  9. Example #1 – Duty cycle • 140 nm contacts • 3 sets of pitch • CD-SEM measured contact TCL=140nm p240 Best Focus p550 p420 Models for reticle performance

  10. Example 2: BARC Performance • The ARC 3 data has • a lower CD vs dose, reducing it’s sensitivity to dose • A greater target dose to obtain CD size of 80 nm • A strong sensitivity of best focus to the dose No ARC at Best Dose ARC3 at Best Dose Models for reticle performance

  11. Example #3; Pushing the envelope Response for 80 nm, 193 litho process • Dose values are arbitrary • At 80 nm, we are driving the imaging capabilities of the lens • Note response of BF to scan & lens aberrations • Response is caused by wavefront asymmetry and results in feature line edge asymmetry Site 30 Site 15 Models for reticle performance

  12. Consider the Process Window • A CD-SEM based data sample of the process window Models for reticle performance

  13. Focus -0.24 -0.16 -0.08 0.0 +0.08 +0.16 +0.24 Dose= 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Process Window Scatterometry Process Window Side Wall Angle What can we learn? • Exposures • 193nm litho process for 100nm features • AT1100 scanner, 0.75NA with annular illumination • 90nm gratings at 1:1 with full field coverage • 240nm resist on 78nm Barc on Si • OCD metrology: NI, rotating polarized light (Nano9030) • diffractive optical metrology (scatterometry) - outputs spectral intensity changes of 0th order diffracted light intensity • Weir PW Software from TEA Systems Models for reticle performance

  14. Optimal BCD Image BCD Vector Plot • BCD values as estimated for the reticle • Across-field Focus and metrology errors removed by process • Note that these values include both reticle offsets and exposure/lens aberrations BCD Contour Plot Y (scan) location (mm) X (slit) location (mm) 100 nm 1:1, 90nm TCD Models for reticle performance

  15. Optimum Field Response thru Dose • BCD summarizes natural feature size response @ best Focus for each dose • DoF computed when in control Models for reticle performance

  16. Metrology & Process Independent Characteristics Focus Uniformity Depth of Focus Uniformity Models for reticle performance

  17. 5754-110 Poster Validation; wafer vs Reticle CD-SEM Reticle MEF+ = 4.3292 Optimized BCD from Wafer Nanometrics Reticle MEF+ = 4.305813 Models for reticle performance

  18. BCD, TCD, SWA @ Best Focus/Dose Models for reticle performance

  19. Dusa et al. SPIE Vol. 5378-11 BARC modeled wafer uniformity Models for reticle performance

  20. T3 (PR) SWA BARC BCD TCD Derived variable distributions across the wafer Models for reticle performance

  21. BCD & TCD Size vs PhotoResist Models for reticle performance

  22. BARC Thickness & SWA Models for reticle performance

  23. - Scan Direction Artifacts Focus = -1.5 -1.0 -0.05 0.0 +0.05 +1.0 1.5 - + - + - + - + + - + - + - + Reticle Scan Direction Models for reticle performance

  24. Profile variation with Focus See Poster: 5754-87 Lens Before cleaning Lens After cleaning Scan direction - + - + - + - - + - + - + - Top CD + - + - + - + + - + - + - + Slope Focus = -1.5 -1.0 -0.05 0.0 +0.05 +1.0 +1.5 Focus = -1.5 -1.0 -0.05 0.0 +0.05 +1.0 +1.5 Bottom CD Process window Models for reticle performance

  25. 5 18 19 6 9 10 11 12 Slope vs Dose across the slit Lens Before cleaning Lens After cleaning Up +Scan Down -Scan Models for reticle performance

  26. Reticle scan-stage component removed. Provides view of lens perturbations Reticle Scan Removed Lens Before cleaning Lens After cleaning Top CD - + - + - + - - + - + - + - + - + - + - + + - + - + - + Slope Focus = -1.5 -1.0 -0.05 0.0 +0.05 +1.0 +1.5 Focus = -1.5 -1.0 -0.05 0.0 +0.05 +1.0 +1.5 Bottom CD Models for reticle performance

  27. Lens aberrations removed. Provides view of scan uniformity Lens Slit Removed Lens Before cleaning Lens After cleaning Top CD - + - + - + - - + - + - + - + - + - + - + + - + - + - + Slope Scan speed nonlinearity start/end of scan Focus = -1.5 -1.0 -0.05 0.0 +0.05 +1.0 +1.5 Focus = -1.5 -1.0 -0.05 0.0 +0.05 +1.0 +1.5 Bottom CD - + - + - + - - + - + - + - + - + - + - + + - + - + - + Models for reticle performance

  28. FR(x,y) @ Best Focus Lens Before cleaning Lens After cleaning CD response after field focus errors are removed. -Down + Up -Down + Up TopCD Slope BottomCD Models for reticle performance

  29. A Note: Exposure artifacts & the model • Be aware of scan artifacts such as stage scan direction perturbations Models for reticle performance

  30. Summary • Process Window surface models • The algorithm history extends through several formats • Extended to Dose Response of Features independent of metrology & Field focus • Best Focus vs Dose • Plot yields additional information on process response and extensibility • Full-Field Process Window • Provides the optimum feature response across the field • Traceable directly to reticle measurements • Can be extended to Depth of Focus and deFocus contours • Full Wafer Response • Implements Best Feature response of the Full-Field Process Window • Models were shown for addressing wafer-systematic perturbations • Scanner-specific field models shown in paper 5754-110 • Systematic feature response perturbations • Response to Film and and exposure tool artifacts • Final Note • Exposure tool induced perturbations can directly influence the accuracy of the process window calculation Models for reticle performance

  31. End of Presentation – Thank You Please visit posters: “Feature profile control and the influence of scan artifacts” 5754-87 “Models for reticle performance and comparison of direct measurement ” 5754-110 Visit us at: http://www.TEAsystems.com BARC Uniformity

  32. Models for reticle performance

  33. Background and additional slides

  34. Feature Response to process disturbance “m” • is the sensitivity coefficient Formalization of the Spatial Signatures • - IFp(x,y): IntraField periodic signature • reticle component and a systematic –within-wafer, periodic component • describing the scanner field (slit and scan signatures) • - Wp (x,y): feature response variability • This component is primarily a result of the “whole-wafer-at-a-time” process steps, characteristic to resist and track. • - DD (x,y): Die-to-Die variability • variations in discrete scanning disturbances such as effective dose, the incidental focus or scan direction. • - r: the residual component (1) (2) Most complex signature Ref. 2: Mircea Dusa et al, “Intra-wafer CDU characterization … ”, Proc. SPIE (2004), Vol. 5378-11 Models for reticle performance

  35. Component Analysis of MEF • Definition • MEF = Mask Error Function • In terms if IntraField Periodic Signature IFp(x,y) = IFdReticle+IFSlit, scan aberrations + IFeffective Dose,Focus + IFResist + IFflare,scatter +Ifscatter MEF Objective: Identify the MEF Components of IFp Models for reticle performance

  36. IntraField (IFp) Signature • IFslitPerturbations • Lens aberrations • Flare, scatter, proximity etc. • Photoresist artifacts • IFScanReticle Stage Distortions: • effective dose • scan speed • Effective Focus • Stage pitch, yaw tilt • travel height-offset • IFReticle • Effective feature width • Photomask Processing IFslit= Lens Aberrations Models for reticle performance

  37. Lens-Slit Model, Row offsets Focus offsets • Modeled offset of each slit position • Repeatability of each reticle scan’s travel • Contributing about 1 nm of noise to BCD error budget • Lens-slit model is applied to every row of every field of the wafer. Results are summarized on the right. Models for reticle performance

  38. Models for reticle performance

  39. Right-side average Models for reticle performance

  40. Average Field Models for reticle performance

  41. BCD Raw Data Models for reticle performance

  42. Modeled BCD-RET across wafer Models for reticle performance

  43. Profile Response @ Best Focus (Before) Lens before cleaning UP +Scan Down -Scan Models for reticle performance

  44. Profile Response @ Best Focus (After) Lens After cleaning UP +Scan Down -Scan Models for reticle performance

  45. Slope Slope TopCD TopCD BottomCD Focus Uniformity Lens Before cleaning Lens After cleaning Calculated from Calculated from -Down + Up -Down + Up BottomCD Models for reticle performance

  46. DoF Variation Lens Before cleaning Lens After cleaning After Clean • Both features plot to the same scale • Note however there is a problem with the lower left corner of the field with a shallow DoF • Partially hidden here by the scale TopCD -Down + Up -Down + Up BottomCD Models for reticle performance

  47. Lens-Slit Uniformity • The piston BCD value of each columns yield a representation of the BCD perturbation caused by the lens. • This is the Average Field • Variation show is caused by the 8 focus-shifted fields • Slit contributes about 2 nm to error budget Models for reticle performance

  48. Average Field BCD Scan Profile • Boxplot across Reticle Scan shown • Reticle & Wafer errors removed • The right-side (bottom) of the scan’s mid-points has been averaged and transposed to the left-side (top) graph. • Note the left-right pitch of the reticle-scan’s travel accounting for approximately 1 nm of variation Right-side average Models for reticle performance

  49. Slit Wobble • Slit-wobble is contributing about 1.25 nm to error budget • Tilt contributes 3 nm to budget Models for reticle performance

  50. IntraField Process Window • W(x,y) = Feature Response • located at (x,y) on reticle • Process window reduction • Site #8 • Soft data-sport • Easily corrected and handled • Site #6 response • Reticle Error • Lens and/or scan aberrations (MEF) Site #8 Site #6 Models for reticle performance

More Related