The below listed sources are incorporated herein by reference in their entirety.
The present invention relates generally to the field of semiconductor Ultra Large Scale Integration (ULSI) manufacturing and more specifically to techniques for characterizing the performance of photolithographic machines and processes.
Typically one uses the term focal plane deviation (FPD) to measure the extent of lens or system dependent focal error over the entire lithographic imaging field. Lithographic systems with low to moderate amounts of focal plane deviation typically image better than those with gross amounts of focal plane deviation. Typically, the focal plane deviation associated with a photolithographic stepper or scanner is measured with some type of special lithographic imaging technique using special reticle or mask patterns (See “Distinguishing Dose from Defocus for In-Line Lithography Control”, C. Ausschnitt, SPIE Vo. 3677, pp. 140-147, 1999; “Quantifying the Capability of a New In-situ Interferometer”, B. Roberts et al, San Diego 2000 and U.S. Pat. No. 6,356,345, for example). For fabs, Bossung plots (focus vs. CD) are typically used as process aids to find the best focus as a function of exposure dose and CD (critical dimension). These Bossung plots contain plenty of inherent error (unknown focus budget effects) yet are still useful. While some focusing error or FPD stems from lens aberrations, other sources of focusing error include: stage non-flatness, stage tilt, wafer tilt, wafer surface irregularities, and scanner synchronization error (z). Traditional methods such as those mentioned above can usually determine FPD but fail to separate-out the effects of other sources including scanner noise and wafer non-flatness. In addition, most traditional methods are not capable of separating-out systematic error from random error—which is really needed for process control applications. As the semiconductor industry pushes the limits of optical lithography, focus or the effective z-height variation of the wafer plane surface from that ideal position which provides the highest contrast or otherwise optimal images is becoming difficult to control and measure. Extremely tight focus tolerance has lead to novel methods to help improve the lithographic depth of focus as well as providing improved methods for determining focus and focal plane deviation. A first example is given by Ausschnitt supra where a special reticle pattern containing features sensitive to exposure and focus shifts is used to separate-out dose effects from focus for lithographic processes. Another example can be found in U.S. Pat. No. 5,303,002 where longitudinal lo chromatic aberrations can be used to improve the overall lithographic depth of focus and improve focus latitude. A more interesting example can be found in Smith (see U.S. Publication No. 2005/0243309 and U.S. Pat. No. 7,126,668) where a special reticle containing overlay targets is used to determine dynamic lens field curvature to high accuracy in the presence of wafer non-flatness and scanner noise. A final example and used as part of U.S. Publication No. 2005/0243309 and U.S. Pat. No. 7,126,668, can be found in U.S. Pat. No. 5,828,455 where an in-situ interferometer is used to determine Zernike coefficients using box-in-box structures for the proper characterization of lens aberrations including focus.
While we have stressed the importance of determining focus, maintaining focus control, and possibly improving the useable depth of focus we should also mention that most lithographic scanner systems suffer from several types of telecentricity error including source boresighting error and telecentricities associated with both the entrance and exit pupil. For source telecentricity, error in the source centroid (energy centroid) in the presence of focusing error leads to problematic overlay error and magnification error since misaligned sources produce rays that image reticle features at a net angular off-set through the resist. Overlay error, or the positional misalignment between patterned layers is an important concern as both the pitch and size of lithographic features shrink since misaligned patterns are more likely to produce open circuit conditions or poor device performance (Reference U.S. Pat. No. 6,079,256). Finally, since both overlay and focus control specifications will soon reach a few nanometers (Reference International Technology Roadmap for Semiconductors, 2001 Edition—Lithography”, ITRS, 2001 Edition, pp. 1-17) methods that can accurately measure and separate-out components related to focus and source telecentricity will be highly desirable and required.
Having stressed the need for accurate methods of extracting focus and telecentricity we now give a brief description of the preferred embodiment (
Various embodiments of the present invention taught herein are illustrated by way of example, and not by way of limitation, in the FIGs of the accompanying drawings, in which:
a shows coordinates and notation relating to
b is a plan view and coordinates for
a shows illumination geometry for source division arrangement extraction of telecentricity;
b shows 1-d intensity profiles in direction cosine space corresponding to
a shows resist line notation/geometry;
b shows resist space notation/geometry;
It will be recognized that some or all of the FIGs are schematic representations for purposes of illustration and do not necessarily depict the actual relative sizes or locations of the elements shown. The FIGs are provided for the purpose of illustrating one or more embodiments of the invention with the explicit understanding that they will not be used to limit the scope or the meaning of the claims
In the following paragraphs, the present invention will be described in detail by way of example with reference to the attached drawings. While this invention is capable of embodiment in many different forms, there is shown in the drawings and will herein be described in detail specific embodiments, with the understanding that the present disclosure is to be considered as an example of the principles of the invention and not intended to limit the invention to the specific embodiments shown and described. That is, throughout this description, the embodiments and examples shown should be considered as exemplars, rather than as limitations on the present invention. Descriptions of well known components, methods and/or processing techniques are omitted so as to not unnecessarily obscure the invention. As used herein, the “present invention” refers to any one of the embodiments of the invention described herein, and any equivalents. Furthermore, reference to various feature(s) of the “present invention” throughout this document does not mean that all claimed embodiments or methods must include the referenced feature(s).
For the purposes of clarity the terms ZF cells and ZF structures used herein refer to arrays of box-in-box test structures and aperture plate. The overall flow diagram for an exemplary embodiment is illustrated in
Exit Pupil (or Source) Division
This invention consists of the following exemplary 18 embodiments (see
Theory and Detail:
Z=reticle to aperture plate distance (perpendicular to respective planes)
TEL=transverse direction cosines of entrance pupil chief ray on reticle side
R=transverse direction cosines of general ray emanating from point
With this, and denoting
Clipping by the aperture plate will limit the rays that can enter the imaging system (stepper or scanner) according to:
For an image side telecentric system (steppers and scanners used in ULSI photolithography) the exit pupil or image side direction cosine,
and the non-occlusion condition (Equation 2) becomes:
For a point on the reticle located directly above the aperture plate edge (
n1x≧−M·n1TEL (see FIG. 3) and M=system de-magnification Equation 5
So the effect of the aperture plate is to clip approximately the left half of the exit pupil (
which we use to find both focus and source telecentricity.
In a first approximation,
is determined by the centroid of the source convolved with the mask feature Fourier transform as modified and clipped by the exit pupil (Equation 4). In terms of the effective source (S(
where:
nx,ny,nz=∫d0
and,
and
SW=isolated space width
λ=scanner operating wavelength.
The clipping factor C(
To get a rough estimate of the instrumental slope shift,
we let nTEL=0 (typically small) and ignore convolution. This leads to, for a conventional source of numerical aperture NAs on the wafer side:
Table 1 (infra) shows the slope shift as computed from Equation 11 for several conventional sources:
Equation 11 and the results in Table 1 are for large
features. Decreasing the feature size (SW) and/or using grating arrangements (see U.S. Pat. No. 6,079,256) will increase the transverse size (in nx) of effective source S(nx) (Equation 9) and thereby increase slope shift d
An important role for middle or unclipped alignment attribute AAC is that when combined with clipped alignment attribute AAL and AAR, we can extract the source boresighting or telecentricity error
Exemplary aperture hole sizes are shown in Table 2 below. M=4, nTEL=0.03 (largest typical non-telecon), DAA=0.05mm (˜10 μm box with 2 μm wide spaces)
In this case, clipped alignment attributes are arranged on all eight sides of octagonal opening OC.
and nR is the maximum reticle side direction cosine which is:
with NAx being the maximum exit pupil numerical aperture, M the reduction magnification, and nTEL the maximum entrance pupil telecentricity angle.
Having derived the offsets for Exit Pupil Division for the first preferred embodiment we proceed to derive the transverse shifts for Source Division and then perform the calculations for extracting both focus and source telecentricity—possibly, in the presence of other telecentricity and metrology errors.
Where;
Tr=Reticle thickness
For aperture located at
Expressing this in terms of a source ray on the wafer side
where nr is the reticle refractive index.
For a point on the reticle directly above the aperture plate edge and an aperture covering the left half plane, the effect of the aperture plate is to approximately clip off the right half of the source (
An approximate formula using geometric optics (i.e., large feature on reticle plane) for the instrumental slope shift, d
and clipping factor C(nS) is given by:
A rough estimate of d
d
The aperture plate opening size is determined by a similar consideration to exit pupil clipping case and leads to formula:
Where nr=index of the glass reticle Table 3 has exemplary DAs.
The gain G (<1) caused by the aperture plate on the clipped features can be written as:
which after some manipulation can be re-expressed as:
where:
u,v=integration variables over the aperture
r=AA position on reticle
e=aperture plate edge position
e=aperture plate normal pointing into occluded region at
ep=(−ney, nex)=unit vector perpendicular to
nw=direction cosine at the wafer
TEL=entrance pupil telecentricity
M, ni=scanner reduction magnification, wafer side immersion index
Tre=Tr/nr=reticle thickness/reticle refractive index and
a=(
Numerical evaluation of Equation 22 produces values in the range G=0.4-0.6 so that with a typical product level dose:
E=n·E0 (E0 is clearing dose) Equation 24
Where n˜2:4 range the dose at the wafer for clipped alignment attributes is:
and is therefore not always (ECAA/E0<1) capable of properly exposing clipped AAs. The purpose of ZED is to blanket expose a large (˜100 μm at wafer) region around each clipped AA so that total dose/E0 is≧1. From Equation 25 we see that setting the ZED exposure dose EZED to:
EZED/E0˜0.5 Equation 26
will not wash out bar structures of clipped ZF and will allow under exposed bars to develop out.
For a 1-d source with:
nBS=reticle side boresighting error>0
NAs=source NA on reticle side
The directional centroid, <nx>is given approximately by:
nx=∫dnx nx I(nx)/∫dnx I(nx) Equation 27
with the value of <nx> for AAL, AAC, AAR shown in
AAL, AAC, AAR features are printed as inner boxes at focus position F1 while the outer boxes are printed without the source shade present and at a possibly different focus, F2, and shifted (possibly) by Tx. Tx shift is due to stage positioning errors. Using Equation 28 and the results in
The total measured bar-in-bar shift (BB) is just:
BB=outer box position−inner box position Equation 29
We can extract F1 by looking at:
since M, nI, NAS are otherwise known, we get the focus value F1:
We can extract nBS, the source boresighting or telecentricity error, by looking at:
For this embodiment, we are especially sensitive to nBS when running out of focus (i.e., F1˜1 μm). So, if we are particularly interested in nBS, because these exposures are carried out with large features, we can run significantly (F1/1 μm) out of focus to increase our sensitivity to nBS.
The above discussion applies to both source and exit pupil division arrangements.
As before, we can get F1:
while only the combination nBS+3·nTEL we can extract from
If we utilize an exit pupil division arrangement with alignment attributes AAL, AAC, AAR comprising diffractive gratings
such as those in U.S. Pat. No. 6,079,256 or small
features then diffraction by our alignment attributes will fill up the entrance pupil and effectively wash out or minimize the effects of source structure (boresighting error and size). Reference marks, ZR, are also exposed using small features so that we get for shifts the results of Table 6:
Now by simultaneously combining small and large features into ZF structures (
where:
BBCsmall/large=BB measurement from small/large featured central alignment attribute (AAC)
BBR/BBLlarge=BB measurement from right/left large featured alignment attribute (AAR/AAL). Since F1 is known from Equation 31 or 34, we independently get nBS and nTEL.
Further measurements will allow us to get exit pupil telecentricity nxi. For example, if we expose the ZF structures at a relatively large F1˜+1 μm and use as a reference a separate reticle with an array of ZR structures (no aperture plate present on second reticle) spatially co-incident with each ZF structure, and exposed at a second purposefully shifted focus position F2˜−1 μm, then by looking at BBCsmall or BBClarge, we will be able to extract nxi over the projected field of ZFs to within a few transverse spatial modes dependent only on the exposure mode used. Thus for determining nxi over a static field (stepper or scanner) it will be determined as a function of field position (x,y) to within a net translation and rotation viz:
where a, b, c are unknown constants.
Detailed Consideration of Feature Shifts
Hitherto we have used relatively simple models for calculating instrumental slope shifts (dx/dZ). To the extent that we are imaging large features at the reticle, the feature will shift spatially as a function of z-height (focus), linearly along the direction of the source telecentricity. By large feature, we mean a feature that has a relatively small diffractive radius, ΔnD so that the angular size of the source and the diffractive spreading fits within the exit pupil (
NAS+2ΔnD□NA Equation 39
Now even in the relatively simple situation we have neglected the finite photoresist thickness (Tr) and refractive index (nr) that will differ from our immersion media (
where we must separately calculate instrument slopes in resist
and immersion media
Again, we can derive formulas utilizing simple geometric ideas. Thus for a reticle side source telecentricity (
The above formula is in the immersion medium (i). Once in the photoresist, the shift changes to:
We can also derive the more general formulas in presence of general non-telecentricity and boresighting errors and compare them with simulations (see above discussion for example).
Comparison with Resist Simulations:
Further simulations with the same conditions as in
All of the above utilized zero wavefront aberrations. In the presence of non-zero wavefront aberrations, there will generally be a non-linear response (in F) of the shift caused by focus.
where:
a8=X-coma aberration (radians)
and dx/da8 is approximately given by:
on the right hand side of our BB equations (Equations 30 and 32) when solving for F. The above simulations were for large features. Small features will have their own, unique
functions which need to be separately simulated.
Illumination source
deviation from ideal as determined for instance by U.S. Pat. Nos. 6,356,345 B1 or 6,741,338 B2 will also modify
and need to be taken into account.
Metrology Effects, Theory:
While aberration and source imperfections complicate our determination of focus and telecentricity, there exist good in-situ methods for measuring them and subsequent simulations allow us to remove their effects. Simulations (supra) utilize the bottom position of a line or space as designating the shift. In practice, because of the relatively large slopes introduced by the focusing fiducials (ZF), the resist will not have perpendicular or nearly perpendicular sidewalls. For a resist line we have (
Left edge:
XL(Z)=XL(Tr)−(Tr−Z)tan(QL−π/2) Equation 2.100
Right edge:
XR(Z)=XR(Tr)−(Tr−Z)tan(QR−π/2) Equation 2.101
while for a space in resist we have (
Left edge:
XL(Z)=XL(Tr)+(Tr−Z)·tan(QL−π/2) Equation 2.102
Right edge:
XR(Z)=XR(Tr)−(Tr−Z)·tan(QR−π/2) Equation 2.103
The repeated position by an overlay tool will be a combination of Z weighted edge positions. The weighting factor will generally depend on whether the resist is overhanging (left edge of
Q>p/2 overhanging
Q=0 vertical Equation 2.104
Q<p/2 normal
The edge weighting function will be a slight function of Q.
WE(Z,Q)=edge weighting function for resist at depth Z and wall slope Q Equation 2.105
normalized as:
Thus, the left edge of the line in
where we have used the normalization condition of Equation 2.106 and introduced the fractional height, fh:
Applying this to the other edges above we get Table 2.100.
Line or feature center positions are of greatest interest in transverse displacement measurements.
They will be average of left and right edge locations and are in Table 2.101.
Looking at
QRspace=QLline
QLspace=QRline Equation 2.109
Furthermore, we would expect the feature center location at the bottom of the resist to be the same or:
Both of these expectations are borne out by simulation (Table 8).
From 2.109 and 2.110, the measured feature location will be the same for both line and space:
Line and space have the same bottom shift, measured shift, and metrology weighting correction. So, once we have our metrology model as represented by fractional height factor fh(Q) we can compensate for metrology induced shifts using Equation 2.111. The line/space symmetry (Equation 2.109) is illustrated in
from Table 2.101 (metrology shift) for line (ΔXL) and space (ΔXS) is:
Now, independent of the functional form of fh(Q) the metrology induced shifts (ΔXL and ΔXS of Equations 2.111.1 and 2.111.2) are opposite of one another:
ΔXL=−ΔXS Equation 2.111
So again, knowing our metrology model parameters (fh(Q1)) allows us to remove metrology induced shifts (Equations 2.111.1 and 2.111.2) from our BB measurement results.
Now, one arrangement that suggests itself and allows for elimination or effective removal of the metrology induced shift consists of creating line and space patterns simultaneously for the inner (or outer) set of bars. If in, say, the left alignment attribute (AAL) in
because of Equation 2.111.
The importance of Equation 2.112 is it completely eliminates the metrology effect (fh(Q)) and our having to otherwise measure and calibrate it out. This arrangement could be applied to ISI patterns (U.S. Pat. No. 5,828,455) to eliminate metrology effects.
Another arrangement for canceling metrology shift utilizes pairs of alignment attributes of opposite polarity i.e., line and space disposed along the same edge of aperture plate AP (
Average of line and space pattern gives us intrinsic shift only:
Measurement of Precision Bossung Curves
Bossung curves or CD/shift versus focus at varying dose levels are the quantitative starting point for semiconductor process monitoring and control (see background above). They can be emulated (see e.g. U.S. Publication No. 2005/0240895) but are typically directly measured using CD-SEM and/or overlay tool.
So doing the usual CD measurements accompanied by F determination permits experimental evaluation of Bossung curves.
So far we have discussed using the ZTEL (box-in-box) targets—using Source or Exit Pupil Division to determine both focus and source telecentricity—possibly in the presence of both entrance and exit pupil telecentricity errors. The focus (z-height variation) so far described in the preferred embodiment also known again as focal plane deviation or FPD (once known over the exposure field). As described in U.S. Publication No. 2005/0243309 and U.S. Pat. No. 7,126,668 one can determine the focus error associated with the lens and other sources such as wafer non-flatness and scanner noise using various types of focusing fiducials such as: PSM structures (Reference 459), Schnitzel Targets, FOCAL monitors, and ISI targets (see U.S. Pat. No. 5,828,455). These focusing monitors—mentioned in U.S. Publication No. 2005/0243309 and U.S. Pat. No. 7,126,668—can be added to the reticle patterns described in the above preferred embodiment and performed in parallel with the present invention in order to extract the individual error components related to both FPD and telecentricity.
While the present invention has been described in conjunction with specific preferred embodiments, it is evident that many alternatives, modifications and variations will be apparent to those skilled in the art in light of the foregoing description. It is therefore contemplated that the appended claims will embrace any such alternatives, modifications and variations as falling within the true scope and spirit of the present invention.
This application claims the benefit of U.S. Provisional application Ser. No. 60/774,707 Feb. 17, 2006. The contents of which are incorporated by reference in its entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5828455 | Smith et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5978085 | Smith et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6079256 | Bareket | Jun 2000 | A |
6356345 | McArthur et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6741338 | McArthur et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
6963390 | Smith et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
7126668 | Smith et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
20030095247 | Nakao | May 2003 | A1 |
20030156276 | Bowes | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20050240895 | Smith et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050243309 | Smith et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050254040 | Smith et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20060209276 | Smith et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
WO 2005106593 | Nov 2005 | WO |
WO 2005109106 | Nov 2005 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20070206168 A1 | Sep 2007 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60774707 | Feb 2006 | US |