1. Technical Field
The present invention relates to inspection and review systems to detect and analyze defects in manufactured substrates.
2. Description of the Background Art
Inspection processes are used at various steps during a semiconductor manufacturing process to detect defects on wafers and reticles. As the dimensions of semiconductor devices decrease, detection of defects of decreasing size has become necessary since even relatively small defects may cause unwanted aberrations in the semiconductor devices. The inspection process typically only involves detecting defects on the wafer or reticle and providing limited information about the defects such as location on the wafer or reticle, number of defects on the wafer or reticle, and sometimes defect size.
Defect review is often used to determine more information about individual defects than that which can be determined from inspection results. For instance, a defect review tool may be used to revisit defects detected on a wafer or reticle and to examine the defects further. Defect review typically involves generating additional information about defects at a higher resolution using either a high magnification optical system or a scanning electron microscope (SEM).
Some defects may be selected as candidates for sub-surface review. Sub-surface review generally involves manually navigating to the location of a selected defect, manually cutting the wafer or reticle to obtain a cross section, and high-resolution imaging of the cross section. The cut angle is usually determined based on a recommendation by a person who is familiar with the selected defect.
It is highly desirable to improve inspection and review systems to detect and analyze defects in manufactured substrates.
One embodiment relates to a method of preparation of a sample of a substrate for sub-surface review using a scanning electron microscope apparatus. A defect at a location indicated in a first results file is re-detected, and the location of the defect is marked with at least one discrete marking point having predetermined positioning relative to the location of the defect. The location of the defect may be determined relative to the design for the device, and a cut location and a cut angle may be determined in at least a partly-automated manner using that information.
Another embodiment relates to a system for preparing a sample for sub-surface review. The system includes at least an inspection apparatus and a scanning electron microscope apparatus. The inspection apparatus is configured to inspect a device for defects, select defects for sub-surface review, and output data on the selected defects to a first results file. The scanning electron microscope apparatus is configured to re-detect a defect at a location indicated in the first results file, mark the location of the defect with at least one distinct marking point with predetermined positioning relative to the location of the defect, receive a design file with a design for the device, ascertain a cut location and a cut angle in at least a partly-automated manner using the design for the device, and revise the first results file to generate a second results file which includes the cut location and the cut angle.
Another embodiment relates to a method for marking a defect for review on a target substrate. A first results file is obtained from an inspection apparatus, and the defect for review is re-detected at a location indicated in the first results file. The location of the defect is marked with at least one distinct marking point with predetermined positioning and separation relative to the defect for review.
Other embodiments, aspects and feature are also disclosed.
Note that the figures are not necessarily to scale and are intended to illustrate embodiments of the invention for purposes of providing a clear explanation of the invention.
It is common to see such a voltage-contrast defect on an inspection machine. However, since the defect only shows up as a grey-level difference, the defect may not be visible on the review or FIB machine. This lack of visibility on re-imaging some defect types makes re-locating the defect problematic and is one reason why conventional practices run into difficulties. These difficulties may be overcome by using the systems and methods disclosed herein.
Today, a typical flow from inspection to sub-surface review may be as follows: (i) Inspection (either optical or SEM based) of the target substrate; (ii) review imaging of the target substrate using an SEM; (iii) bin defects and identify candidates for sub-surface review on a focused ion beam system; (iv) use the review SEM to create rectangular burn marks (usually 0.5 to 2.0 microns in width), each rectangular burn mark delineating covering a region containing one or more of the candidate defects; (v) image the defects on the review SEM with the burn marks; (vi) transfer the target substrate and the images from the review SEM to the focused ion beam (FIB) tool; (vii) manually navigate to each burn mark in the FIB tool; (viii) manually cut based on the images using the FIB tool, where the cut angle is usually based on a recommendation of a person familiar with the defect; and (ix) high-resolution imaging of the sub-surface defect using either the FIB tool, or by removing a biopsy of the target substrate and imaging in a transmission electron microscope (TEM).
It has been determined that there are various issues in the above-discussed flow that contribute to the difficulty of performing sub-surface review of defects. First, as discussed above in relation to
Second, as discussed above in relation to
However, applicants have determined that the marked rectangular areas are imprecise, non-standard, and provide limited information as to the locations of the defects. For example, locating a 20 nm size defect in a 1,000 nm width burn mark may be practically infeasible.
Hence, most defect candidates for sub-surface review are chosen near a design reference point on the target substrate, so that the design reference point provides an inherent fiduciary. As a result of needing to be in the vicinity of a design reference point, it is difficult to review sub-surface defects inside arrays where there are no inherent fiducials near the defect.
Another issue is that burn marks from a SEM may dissipate depending on the layer. Hence, if there is a delay between the marking and the FIB cutting, then the mark may be gone.
Another issue is that the proper cutting angle for the manual cut is often unknown or inaccurately estimated. Knowing which angle to cut currently requires expert engineering knowledge that may not be present at the time of the cutting. Current industry practice is to create a drawing for each defect that the person doing the cutting can use as a guide. This is a highly manual and ad hoc procedure that results in a low percentage of successful cuts.
The present disclosure provides systems and methods to improve the precision and reliability of the sample preparation for sub-surface defect review. An innovative alignment technique is disclosed that enables precise and reliable alignment within an FIB tool for sample preparation. The alignment technique is applicable even to defect locations within an array without unique sites therein.
In addition to precision alignment to a defect location within the FIB tool, the present disclosure also provides for the non-manual determination of cut angles. This is done using data that is transferred from the review SEM system to the FIB system. The data may include design data, data on the defects of interest, and data on various alignment markers.
Per block 302, a target semiconductor wafer or reticle (i.e. a target manufactured substrate) may be inspected. The inspection may be performed, for example, using an optical inspection machine or a scanning electron microscope (SEM) inspection machine. Such inspection machines are available, for example, from KLA-Tencor Corporation of Milpitas, Calif. The inspection procedure may be performed in accordance with an inspection recipe for the target substrate. Of the defects detected during the inspection, select defects may be binned for sub-surface review. Results from the inspection, including the defects binned for sub-surface review, may be stored in a first results file (for example, in a “KLA results file” or “klarf”).
Per block 304, the inspection machine may output and send the first results file (Inspector klarf) to a review machine. The review machine may be, for example, a SEM review machine. Such a review machine is available, for example, from KLA-Tencor Corporation of Milpitas, Calif. Alternatively, the functionalities of the inspection and review machines may be a single SEM machine which performs an inspection procedure to function as an inspection machine and performs a review procedure to function as a review machine. In this case, the first results file from the inspection procedure would be accessed during the review procedure.
Per block 306, the review machine may re-detect and image defects which were previously detected by the inspection machine and about which data was stored in the first results file. The review machine may also perform a preliminary classification of the defects. In particular, the defects binned for sub-surface review may be re-detected, imaged, and preliminarily classified.
Per block 308, a determination may be made by the review machine as to whether a defect is a suspected defect of interest for sub-surface review. The determination may be based, for example, on the location and preliminary classification of the defect. Such a determination may be performed for each defect in the first results file.
Per block 309, design data may be obtained from a design information database. The design data relates to features, including sub-surface features, that are being manufactured on the target substrate.
Per block 310, if the defect is a suspected defect of interest, then the defect (and fiducials) may be marked. The fiducials may include, for example, an array corner which is nearby a defect. A mark may be formed using carbon-burn marking, gas-assisted etching, FIB etching, or using other methods. Exemplary marks are described further below in relation to
In addition, in one embodiment, the cutting location and cutting angle for a defect may be ascertained in a semi-automated or fully automated manner. The determination of the cutting location and angle may be performed by: (a) re-imaging the defect with the marking point(s) in a fully or partly automated manner; (b) measuring the defect distance of the defect to the marking point(s) in a fully or partly automated manner; (c) aligning an image of the design to the defect and the marking point(s) in a fully or partly automated manner; and (d) using the design data and any further information about the defect type in a manual, semi-automated, or fully-automated way to predict or ascertain an optimal cutting angle to view the defect in cross-section.
A defect-data package may be created. The defect-data package may include a second results file and also design data from the design information database. The second results file may include the locations of the marks relative to associated defects and may also include cutting locations and cutting angles for those defects. In one implementation, the second results file may be created by adding further information to the first results file.
After the marking of the target substrate and the creation of the defect-data package, the target substrate and the defect-data package may be provided from the fabrication facility (fab) to the failure analysis laboratory (lab). As mentioned above, the defect-data package may include: defect information from the inspection machine and the SEM systems at the fabrication facility; design data from the design information database; locations and images of at least one die corner and alignment sites to help globally synchronize the coordinate systems between the fab and failure analysis systems; locations and images of the defect marks and related fiducials; the cutting locations and cutting angles; and other information determined by the fab systems. The steps at the fabrication facility described below may be performed in a manual, semi-automated, or fully automated way.
Per block 322, after aligning the coordinate system of the FIB instrument using the locations and images of the die corners and alignment sites, the locations and images of the defect marks and related fiducials in the defect-data package may be used by a focused ion beam (FIB) instrument at the lab to relocate a defect of interest and ascertain a cutting location and a cutting angle for that defect of interest. In one embodiment, a dual-beam SEM/FIB system may include the FIB instrument and an SEM instrument. The cutting location and the cutting angle may be obtained from the defect-data package if they were ascertained previously by the fab systems, or they may be ascertained by the system at the failure analysis laboratory.
Per block 324, cutting may be performed at the defect of at the ascertained cutting angle. In addition, imaging of defect after the cut may be performed. In one embodiment, the cutting and imaging may be performed using a dual-beam SEM/FIB system, where the cutting is performed by the FIB instrument, and the imaging is performed by the SEM instrument.
Per block 326, the sub-surface defect images and other data may be output to a third results file. In addition, the cut sample may be provided for further analysis. For example, the further analysis may include analysis of a cross-sectional sample on a transmission electron microscope (TEM) instrument.
The steps in block A may be performed on an optical or SEM inspection machine. The steps in block A include: (1) inputting the wafer (or reticle) and an associated inspection recipe into the inspection machine; (2) detecting defects on the wafer (or reticle) in accordance with the inspection recipe; (3) binning or otherwise selecting defects for sub-surface review; and (4) outputting the inspection data to a file (a first results file).
The steps in block B may be performed on an SEM inspection and/or an SEM review machine. The steps in block B include: (1) inputting the wafer (or reticle) and the first results file (data from Optical or SEM Inspection System); (2) reviewing and verifying the defects; (3) performing a preliminary classification of the defects, where defects of interest may be binned or otherwise selected; (4) marking the defects of interest with predetermined (standard) marks; (5) re-imaging the defects of interest with the associated marks; (6) characterizing the defect locations relative to the associated marks and also to the device design; (7) ascertaining (predicting) cut location and cut angle relative to the marks (and fiducials) in an computer-automated manner (with little or preferably no input needed from a human expert); and (8) outputting defect-related data, including the cut location and cut angle information, into a file (the second results file) which may be included, along with design data, in a defect-data package.
The steps in block C may be performed on an FIB cutting machine. In one embodiment, the FIB cutting machine may be a dual-beam SEM/FIB machine. The steps in block C include: (1) inputting the wafer (or reticle) and the defect-data package (data from SEM Inspection and/or SEM Review Machine); (2) re-locating the marks; (3) performing cutting and imaging per the marks and accompanying data (including the cut angles); and (4) outputting the sub-surface defect images and other data may be output to a third results file, and/or the cut sample may be provided for further analysis, for example, using a TEM.
The voltage-contrast defect may be determined to be due to various causes. In a first example, the defect may be determined to be a plug-to-plug short circuit. In this case, the cut angle may be ascertained to be parallel to the gate line 602. As a second example, the defect may be determined to be a plug-to-gate short circuit. In this case, the cut angle may be ascertained to be perpendicular to the gate line 602. In a third example, the defect may be determined to be a junction-leakage defect. In this case, the cut angle may be ascertained to be at a diagonal along the lower-level active structures 604.
In the exemplary embodiment depicted, there are two darker polygon-shaped regions (802 and 806) and two lighter polygon-shaped regions (804 and 808). These four polygonal regions together form a rectangle with the center location of the marking point at the center of the rectangle.
In the particular embodiment shown, the first darker polygonal region 802 has a first side on the left edge of the rectangle, a second side going from the upper left corner to the center of the rectangle, a third side extending from the center of the rectangle to the middle of the bottom edge of the rectangle, and a fourth side going from the middle of the bottom edge to the lower left corner of the rectangle. The first lighter polygonal region 804 has a first side on the top edge of the rectangle, a second side going from the upper right corner to a first point which is part of the way down the right side of the rectangle, a third side going from the first point on the right edge to the center of the rectangle, and a fourth side extending from the center of the rectangle to the upper left corner of the rectangle. The second darker polygonal region 806 has a first side going from the first point on the right edge to a second point further down the right edge, a second side going from the second point on the right edge to the center of the rectangle, and a third side going from the center of the rectangle to the first point on the right edge. Finally, the second lighter polygonal region 808 has a first side going from the first point on the right edge to a second point further down the right edge, a second side going from the second point on the right edge to the center of the rectangle, and a third side going from the center of the rectangle to the first point on the right edge.
The above disclosure provides innovative systems and methods for the preparation of samples for sub-surface defect review. The samples may be samples of a semiconductor wafer or a reticle.
The above-described diagrams are not necessarily to scale and are intended be illustrative and not limiting to a particular implementation. In the above description, numerous specific details are given to provide a thorough understanding of embodiments of the invention. However, the above description of illustrated embodiments of the invention is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise forms disclosed. One skilled in the relevant art will recognize that the invention can be practiced without one or more of the specific details, or with other methods, components, etc. In other instances, well-known structures or operations are not shown or described in detail to avoid obscuring aspects of the invention. While specific embodiments of, and examples for, the invention are described herein for illustrative purposes, various equivalent modifications are possible within the scope of the invention, as those skilled in the relevant art will recognize.
These modifications can be made to the invention in light of the above detailed description. The terms used in the following claims should not be construed to limit the invention to the specific embodiments disclosed in the specification and the claims. Rather, the scope of the invention is to be determined by the following claims, which are to be construed in accordance with established doctrines of claim interpretation.
The present application claims the benefit of provisional U.S. Patent Application No. 61/564,733, filed Nov. 29, 2011, entitled “Novel Method for Preparing Samples for Sub-Surface Defect Review,” the disclosure of which is hereby incorporated by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5561293 | Peng | Oct 1996 | A |
6122562 | Kinney | Sep 2000 | A |
6453063 | Phaneuf | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6548811 | Nakamura et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6559457 | Phan | May 2003 | B1 |
7020853 | Skoll | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7072786 | Coldren et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7088852 | Bruce | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7676077 | Kulkarni | Mar 2010 | B2 |
8455821 | Arjavac | Jun 2013 | B2 |
20020153916 | Lee | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20030067496 | Tasker et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030098416 | Shemesh | May 2003 | A1 |
20030155927 | Pinto | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20040129878 | Tomimatsu | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20050023709 | Chien | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050035306 | Iwasaki | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20060219953 | Carleson | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060226376 | Fujii | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20070222464 | Honda et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20080135752 | Motoi | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080289754 | Sone | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080290291 | Kaga | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080309927 | Grueneberg | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090121152 | Obara | May 2009 | A1 |
20090230303 | Teshima | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20100092070 | Young | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100119144 | Kulkarni | May 2010 | A1 |
20100177954 | Ando | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100215868 | Iwasaki | Aug 2010 | A1 |
20110006207 | Arjavac | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110251713 | Teshima | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110260058 | Shindo | Oct 2011 | A1 |
20110286656 | Kulkarni | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20120087569 | O'Dell | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120328151 | Warschauer | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130206983 | Yin | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130228685 | Obara | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130267047 | Shih | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130341505 | Arjavac | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20140107959 | Kimba | Apr 2014 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
10-2007-0069810 | Jul 2007 | KR |
10-2010-0062400 | Jun 2010 | KR |
Entry |
---|
PCT International Search Report for Application No. PCT/US2012/066887, Mar. 26, 2013, 9 sheets. |
Extended European Search Report for EP Application No. 12 85 2562.3, Jun. 24, 2015, 8 sheets. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20130137193 A1 | May 2013 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61564733 | Nov 2011 | US |