More on the Mask Error Enhancement Factor

Similar documents
The Formation of an Aerial Image, part 2

Using the Normalized Image Log-Slope, part 2

The Formation of an Aerial Image, part 3

Line End Shortening. T h e L i t h o g r a p h y E x p e r t (Spring 2000) Chris A. Mack, FINLE Technologies, Austin, Texas

Line End Shortening, part 2

Optical Proximity Effects

Optical Proximity Effects, part 3

Resolution. T h e L i t h o g r a p h y E x p e r t (Winter 1997) Chris A. Mack, FINLE Technologies, Austin, Texas

Tutor43.doc; Version 8/15/03 T h e L i t h o g r a p h y E x p e r t (November 2003)

Reducing Proximity Effects in Optical Lithography

What s So Hard About Lithography?

Phase Contrast Lithography

Copyright 2000 by the Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers.

Depth of Focus and the Alternating Phase Shift Mask

Exhibit 2 Declaration of Dr. Chris Mack

Horizontal-Vertical (H-V) Bias

Copyright 2002 by the Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers.

Optical Projection Printing and Modeling

Depth of Focus, part 2

Chapter 15 IC Photolithography

Image Manipulation. Chris A. Mack Department of Defense Fort Meade, MD ABSTRACT

Optical Proximity Effects, part 2

Copyright 1997 by the Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers.

MICRO AND NANOPROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES

Key Photolithographic Outputs

Flare compensation in EUV lithography

Effect of Reticle CD Uniformity on Wafer CD Uniformity in the Presence of Scattering Bar Optical Proximity Correction

Shot noise and process window study for printing small contacts using EUVL. Sang Hun Lee John Bjorkohlm Robert Bristol

Lithography. 3 rd. lecture: introduction. Prof. Yosi Shacham-Diamand. Fall 2004

OPTICAL LITHOGRAPHY INTO THE MILLENNIUM: SENSITIVITY TO ABERRATIONS, VIBRATION AND POLARIZATION

Mutually Optimizing Resolution Enhancement Techniques: Illumination, APSM, Assist Feature OPC, and Gray Bars

TECHSPEC COMPACT FIXED FOCAL LENGTH LENS

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. 2.71/2.710 Optics Spring 14 Practice Problems Posted May 11, 2014

optical and photoresist effects

Synthesis of projection lithography for low k1 via interferometry

Copyright 2004 by the Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers.

Simulation of coherent multiple imaging by means of pupil-plane filtering in optical microlithography

Lecture 5. Optical Lithography

LITHOGRAPHIC LENS TESTING: ANALYSIS OF MEASURED AERIAL IMAGES, INTERFEROMETRIC DATA AND PHOTORESIST MEASUREMENTS

Purpose: Explain the top 10 phenomena and concepts. BPP-1: Resolution and Depth of Focus (1.5X)

Optical Lithography. Here Is Why. Burn J. Lin SPIE PRESS. Bellingham, Washington USA

Comparative Study of Binary Intensity Mask and Attenuated Phase Shift Mask using Hyper-NA Immersion Lithography for Sub-45nm Era

Section 2: Lithography. Jaeger Chapter 2 Litho Reader. The lithographic process

Diffraction. Interference with more than 2 beams. Diffraction gratings. Diffraction by an aperture. Diffraction of a laser beam

Section 2: Lithography. Jaeger Chapter 2 Litho Reader. EE143 Ali Javey Slide 5-1

Copyright 2000, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers This paper was published in Optical Microlithography XIII, Volume 4000 and is made

Polarization Experiments Using Jones Calculus

EE143 Fall 2016 Microfabrication Technologies. Lecture 3: Lithography Reading: Jaeger, Chap. 2

Aerial image based mask defect detection in dense array structures

Chapter 35. Interference. Optical Interference: Interference of light waves, applied in many branches of science.

IIL Imaging Model, Grating-Based Analysis and Optimization

Impact of 3-D Mask Effects on CD and Overlay over Image Field in Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography

Exercise 8: Interference and diffraction

Performance data of a new 248 nm CD metrology tool proved on COG reticles and PSM s

Process Window OPC Verification: Dry versus Immersion Lithography for the 65 nm node

EE-527: MicroFabrication

5. Lithography. 1. photolithography intro: overall, clean room 2. principle 3. tools 4. pattern transfer 5. resolution 6. next-gen

Optical design of a high resolution vision lens

Purpose: Explain the top advanced issues and concepts in

The End of Thresholds: Subwavelength Optical Linewidth Measurement Using the Flux-Area Technique

Optical Performance of Nikon F-Mount Lenses. Landon Carter May 11, Measurement and Instrumentation

CONTACT HOLE IMAGING AT THE 0.13 µm NODE USING KrF LITHOGRAPHY

Lecture 7. Lithography and Pattern Transfer. Reading: Chapter 7

Section 2: Lithography. Jaeger Chapter 2. EE143 Ali Javey Slide 5-1

Resolution Enhancement Technologies

Topography effects and wave aberrations in advanced PSM-technology

High Resolution Microlithography Applications of Deep-UV Excimer Lasers

Simulation of Quartz phase etch affect on performance of ArF chrome-less hard shifter for 65-nm technology

ELEC Dr Reji Mathew Electrical Engineering UNSW

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Mechanical Engineering Department. 2.71/2.710 Final Exam. May 21, Duration: 3 hours (9 am-12 noon)

Mirror-based pattern generation for maskless lithography

Optical transfer function shaping and depth of focus by using a phase only filter

OPC Scatterbars or Assist Features

Chapter Ray and Wave Optics

Optical Lithography. Keeho Kim Nano Team / R&D DongbuAnam Semi

SUBJECT: PHYSICS. Use and Succeed.

Measurement of the Modulation Transfer Function (MTF) of a camera lens. Laboratoire d Enseignement Expérimental (LEnsE)

1. INTRODUCTION 2. SCATTEROMETRY BASICS ABSTRACT

Modulation Transfer Function

Improving registration metrology by correlation methods based on alias-free image simulation

Optimization of the Spatial Properties of Illumination for Improved Lithographic Response

Optical Requirements

Experimental measurement of photoresist modulation curves

Intel Technology Journal

OPTICAL IMAGE FORMATION

Copyright 1998 by the Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers.

Today. next week. MIT 2.71/ /04/09 wk13-a- 1

MICROCHIP MANUFACTURING by S. Wolf

Sensitive measurement of partial coherence using a pinhole array

Activity 1: Diffraction of Light

Interferometric Lithography Optical System Utilizing a 442nm HeCd Laser

Resolution Enhancements Techniques for the 45nm node and Beyond

Criteria for Optical Systems: Optical Path Difference How do we determine the quality of a lens system? Several criteria used in optical design

Optolith 2D Lithography Simulator

Test procedures Page: 1 of 5

Variable microinspection system. system125

New Range Sensors at the Physical Limit of Measuring Uncertainty

Copyright 2000 Society of Photo Instrumentation Engineers.

Photons and solid state detection

Properties of optical instruments. Visual optical systems part 2: focal visual instruments (microscope type)

Transcription:

T h e L i t h o g r a p h y E x p e r t (Fall 1999) More on the Mask Error Enhancement Factor Chris A. Mack, FINLE Technologies, Austin, Texas In a previous edition of this column (Winter, 1999) I described the importance of the Mask Error Enhancement Factor (MEEF), based on the observation that errors in the width of a feature on the mask are not linearly transferred by the imaging process into errors on the wafer. In a perfect world there would be no errors in the feature widths of the mask patterns, so that understanding their impact on the wafer would be moot. Unfortunately, we are far from this ideal. For the 180nm lithographic processes currently being ramped up into production, mask errors are often one of the largest sources of across-chip linewidth variations. The MEEF (also called MEF by some authors) can be defined quite simply as the ratio of the change in resist feature width to the change in mask feature width assuming everything else in the process remains constant. In mathematical terms, MEEF resist = (1) mask where the mask CD is in wafer dimensions (that is, already scaled by the magnification of the imaging tool). One way to define the MEEF of an array of line/space patterns is to assume a CD error for all the lines (dark features) keeping the pitch constant, then measure the resulting resist CD. A MEEF of 1.0 is the definition of a linear imaging result. Although a MEEF less than one can have some desirable consequences for specific features, in general a MEEF of 1.0 is best. Fundamentally, what is the cause of MEEF values other than one? Anything that causes the overall imaging process to be non-linear will lead to a non-unit valued MEEF. In lithography, every aspect of the imaging process is non-linear to some degree, with the degree of non-linearity increasing as the dimensions of the features approach the resolution limits. Consider the first step in the imaging process, the formation of an aerial image. One might judge the linearity of this first step by approximating the resist CD with an image CD, defined to be the width of the aerial image at some image threshold intensity value (Figure 1). It is important to note that the image CD is only an approximate indicator of the resist CD. For an infinite contrast resist, proper selection of the image threshold intensity value will give an image CD exactly equal to the resist CD for all aerial images. For real, finite contrast resists, however, the differences between these two quantities can be substantial.

Nonetheless, the image CD will be used here to elucidate some general principles about imaging and the MEEF. For two simple cases of projection imaging, coherent and incoherent illumination, analytical expressions for the aerial image can be defined. Assuming a pattern of many long lines and spaces with a spacewidth w and pitch p such that only the 0 and ±1 diffraction orders pass through the lens, the coherent and incoherent in-focus aerial images would be w 2 sin( π w / Illumination : I( x) = + x / p π 2 (2) w 2sin( π w/ Illumination : I( x) = + ( MTF1 ) x / (3) p π where MTF 1 is the value of the incoherent Modulation Transfer Function at the spatial frequency corresponding to the first diffraction order. The requirement that no orders higher than the first diffraction order be used to form the image means that the coherent image equation is valid for a limited range of pitches such that 1 < pna/λ < 2 (where NA is the objective lens numerical aperture and λ is the wavelength), and the incoherent expression is valid for 0.5 < pna/λ < 1. Using these expressions to define the image CD, exact expressions for the image MEEF can be derived for these repeating line/space patterns under the conditions given above [1]: image MEEF image image = = (4) w mask Illumination : image MEEF 2 + w / = (5) 1 w / Illumination : image MEEF 1 1 + 1+ w/ MTF = (6) 1 w/ An interesting observation can be made immediately. Over the range of valid pitches, the coherent image MEEF is only dependent upon the duty cycle (w/, not on the pitch itself. The incoherent image MEEF, on the other had, has a direct pitch dependence through the value of the MTF (which is

approximately equal to 1 λ/{2nap}). Figure 2 shows how both image MEEFs vary with spacewidth to linewidth ratio. The extreme non-linearity of the imaging process is evident from the results shown in Figure 2. For coherent illumination, a pattern of equal lines and spaces will have an image MEEF of 0.5. A spacewidth twice the linewidth produces a MEEF of 1.0, and a spacewidth three times the linewidth results in a coherent image MEEF of 2.0! Obviously, different duty cycles can have wildly different sensitivities to mask errors. While the approximations used do not apply to truly isolated lines, it is clear that such features will also deviate from unit MEEF. A spacewidth/linewidth ratio less than unity also enhances the effect. Although neither purely coherent nor purely incoherent illumination are ever used in real lithographic imaging, these two extremes tend to bound the behavior of typical partially coherent imaging tools. Thus, we would expect the image MEEF of a partially coherent imaging system to vary with both duty cycle and pitch, and to vary by about a factor of 2 as a function of the partial coherence. The effect of the resist on the final MEEF is not obvious from this discussion, but the resist will both reduce the variation of the MEEF for larger feature sizes and increase its variation as the resolution limit is approached. References 1. Full derivations of these expressions will be published at a later date.

Aerial Image Intensity 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 Image CD 0.1 0.0-500 -400-300 -200-100 0 100 200 300 400 500 Horizontal Position (nm) Figure 1. The image CD can be defined as the width of the aerial image measured using a predetermined aerial image threshold value.

2.5 2.0 Image MEEF 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3.0 Spacewidth/Linewidth Figure 2. The impact of duty cycle (represented here as the ratio of spacewidth to linewidth for an array of line/space patterns) on the image CD based MEEF for both coherent and incoherent illumination. For the incoherent case, an MTF 1 of 0.45 was used.