KEYWORDS: Design, Scanning electron microscopy, Overlay metrology, Monte Carlo methods, Electrons, Lithography, Precision measurement, Electron beam lithography, Design rules, Signal detection
As CMOS node advanced, device patterns become smaller and denser, which as a result, decrease overlay budget. Each contributor to overlay error is significant and should be minimized, even at early stage of technology development. The performance of optical overlay metrology is challenged by the difference between optical target and device structure, which response differently to lithography optics (aberration response), hence reduce correlation to device overlay. E-Beam overlay can mitigate this gap as it can measure device-size structures. In this case, the challenge is to measure small, dense and buried patterns, which may have low visibility (contrast and edge resolution), but still provide acceptable total measurement uncertainty (TMU) to reduce error budget from the tight overlay specs. Finding optimal target where its design is similar or close to device and is measurable with robust performance, without designing and re-design targets in multiple tape-out cycles, can be done by simulating scanning electron microscopy (SEM) measurements of different device-like targets and find the optimal point where predicted performances are good and the design is as close to the device. In this paper we propose a method that evaluates measurement performances of different SEM overlay target designs using e-Beam simulation of back-scatter electrons (BSE) yield from buried layers. Targets with different design rules: pitch, critical dimensions (CD) and edge-to-edge distance are simulated at different measurement conditions and results are compared to measurement of actual targets on wafer. The comparison shows that measurement performance can be predicted by simulation, which can point out optimal target design and measurement conditions.
The advanced logic node is continuously shrinking toward sub-nm node and EUV lithography is the one of main drivers to reach better patterning resolution resulting in reduced process steps. Along with this design rule shrink, On Product Overlay (OPO) requirement has been critical to the device yield making the accuracy and stability of optical overlay measurement to become primary concern on the lithography process control. Historically Optical Microscope (OM) ADI overlay was accepted and the standard for control to meet OPO requirements. Along the past years, as OPO budget diminishes with node-to-node, OM overlay required additional supporting reference data to compensate the inherent accuracy problem. Industry adopted the accuracy correction knob with High Voltage SEM (HV-SEM) at post etch, also known as SEM AEI overlay. The SEM AEI overlay measures the error contribution of different process influence and the overlay mark to real device pattern overly bias together. The inaccuracy of OM ADI overlay has been treated as a non-correctable error components till the on-device overlay measurement of HV-SEM after etching was enabled to compensate the delta known as Non-Zero Offset (NZO) or Mis-Reading Correction (MRC). Today the HV-SEM on-device overlay measurement at AEI is widely adopted as one of critical component to meet the OPO requirement enabling scaling for all types of advanced CMOS devices production. The main driver of On-Device-Overlay (ODO) measurement at AEI step is the see-through imaging capability to see all relevant layers through the stack even though the measurement step/time differs on the same wafer of the ADI optical overlay measurement are ranging from few to two-digit days depending on the process complexity. There has been an increasing need for a faster response of overlay measurements to close the overlay control loop and breakdown the device to target error versus the process overly induce component – in other words, to correct in the right step. This leads to the necessity of SEM ADI overlay measurement. With the recent e-Beam evolution of more higher landing energy, probe current and improved Total Measurement Uncertainty (TMU) performance, SEM ADI overlay measurement is enabled and considered to show the performances to meet market requirements on the selected layers of interest. In this paper, we would like to demonstrate the enablement of SEM ADI overlay measurement including the accuracy comparison with OM ADI overlay on the DBO scribe target versus real device pattern measurement performance. With SEM ADI and AEI overlay measurement on the same patterns, we could also demonstrate the error breakdown between optical target to device and from ADI to AEI process induced error which will enable the better correctable methodology to minimize NZO/MRC. In addition, this process contribution to error breakdown could be extended to improve, in the future, the Edge Placement Error (EPE) control.
Access to the requested content is limited to institutions that have purchased or subscribe to SPIE eBooks.
You are receiving this notice because your organization may not have SPIE eBooks access.*
*Shibboleth/Open Athens users─please
sign in
to access your institution's subscriptions.
To obtain this item, you may purchase the complete book in print or electronic format on
SPIE.org.
INSTITUTIONAL Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.
PERSONAL Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.