|
Device Design criteria and product complexity have reduced the Focus Budget on today's technologies to near zero. Recent years have seen the introduction of a number of focus monitor methods involving new designs and processes that attempt more accurately or more easily to define the focus performance of our imaging systems. We have evaluated several focus monitoring techniques and compared their relative strengths and speed. The objective of this study is to demonstrate each technology's ability to evaluate exposure tool lens performance and quantify those factors that directly degrade depth-of-focus in the process. Baseline focus for process exposure and lens aerial image aberration analysis is evaluated using focus matrices. The remaining contributors to depth-of-focus (DOF) degradation are derived from the opto-mechanical interactions of the tool during full-wafer exposures. Full-wafer exposures, biased to -100 nm focus, were used in the determination of these error sources. Exposing all test sequences on the same 193 nm scanner provided consistency of the comparison. A valid analytical comparison of the technologies was further guaranteed by using a single software tool, Weir PSFM software from Benchmark Technologies, to calibrate, analyze and model all metrology. Two of the four techniques we evaluated were found to require focus matrices for analysis. This prohibited them from being able to analyze the fixed-focus exposure detractors to the DOF. One technique was found to be ineffective at the 193 nm because of the high-contrast response of the photoresists used. An analysis of the aerial image was validated by comparison of each technique to the Z5 Zernike as measured by ASML's ARTEMIS analysis. The ASML FOCAL and Benchmark PGM targets, both replicating dense- packed feature response, best tracked ARTEMIS signature. A whole-wafer, fixed exposure tool focus analysis is used to evaluate wafer, photoresist and dynamic scan contributions to the focus budget. Of the four techniques considered only the PSFM and PGM patterns could be used for this evaluation. Performance response is reported for detractors involving the wafer as well as the mechanical scan direction of the reticle stage.
|
