Share Email Print
cover

Proceedings Paper

Monitoring measurement tools: new methods for driving continuous improvements in fleet measurement uncertainty
Author(s): Eric Solecky; Chas Archie; Matthew Sendelbach; Ron Fiege; Mary Zaitz; Dmitriy Shneyder; Carlos Strocchia-rivera; Andres Munoz; Srinivasan Rangarajan; William Muth; Andrew Brendler; Bill Banke; Bernd Schulz; Carsten Hartig; Jon-Tobias Hoeft; Alok Vaid; Mark Kelling; Benjamin Bunday; John Allgair
Format Member Price Non-Member Price
PDF $14.40 $18.00

Paper Abstract

Ever shrinking measurement uncertainty requirements are difficult to achieve for a typical metrology toolset, especially over the entire expected life of the fleet. Many times, acceptable performance can be demonstrated during brief evaluation periods on a tool or two in the fleet. Over time and across the rest of the fleet, the most demanding processes often have measurement uncertainty concerns that prevent optimal process control, thereby limiting premium part yield, especially on the most aggressive technology nodes. Current metrology statistical process control (SPC) monitoring techniques focus on maintaining the performance of the fleet where toolset control chart limits are derived from a stable time period. These tools are prevented from measuring product when a statistical deviation is detected. Lastly, these charts are primarily concerned with daily fluctuations and do not consider the overall measurement uncertainty. It is possible that the control charts implemented for a given toolset suggest a healthy fleet while many of these demanding processes continue to suffer measurement uncertainty issues. This is especially true when extendibility is expected in a given generation of toolset. With this said, there is a need to continually improve the measurement uncertainty of the fleet until it can no longer meet the needed requirements at which point new technology needs to be entertained. This paper explores new methods in analyzing existing SPC monitor data to assess the measurement performance of the fleet and look for opportunities to drive improvements. Long term monitor data from a fleet of overlay and scatterometry tools will be analyzed. The paper also discusses using other methods besides SPC monitors to ensure the fleet stays matched; a set of SPC monitors provides a good baseline of fleet stability but it cannot represent all measurement scenarios happening in product recipes. The analyses presented deal with measurement uncertainty on non-measurement altering metrology toolsets such as scatterometry, overlay, atomic force microscopy (AFM) or thin film tools. The challenges associated with monitoring toolsets that damage the sample such as the CD-SEMs will also be discussed. This paper also explores improving the monitoring strategy through better sampling and monitor selection. The industry also needs to converge regarding the metrics used to describe the matching component of measurement uncertainty so that a unified approach is reached regarding how to best drive the much needed improvements. In conclusion, there will be a discussion on automating these new methods3,4 so they can complement the existing methods to provide a better method and system for controlling and driving matching improvements in the fleet.

Paper Details

Date Published: 24 March 2009
PDF: 23 pages
Proc. SPIE 7272, Metrology, Inspection, and Process Control for Microlithography XXIII, 72721H (24 March 2009); doi: 10.1117/12.814089
Show Author Affiliations
Eric Solecky, IBM Corp. (United States)
Chas Archie, IBM Corp. (United States)
Matthew Sendelbach, IBM Corp. (United States)
Ron Fiege, IBM Corp. (United States)
Mary Zaitz, IBM Corp. (United States)
Dmitriy Shneyder, IBM Corp. (United States)
Carlos Strocchia-rivera, IBM Corp. (United States)
Andres Munoz, IBM Corp. (United States)
Srinivasan Rangarajan, IBM Corp. (United States)
William Muth, IBM Corp. (United States)
Andrew Brendler, IBM Corp. (United States)
Bill Banke, IBM Corp. (United States)
Bernd Schulz, AMD Fab36 LLC & Co. KG (Germany)
Carsten Hartig, AMD Fab36 LLC & Co. KG (Germany)
Jon-Tobias Hoeft, AMD Fab36 LLC & Co. KG (Germany)
Alok Vaid, AMD, Inc. (United States)
Mark Kelling, AMD, Inc. (United States)
Benjamin Bunday, SEMATECH, Inc. (United States)
John Allgair, SEMATECH, Inc. (United States)


Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 7272:
Metrology, Inspection, and Process Control for Microlithography XXIII
John A. Allgair; Christopher J. Raymond, Editor(s)

© SPIE. Terms of Use
Back to Top