euv high na anamorphic imagingeuvlsymposium.lbl.gov/pdf/2016/oral/wed_s2-3.pdf2016 international...
TRANSCRIPT
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
EUV high NA anamorphic imaging
It’s all about the angles Oct-26-2016 Eelco van Setten, Gerardo Bottiglieri, Thorsten Last, Alberto Colina, Jan Lubkoll, Gijsbert Rispens, Jan van Schoot
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
EUV: it’s all about the angles High-NA comes with large angles
ML reflection MoSi Multilayer
Slide 2
Public
NA=0.55
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Mu
ltila
yer
Ref
lect
ivit
y [%
]
Angle of incidence on the mask [deg]
Multilayer
Slide 3
Anamorphic magnification solves the angular spread at the mask Public
Y 0.33NA – Mag 4x
X
Multilayer Reflectivity
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Mu
ltila
yer
Ref
lect
ivit
y [%
]
Angle of incidence on the mask [deg]
Multilayer
Slide 4
Anamorphic magnification solves the angular spread at the mask Public
Y 0.33NA – Mag 4x
X
Y - 4x
0.55NA – Mag 4x
X
Multilayer Reflectivity
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Mu
ltila
yer
Ref
lect
ivit
y [%
]
Angle of incidence on the mask [deg]
Multilayer
Slide 5
Anamorphic magnification solves the angular spread at the mask Public
Y 0.33NA – Mag 4x
X
Y - 4x
0.55NA – Mag 4x
X
Y - 8x
0.55NA – Mag 4x/8x
Multilayer Reflectivity
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Mu
ltila
yer
Ref
lect
ivit
y [%
]Angle of incidence on the mask [deg]
Multilayer
Slide 6
Anamorphic magnification: Circular exit pupil requires elliptical entrance pupil
Anamorphic
MAG 4x/8x
x
y
Public
Entrance pupil
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
Slide 7
Anamorphic magnification: Circular exit pupil requires elliptical entrance pupil Public
POB
MAG 4x/8x At reticle At wafer
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
Slide 8
Public
Contents
Mask
Central obscuration
Contrast
Summary & conclusions
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
Main consequences: Half field imaging, mask pattern is
stretched in scanning direction
x
y
MAG 4x in x
MAG 8x in y
Note: rectangular slit shown for illustration purposes
Slide 9
Public
Anamorphic masks:
• Image field half of current size
• Mask pattern stretched
Feature distortions on mask
• 4x-direction will drive mask
requirements (CD, registration
and defectivity)
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
Slide 10
• Traditional Mask Error Factor (MEF) is normalized with the magnification:
𝑀𝐸𝐹 =∆𝐶𝐷𝑤𝑎𝑓𝑒𝑟
∆𝐶𝐷𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑘𝑚𝑎𝑔
• Not convenient for anamorphic Same MEF corresponds to different mask
CD tolerance in X and Y
• A new Mask Error Factor, MEF*, is defined:
𝑀𝐸𝐹∗ =∆𝐶𝐷𝑤𝑎𝑓𝑒𝑟
∆𝐶𝐷𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑘
1nm mask CD error gives ‘MEF*’ nm wafer CD error
New MEF definition to handle difference in X,Y-
magnification Public
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
@ mask @ wafer
1nm
mef* xx
mef* yx
d
2 d
d/4
d/4
Slide 11
2D features experience strong X-Y interaction for mask
CD errors Public
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
@ mask @ wafer
1nm
mef* xx
mef* yx
d
2 d
d/4
d/4
Slide 12
2D features experience strong X-Y interaction for mask
CD errors Public
@ mask @ wafer
mef* xy
mef* yy
1nm
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
@ mask @ wafer
1nm
mef* xx
mef* yx
d
2 d
d/4
d/4
Slide 13
2D features experience strong X-Y interaction for mask
CD errors Public
@ mask @ wafer
mef* xy
mef* yy
1nm
@ mask @ wafer
MEF* X
( mef* xx + mef* xy )
MEF* Y
( mef* yy + mef* yx )
1nm
1nm
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
Slide 14
contributors
@ mask @ wafer
1nm
1nm
Mask error in X-direction dominates error on wafer in
both directions
MEF* Y
( mef* yy + mef* yx )
MEF* X
( mef* xx + mef* xy )
Public
Mask error in X-direction
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
Slide 15
Public
Contents
Mask
Central obscuration
Contrast
Summary & conclusions
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
Standard EUV coatings cannot
handle these large angles
Substrate
Slide 16
Public
Multi-layers set limits to angles & angular spread Angles must be reduced for high-NA optics
We have to limit the
angles on the mirror
we need another trick!
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
Angles and
angular spread
decrease
ob
scu
red
Slide 17
Public
There is a solution: We drill a hole into the mirror. Smaller angles enable transmission gain vs non-obscured NA 0.33
un
ob
scu
red
And even better:
The smaller angular
range increases the
transmission
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
Slide 18
Confidential
Obscuration may result in:
- application dependent
contrast loss
- Non-telecentricity
Obscuration radius limited to
20% of the pupil radius
( = 4% of the pupil area )
Obscuration comes at expense of blocking parts of
diffraction orders
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
EL %
Half Pitch [nm]
with_obscurationwithout_obscuration
Slide 19
Public
Contrast loss for semi-dense pitches using Dipole
illumination large part diffraction order blocked
• Worst point has acceptable Exposure Latitude
• Mitigation by means of SMO and SRAFs (for 16nm HP and up)
Horizontal L/S through pitch
DipoleY (20% pupil fill ratio)
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
EL %
Half Pitch [nm]
with_obscurationwithout_obscuration
Slide 20
Public
Contrast loss for semi-dense pitches using Dipole
illumination large part diffraction order blocked
• Worst point has acceptable Exposure Latitude
• Mitigation by means of SMO and SRAFs (for 16nm HP and up)
• Contrast unobscured pitches very similar to 0.33NA for identical k1 values
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
EL %
k1 value [-]
with_obscurationwithout_obscuration0.33NA
Horizontal L/S through pitch
DipoleY (20% pupil fill ratio)
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
EL %
Pitch [nm]
with_obscuration
without_obscuration
Slide 21
Public
Negligible contrast loss for illumination shapes of which small
part diffraction orders is blocked
12nm horizontal spaces through pitch
Small annular (20% pupil fill ratio)
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
EL %
Pitch [nm]
with_obscuration
without_obscuration
Slide 22
Public
Negligible contrast loss for illumination shapes of which small
part diffraction orders is blocked
• Contrast very similar to 0.33NA for identical k1 values
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
EL %
k1 value [-]
with_obscuration
without_obscuration
0.33NA
12nm horizontal spaces through pitch
Small annular (20% pupil fill ratio)
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
EL [
%]
Half Pitch [nm]
with_obscurationwithout_obscuration
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
EL [
%]
Half Pitch [nm]
with_obscurationwithout_obscuration
Slide 23
Public
High contrast through pitch maintained for 2D features
Dense contact holes through pitch
Small annular (20% pupil fill ratio)
Dense contact holes through pitch
Quasar (20% pupil fill ratio)
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
Slide 24
Public
Obscuration has limited impact on non-telecentricity for 1D
features driven by Mask3D effects
• Compensation by SMO (asymmetric illumination) or mask stack optimization
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
Tele
cen
tric
ity
[mra
d]
Half Pitch [nm]
with_obscurationwithout_obscuration
Horizontal L/S through pitch
DipoleY (20% PFR)
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Tele
cen
tric
ity
[mra
d]
Pitch [nm]
with_obscuration
without_obscuration
12nm horizontal spaces through pitch
Small annular (20% PFR)
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
Slide 25
Public
Obscuration has limited impact on non-telecentricity for 1D
features driven by Mask3D effects
• Compensation by SMO (asymmetric illumination) or mask stack optimization
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
Tele
cen
tric
ity
[mra
d]
Half Pitch [nm]
with_obscurationwithout_obscuration
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
Tele
cen
tric
ity
[mra
d]
k1 value[-]
with_obscuration
without_obscuration
0.33NA
Horizontal L/S through pitch
DipoleY (20% PFR)
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Tele
cen
tric
ity
[mra
d]
Pitch [nm]
with_obscuration
without_obscuration
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2
Tele
cen
tric
ity
[mra
d]
k1 value [-]
with_obscuration
without_obscuration
0.33NA
12nm horizontal spaces through pitch
Small annular (20% PFR)
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
Slide 26
Public
Obscuration has limited impact on non-telecentricity for 2D
features driven by Mask3D effects
• Small compensation effect observed for semi-dense pitches
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30Tele
cen
tric
ity-
Y [
mra
d]
Half Pitch [nm]
with_obscurationwithout_obscuration
Dense contact holes through pitch
Quasar (20% pupil fill ratio)
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30Tele
cen
tric
ity-
Y [
mra
d]
Half Pitch [nm]
with_obscurationwithout_obscuration
Dense contact holes through pitch
Small annular (20% pupil fill ratio)
Anamorphic Placement aware SMO mitigates non-
telecentricity Confidential
Slide 27
Pattern shift through focus Flat-Mask SMO source
Placement aware SMO source
Multi-pitch L/S pattern
18nm min. pitch
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
-0.5
-0.3
-0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
-15 -5 5 15
Pat
tern
Sh
ift
[nm
]
Defocus [nm]
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
-0.5
-0.3
-0.1
0.1
0.3
0.5
-15 -5 5 15
Pat
tern
Sh
ift
[nm
]
Defocus [nm]
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
Anamorphic Placement aware SMO mitigates non-
telecentricity Confidential
Slide 28
• Max non-telecentricity reduces from 13 to 4mrad
Flat-Mask SMO source
Placement aware SMO source
Multi-pitch L/S pattern
18nm min. pitch
S1 S2 S3
S4 S5 S6
S7
Feature dependent non-telecentricity
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7Te
lece
ntr
icit
y [m
rad
] Multi-pitch spaces
Flat mask SMO
M3D SMO
Anamorphic Placement aware SMO restores
overlapping Process window Confidential
Slide 29
Exposure Latitude vs DoF Flat-Mask SMO source
Placement aware SMO source
Multi-pitch L/S pattern
18nm min. pitch
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 30 60 90 120
Exp
osu
re L
atit
ud
e [
%]
Defocus [nm]
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 30 60 90 120
Exp
osu
re L
atit
ud
e [
%]
Defocus [nm]
S1
S2
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
Anamorphic Placement aware SMO restores
overlapping Process window Confidential
Slide 30
• Overlapping PW @ 10% EL increases from 36 to 64nm
Flat-Mask SMO source
Placement aware SMO source
Multi-pitch L/S pattern
18nm min. pitch
S1 S2 S3
S4 S5 S6
S7
Overlapping Process window
0
5
10
15
0 20 40 60 80Ex
po
sure
Lat
itu
de
[%
]
Depth of Focus [nm]
Flat mask SMO
Placement aware SMO
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
Slide 31
Public
Contents
Mask
Central obscuration
Contrast
Summary & conclusions
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
Slide 32
Public
0.55NA gives high image contrast down to 8nm L/S
and 10nm contact holes
NILS vs resolution for 1D L/S NILS vs resolution for Contact holes
0
2
4
6
8
5 10 15 20 25
NIL
S [-
]
Half pitch [nm]
0.33NA
0.55NA
0
2
4
6
8
5 10 15 20 25 30
NIL
S [-
]
Half pitch [nm]
0.33NA
0.55NA
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
Slide 33
Public
Local CDU dominant contributor to EPE – Mitigation
via image contrast enhancement
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
Slide 34
Public
Local CDU dominant contributor to EPE – Mitigation
via image contrast enhancement
Jo Finders, SPIE 2016 and Fraunhofer IISB Litho simulation workshop 2016
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
10 15 20 25 30
req
uir
ed
NIL
S fo
r 1
5%
LC
DU
Half Pitch (nm)
17mJ 35mJ 70mJ
Slide 35
Confidential
High NA most powerful knob to control Local CDU and
dose requirements
Courtesy: Sander Wuister, Gijsbert Rispens
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
10 15 20 25 30
req
uir
ed
NIL
S fo
r 1
5%
LC
DU
Half Pitch (nm)
17mJ 35mJ
70mJ NILS 0.33NA
NILS 0.55NA0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1 2 3 4 5 6
Do
se [
mJ/
cm2
]
NILS [-]
Dose to meet 15% LCDU requirement
for 18nm dense holes
0.33NA
0.55NA
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
Slide 36
Public
Contents
Mask
Central obscuration
Contrast
Summary & conclusions
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
Slide 37
Confidential
Summary and conclusions
It’s all about the angles • Anamorphic imaging solves the angular spread at the mask
• M3D effects similar to 0.33NA
• Central obscuration enables high throughput with good imaging performance
• Anamorphic SMO does the rest
EUV High NA • Increased resolution enabling 8nm HP imaging
• Above all… superior contrast
• Key for reducing LCDU and EPE budget for maintaining shrink roadmap
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
Slide 38
Public
The authors would like to thank:
• Sander Wuister
• Jo Finders
• Stephen Hsu (Brion)
• Matthias Rösch
• Jens Timo Neumann
• Paul Graüpner
• Jörg Zimmerman
• Bernard Kneer
• Sacha Migura
2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan
Thank you for your
attention !