11 August 2014 Demonstration of electronic design automation flow for massively parallel e-beam lithography
Author Affiliations +
J. of Micro/Nanolithography, MEMS, and MOEMS, 13(3), 031306 (2014). doi:10.1117/1.JMM.13.3.031306
Abstract
For proximity effect correction in 5 keV e-beam lithography, three elementary building blocks exist: dose modulation, geometry (size) modulation, and background dose addition. Combinations of these three methods are quantitatively compared in terms of throughput impact and process window (PW). In addition, overexposure in combination with negative bias results in PW enhancement at the cost of throughput. In proximity effect correction by over exposure (PEC-OE), the entire layout is set to fixed dose and geometry sizes are adjusted. In PEC-dose to size (DTS) both dose and geometry sizes are locally optimized. In PEC-background (BG), a background is added to correct the long-range part of the point spread function. In single e-beam tools (Gaussian or Shaped-beam), throughput heavily depends on the number of shots. In raster scan tools such as MAPPER Lithography’s FLX 1200 (MATRIX platform) this is not the case and instead of pattern density, the maximum local dose on the wafer is limiting throughput. The smallest considered half-pitch is 28 nm, which may be considered the 14-nm node for Metal-1 and the 10-nm node for the Via-1 layer, achieved in a single exposure with e-beam lithography. For typical 28-nm-hp Metal-1 layouts, it was shown that dose latitudes (size of process window) of around 10% are realizable with available PEC methods. For 28-nm-hp Via-1 layouts this is even higher at 14% and up. When the layouts do not reach the highest densities (up to 10∶1 in this study), PEC-BG and PEC-OE provide the capability to trade throughput for dose latitude. At the highest densities, PEC-DTS is required for proximity correction, as this method adjusts both geometry edges and doses and will reduce the dose at the densest areas. For 28-nm-hp lines critical dimension (CD), hole&dot (CD) and line ends (edge placement error), the data path errors are typically 0.9, 1.0 and 0.7 nm (3σ) and below, respectively. There is not a clear data path performance difference between the investigated PEC methods. After the simulations, the methods were successfully validated in exposures on a MAPPER pre-alpha tool. A 28-nm half pitch Metal-1 and Via-1 layouts show good performance in resist that coincide with the simulation result. Exposures of soft-edge stitched layouts show that beam-to-beam position errors up to ±7  nm specified for FLX 1200 show no noticeable impact on CD. The research leading to these results has been performed in the frame of the industrial collaborative consortium IMAGINE.
© 2014 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE)
Pieter Brandt, Jérôme Belledent, Céline Tranquillin, Thiago Figueiro, Stéfanie Meunier, Sébastien Bayle, Aurélien Fay, Matthieu Milléquant, Beatrice Icard, Marco Wieland, "Demonstration of electronic design automation flow for massively parallel e-beam lithography," Journal of Micro/Nanolithography, MEMS, and MOEMS 13(3), 031306 (11 August 2014). http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/1.JMM.13.3.031306
JOURNAL ARTICLE
11 PAGES


SHARE
KEYWORDS
Electron beam lithography

Electronic design automation

Critical dimension metrology

Raster graphics

Point spread functions

Semiconducting wafers

Lithography

RELATED CONTENT

High Resolution Dynamic Ultrasonic Imaging
Proceedings of SPIE (November 15 1978)
Fundamentals Of Wavefront Sensing By Phase Retrieval
Proceedings of SPIE (August 01 1983)
Techniques to inspect SCALPEL masks
Proceedings of SPIE (December 30 1999)

Back to Top