The exposure tool is a critical enabler to continue improving the packing density and transistor speed in the semiconductor industry. In addition to increasing resolution (packing density) a scanner is also expected to provide tight control of the Across Chip Linewidth Variation, ACLV, (transistor speed). An important component of ACLV is lens aberrations. Techniques that measure in-situ the lens aberrations are now available. In a previous paper we reported good agreement between the first 25 Zernike coefficients measured in-situ using one of these techniques ARTEMIS and PMI (Phase Metrology Interferometry) data collected at the lens manufacturer. However questions have arisen as to the practicality of ARTEMIS, especially in view of its heavy reliance on a very large number of SEM images. We have measured the first 25 Zernike coefficients for 13 ASML 500/700 DUV Step & Scan systems in a high-volume wafer fab. In this paper we report on certain enhancements that were made to the best practice of ARTEMIS. We will also present a summary of the measurements taken and our first attempt to cluster the tools according to the aberrations measured.
ARTEMIS<SUP>TM</SUP> (Aberration Ring Test Exposed at Multiple Illumination Settings) is a technique to determine in-situ, full-field, low and high order lens aberrations. In this paper we are analyzing the ARTEMIS<SUP>TM</SUP> data of PAS5500/750<SUP>TM</SUP> DUV Step & Scan systems and its use as a lithographic prediction tool. ARTEMIS<SUP>TM</SUP> is capable of determining Zernike coefficients up to Z25 with a 3(sigma) reproducibility range from 1.5 to 4.5 nm depending on the aberration type. 3D electric field simulations, that take the extended geometry of the phase shift feature into account, have been used for an improved treatment of the extraction of the spherical Zernike coefficients. Knowledge of the extracted Zernike coefficients allows an accurate prediction of the lithographic performance of the scanner system. This ability is demonstrated for a two bar pattern and an isolation pattern. The RMS difference between the ARTEMIS<SUP>TM</SUP>-based lithographic prediction and the lithographic measurement is 2.5 nm for the two bar pattern and 3 nm for the isolation pattern. The 3(sigma) reproducibility of the prediction for the two bar pattern is 2.5 nm and 1 nm for the isolation pattern. This is better than the reproducibility of the lithographic measurements themselves.