EUV high NA anamorphic imagingeuvlsymposium.lbl.gov/pdf/2016/Oral/Wed_S2-3.pdf2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

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



EUV: it’s all about the angles High-NA comes with large angles

ML reflection MoSi Multilayer

Slide 2

Public

NA=0.55


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


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 [%

]


Multilayer

Slide 4


Y 0.33NA – Mag 4x

X

Y - 4x

0.55NA – Mag 4x

X



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 [%

]


Multilayer

Slide 5


Y 0.33NA – Mag 4x

X

Y - 4x

0.55NA – Mag 4x

X

Y - 8x

0.55NA – Mag 4x/8x



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


Slide 7

Anamorphic magnification: Circular exit pupil requires elliptical entrance pupil Public

POB

MAG 4x/8x At reticle At wafer


Slide 8

Public

Contents

Mask

Central obscuration

Contrast

Summary & conclusions


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)


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


@ 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


@ mask @ wafer

1nm

mef* xx

mef* yx

d

2 d

d/4

d/4

Slide 12


CD errors Public

@ mask @ wafer

mef* xy

mef* yy

1nm


@ mask @ wafer

1nm

mef* xx

mef* yx

d

2 d

d/4

d/4

Slide 13


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


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


Slide 15

Public

Contents

Mask

Central obscuration

Contrast



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!


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


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


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)


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48

EL %

Half Pitch [nm]


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


DipoleY (20% pupil fill ratio)


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)


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




0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

EL [

%]

Half Pitch [nm]


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

EL [

%]

Half Pitch [nm]


Slide 23

Public

High contrast through pitch maintained for 2D features

Dense contact holes through pitch



Quasar (20% pupil fill ratio)


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]



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


Small annular (20% PFR)


Slide 25

Public



• 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]


-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


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


Small annular (20% PFR)


Slide 26

Public



• 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]



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]




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



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



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



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


Slide 31

Public

Contents

Mask

Central obscuration

Contrast



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


Slide 33

Public

Local CDU dominant contributor to EPE – Mitigation

via image contrast enhancement


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


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


Slide 36

Public

Contents

Mask

Central obscuration

Contrast



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


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


Thank you for your

attention !

Documents

EUV high NA anamorphic imagingeuvlsymposium.lbl.gov/pdf/2016/Oral/Wed_S2-3.pdf2016 International Symposium on Extreme Ultraviolet Lithography, Hiroshima, Japan 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%