Part of the  

Solid State Technology

  and   

The Confab

  Network

About  |  Contact

Posts Tagged ‘throughput’

High-NA EUV Lithography Investment

Monday, November 28th, 2016

thumbnail

By Ed Korczynski, Sr. Technical Editor

As covered in a recent press release, leading lithography OEM ASML invested EUR 1 billion in cash to buy 24.9% of ZEISS subsidiary Carl Zeiss SMT, and committed to spend EUR ~760 million over the next 6 years on capital expenditures and R&D of an entirely new high numerical aperture (NA) extreme ultra-violet (EUV) lithography tool. Targeting NA >0.5 to be able to print 8 nm half-pitch features, the planned tool will use anamorphic mirrors to reduce shadowing effects from nanometer-scale mask patterns. Clever design and engineering of the mirrors could allow this new NA >0.5 tool to be able to achieve wafer throughputs similar to ASML’s current generation of 0.33 NA tools for the same source power and resist speed.

The Numerical Aperture (NA) of an optical system is a dimensionless number that characterizes the range of angles over which the system can accept or emit light. Higher NA systems can resolve finer features by condensing light from a wider range of angles. Mirror surfaces to reflect EUV “light” are made from over 50 atomic-scale bi-layers of molybdenum (Mo) and silicon (Si), and increasing the width of mirrors to reach higher NA increases the angular spread of the light which results in shadows within patterns.

In the proceedings of last year’s European Mask and Lithography Conference, Zeiss researchers reported on  “Anamorphic high NA optics enabling EUV lithography with sub 8 nm resolution” (doi:10.1117/12.2196393). The abstract summarizes the inherent challenges of establishing high NA EUVL technology:

For such a high-NA optics a configuration of 4x magnification, full field size of 26 x 33 mm² and 6’’ mask is not feasible anymore. The increased chief ray angle and higher NA at reticle lead to non-acceptable mask shadowing effects. These shadowing effects can only be controlled by increasing the magnification, hence reducing the system productivity or demanding larger mask sizes. We demonstrate that the best compromise in imaging, productivity and field split is a so-called anamorphic magnification and a half field of 26 x 16.5 mm² but utilizing existing 6’’ mask infrastructure.

Figure 1 shows that ASML plans to introduce such a system after the year 2020, with a throughput of 185 wafers-per-hour (wph) and with overlay of <2 nm. Hans Meiling, ASML vice president of product management EUV, in an exclusive interview with Solid State Technology explained why >0.5 NA capability will not be upgradable on 0.33 NA tools, “the >0.5NA optical path is larger and will require a new platform. The anamorphic imaging will also require stage architectural changes.”

Fig.1: EUVL stepper product plans for wafers per hour (WPH) and overlay accuracy include change from 0.33 NA to a new >0.5 NA platform. (Source: ASML)

Overlay of <2 nm will be critical when patterning 8nm half-pitch features, particularly when stitching lines together between half-fields patterned by single-exposures of EUV. Minimal overlay is also needed for EUV to be used to cut grid lines that are initially formed by pitch-splitting ArFi. In addition to the high NA set of mirrors, engineers will have to improve many parts of the stepper to be able to improve on the 3 nm overlay capability promised for the NXE:3400B 0.33 NA tool ASML plans to ship next year.

“Achieving better overlay requires improvements in wafer and reticle stages regardless of NA,” explained Meiling. “The optics are one of the many components that contribute to overlay. Compare to ArF immersion lithography, where the optics NA has been at 1.35 for several generations but platform improvements have provided significant overlay improvements.”

Manufacturing Capability Plans

Figure 2 shows that anamorphic systems require anamorphic masks, so moving from 0.33 to >0.5 NA requires re-designed masks. For relatively large chips, two adjacent exposures with two different anamorphic masks will be needed to pattern the same field area which could be imaged with lower resolution by a single 0.33 NA exposure. Obviously, such adjacent exposures of one layer must be properly “stitched” together by design, which is another constraint on electronic design automation (EDA) software.

Fig.2: Anamorphic >0.5 NA EUVL system planned by ASML and Zeiss will magnify mask images by 4x in the x-direction and 8x in the y-direction. (Source: Carl Zeiss SMT)

Though large chips will require twice as many half-field masks, use of anamorphic imaging somewhat reduces the challenges of mask-making. Meiling reminds us that, “With the anamorphic imaging, the 8X direction conditions will actually relax, while the 4X direction will require incremental improvements such as have always been required node-on-node.”

ASML and Zeiss report that ideal holes which “obscure” the centers of mirrors can surprisingly allow for increased transmission of EUV by each mirror, up to twice that of the “unobscured” mirrors in the 0.33 NA tool. The holes allow the mirrors to reflect through each-other, so they all line up and reflect better. Theoretically then each >0.5 NA half-field can be exposed twice as fast as a 0.33 NA full-field, though it seems that some system throughput loss will be inevitable. Twice the number of steps across the wafer will have to slow down throughput by some percent.

White two stitched side-by-side >0.5 NA EUVL exposures will be challenging, the generally known alternatives seem likely to provide only lower throughputs and lower yields:

*   Double-exposure of full-field using 0.33 NA EUVL,

*   Octuple-exposure of full-field using ArFi, or

*   Quadruple-exposure of full-field using ArFi complemented by e-beam direct-writing (EbDW) or by directed self-assembly (DSA).

One ASML EUVL system for HVM is expected to cost ~US$100 million. As presented at the company’s October 31st Investor Day this year, ASML’s modeling indicates that a leading-edge logic fab running ~45k wafer starts per month (WSPM) would need to purchase 7-12 EUV systems to handle an anticipated 6-10 EUV layers within “7nm-node” designs. Assuming that each tool will cost >US$100 million, a leading logic fab would have to invest ~US$1 billion to be able to use EUV for critical lithography layers.

With near US$1 billion in capital investments needed to begin using EUVL, HVM fabs want to be able to get productive value out of the tools over more than a single IC product generation. If a logic fab invests US$1 billion to use 0.33 NA EUVL for the “7nm-node” there is risk that those tools will be unproductive for “5nm-node” designs expected a few years later. Some fabs may choose to push ArFi multi-patterning complemented by another lithography technology for a few years, and delay investment in EUVL until >0.5 NA tools become available.

—E.K.

Multibeam Patents Direct Deposition & Direct Etch

Monday, November 14th, 2016

thumbnail

By Ed Korczynski, Sr. Technical Editor

Multibeam Corporation of Santa Clara, California recently announced that its e-beam patent portfolio—36 filed and 25 issued—now includes two innovations that leverage the precision placement of electrons on the wafer to activate chemical processes such as deposition and etch. As per the company’s name, multi-column parallel processing chambers will be used to target throughputs usable for commercial high-volume manufacturing (HVM) though the company does not yet have a released product. These new patents add to the company’s work in developing Complementary E-Beam Lithography (CEBL) to reduce litho cost, Direct Electron Writing (DEW) to enhance device security, and E-Beam Inspection (EBI) to speed defect detection and yield ramp.

The IC fab industry’s quest to miniaturize circuit features has already reached atomic scales, and the temperature and pressure ranges found on the surface of our planet make atoms want to move around. We are rapidly leaving the known era of deterministic manufacturing, and entering an era of stochastic manufacturing where nothing is completely determined because atomic placements and transistor characteristics vary within distributions. In this new era, we will not be able to guarantee that two adjacent transistors will function the same, which can lead to circuit failures. Something new is needed. Either we will have to use new circuit design approaches that require more chip area such as “self-healing” or extreme redundancy, or the world will have to inspect and repair transistors within the billions on every HVM chip.

In an exclusive interview with Solid State Technology, David K. Lam, Multibeam Chairman, said, “We provide a high-throughput platform that uses electron beams as an activation mechanism. Each electron-beam column integrates gas injectors, as well as sensors, which enable highly localized control of material removal and deposition. We can etch material in a precise location to a precise depth. Same with deposition.” Lam (Sc.D. MIT) was the founder and first CEO of Lam Research where he led development and market penetration of the IC fab industry’s first fully automated plasma etch system, and was inducted into the Silicon Valley Engineering Hall of Fame in 2013.

“Precision deposition using miniature-column charged particle beam arrays” (Patent #9,453,281) describes patterning of IC layers by either creating a pattern specified by the design layout database in its entirety or in a complementary fashion with other patterning processes. Reducing the total number of process steps and eliminating lithography steps in localized material addition has the dual benefit of reducing manufacturing cycle time and increasing yield by lowering the probability of defect introduction. Furthermore, highly localized, precision material deposition allows for controlled variation of deposition rate and enables creation of 3D structures such as finFETs and NanoWire (NW) arrays.

Deposition can be performed using one or more multi-column charged particle beam systems using chemical vapor deposition (CVD) alone or in concert with other deposition techniques. Direct deposition can be performed either sequentially or simultaneously by multiple columns in an array, and different columns can be configured and/or optimized to perform the same or different material depositions, or other processes such as inspection and metrology.

“Precision substrate material removal using miniature-column charged particle beam arrays” (Patent #9,466,464) describes localized etch using activation electrons directed according to the design layout database so that etch masks are no longer needed. Figure 1 shows that costs are reduced and edge placement accuracy is improved by eliminating or reducing errors associated with photomasks, litho steps, and hard masks. With highly localized process control, etch depths can vary to accommodate advanced 3D device structures.

Fig.1: Comparison of (LEFT) the many steps needed to etch ICs using conventional wafer processing and (RIGHT) the two simple steps needed to do direct etching. (Source: Multibeam)

“We aren’t inventing new etch chemistries, precursors or reactants,” explained Lam. “In direct etch, we leverage developments in reactive ion etching and atomic layer etch. In direct deposition, we leverage work in atomic layer deposition. Several research groups are also developing processes specifically for e-beam assisted etch and deposition.”

The company continues to invent new hardware, and the latest critical components are “kinetic lens” which are arrangements of smooth and rigid surfaces configured to reflect gas particles. When fixed in position with respect to a gas injector outflow opening, gas particles directed at the kinetic lens are collimated or redirected (e.g., “focused”) towards a wafer surface or a gas detector. Generally, surfaces of a kinetic lens can be thought of as similar to optical mirrors, but for gas particles. A kinetic lens can be used to improve localization on a wafer surface so as to increase partial pressure of an injected gas in a target area. A kinetic lens can also be used to increase specificity and collection rate for a gas detector within a target frame.

Complementary Lithography

Complementary lithography is a cost-effective variant of multi-patterning where some other patterning technology is used with 193nm ArF immersion (ArFi) to extend the resolution limit of the latter. The company’s Pilot™ CEBL Systems work in coordination with ArFi lithography to pattern cuts (of lines in a “1D lines-and-cuts” layout) and holes (i.e., contacts and vias) with no masks. These CEBL systems can seamlessly incorporate multicolumn EBI to accelerate HVM yield ramps, using feedback and feedforward as well as die-to-database comparison.

Figure 2 shows that “1D” refers to 1D gridded design rule. In a 1D layout, optical pattern design is restricted to lines running in a single direction, with features perpendicular to the 1D optical design formed in a complementary lithography step known as “cutting”. The complementary step can be performed using a charged particle beam lithography tool such as Multibeam’s array of electrostatically-controlled miniature electron beam columns. Use of electron beam lithography for this complementary process is also called complementary e-beam lithography, or CEBL. The company claims that low pattern-density layers such as for cuts, one multi-column chamber can provide 5 wafers-per-hour (wph) throughput.

Fig.2: Complementary E-Beam Lithography (CEBL) can be used to “cut” the lines within a 1D grid array previously formed using ArF-immersion (ArFi) optical steppers. (Source: Multibeam)

Direct deposition can be used to locally interconnect 1D lines produced by optical lithography. This is similar in design principle to complementary lithography, but without using a resist layer during the charged particle beam phase, and without many of the steps required when using a resist layer. In some applications, such as restoring interconnect continuity, the activation electrons are directed to repair defects that are detected during EBI.

—E.K.