Mr. Han-En Hsing Profile

Han-En Hsing

at KLA Taiwan

SPIE Involvement:

Author

Publications (2)

Proceedings Article | 16 March 2016 Paper

LELE CD bias offset monitor through OVL measurement

Chia Ching Lin, En Chuan Lio, Chang Mao Wang, Howard Chen, Sho Shen Lee, Henry Hsing, Kince Liu, Nuriel Amir

Proceedings Volume 9781, 978118 (2016) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2219509

KEYWORDS: Critical dimension metrology, Semiconducting wafers, Overlay metrology, Etching, Target detection, Time metrology, Imaging metrology, Control systems, Semiconductor manufacturing, Process control

Read Abstract +

Proceedings Article | 19 March 2015 Paper

Scatterometry or imaging overlay: a comparative study

Simon Hsu, Yuan Chi Pai, Charlie Chen, Chun Chi Yu, Henry Hsing, Hsing-Chien Wu, Kelly Kuo, Nuriel Amir

Proceedings Volume 9424, 942409 (2015) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2085950

KEYWORDS: Scatterometry, Overlay metrology, Photomasks, Metrology, Scatter measurement, Semiconducting wafers, Signal processing, Front end of line, Back end of line, Optical lithography

Read Abstract +

Most fabrication facilities today use imaging overlay measurement methods, as it has been the industry’s reliable workhorse for decades. In the last few years, third-generation Scatterometry Overlay (SCOL™) or Diffraction Based Overlay (DBO-1) technology was developed, along another DBO technology (DBO-2). This development led to the question of where the DBO technology should be implemented for overlay measurements. Scatterometry has been adopted for high volume production in only few cases, always with imaging as a backup, but scatterometry overlay is considered by many as the technology of the future. In this paper we compare imaging overlay and DBO technologies by means of measurements and simulations. We outline issues and sensitivities for both technologies, providing guidelines for the best implementation of each. For several of the presented cases, data from two different DBO technologies are compared as well, the first with Pupil data access (DBO-1) and the other without pupil data access (DBO-2). Key indicators of overlay measurement quality include: layer coverage, accuracy, TMU, process robustness and robustness to process changes. Measurement data from real cases across the industry are compared and the conclusions are also backed by simulations. Accuracy is benchmarked with reference OVL, and self-consistency, showing good results for Imaging and DBO-1 technology. Process sensitivity and metrology robustness are mostly simulated with MTD (Metrology Target Designer) comparing the same process variations for both technologies. The experimental data presented in this study was done on ten advanced node layers and three production node layers, for all phases of the IC fabrication process (FEOL, MEOL and BEOL). The metrology tool used for most of the study is KLA-Tencor’s Archer 500LCM system (scatterometry-based and imaging-based measurement technologies on the same tool) another type of tool is used for DBO-2 measurements.

Finally, we conclude that both imaging overlay technology and DBO-1 technology are fully successful and have a valid roadmap for the next few design nodes, with some use cases better suited for one or the other measurement technologies. Having both imaging and DBO technology options available in parallel, allows Overlay Engineers a mix and match overlay measurement strategy, providing back up when encountering difficulties with one of the technologies and benefiting from the best of both technologies for every use case.

View contact details

UPDATE YOUR PROFILE

Is this your profile? Update it now.

Sign into your SPIE.org account

Don’t have a profile and want one?

Create an account on SPIE.org

Keywords/Phrases

Search In:

Publication Years