Evaluating printability of buried native EUV mask phase defects through a modeling and simulation approach

The availability of defect-free masks is considered to be a critical issue for enabling extreme ultraviolet lithography (EUVL) as the next generation technology. Since completely defect-free masks will be hard to achieve, it is essential to have a good understanding of the printability of the native EUV mask defects. In this work, we performed a systematic study of native mask defects to understand the defect printability caused by them. The multilayer growth over native substrate mask blank defects was correlated to the multilayer growth over regular-shaped defects having similar profiles in terms of their width and height. To model the multilayer growth over the defects, a novel level-set multilayer growth model was used that took into account the tool deposition conditions of the Veeco Nexus ion beam deposition tool. The same tool was used for performing the actual deposition of the multilayer stack over the characterized native defects, thus ensuring a fair comparison between the actual multilayer growth over native defects, and modeled multilayer growth over regular-shaped defects. Further, the printability of the characterized native defects was studied with the SEMATECH-Berkeley Actinic Inspection Tool (AIT), an EUV mask-imaging microscope at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL). Printability of the modeled regular-shaped defects, which were propagated up the multilayer stack using level-set growth model was studied using defect printability simulations implementing the waveguide algorithm. Good comparison was observed between AIT and the simulation results, thus demonstrating that multilayer growth over a defect is primarily a function of a defect’s width and height, irrespective of its shape. This would allow us to predict printability of the arbitrarily-shaped native EUV mask defects in a systematic and robust manner.

[1]  Michael Lercel,et al.  SEMATECH's EUV program: a key enabler for EUVL introduction , 2007, SPIE Advanced Lithography.

[2]  Sherry L. Baker,et al.  Growth and printability of multilayer phase defects on extreme ultraviolet mask blanks , 2007 .

[3]  Paul B. Mirkarimi,et al.  Progress in the fabrication of low-defect density mask blanks for extreme ultraviolet lithography , 2006 .

[4]  Sungmin Huh,et al.  Study of real defects on EUV blanks and a strategy for EUV mask inspection , 2010, European Mask and Lithography Conference.

[5]  Sungmin Huh,et al.  Defect printability comparing actinic printing with advanced simulation for EUV masks , 2013, Advanced Lithography.

[6]  Kenneth A. Goldberg,et al.  EUV pattern defect detection sensitivity based on aerial image linewidth measurements , 2009 .

[7]  Pei-Yang Yan,et al.  EUVL multilayer mask blank defect mitigation for defect-free EUVL mask fabrication , 2012, Advanced Lithography.

[8]  Jeffrey Bokor,et al.  Minimum critical defects in extreme-ultraviolet lithography masks , 1997 .

[9]  Ted Liang,et al.  Investigation of resist effects on EUV mask defect printability , 2007, SPIE Photomask Technology.

[10]  Adam R. Pawloski,et al.  Defect printability study using EUV lithography , 2006, SPIE Advanced Lithography.

[11]  Kevin D. Lucas,et al.  Efficient and rigorous three-dimensional model for optical lithography simulation , 1996 .

[12]  Vibhu Jindal,et al.  Modeling the ion beam target interaction to reduce defects generated by ion beam deposition , 2012, Advanced Lithography.

[13]  Jenah Harris-Jones,et al.  Investigating printability of native defects on EUV mask blanks through simulations and experiments , 2014, Advanced Lithography.

[14]  Sungmin Huh,et al.  EUV actinic defect inspection and defect printability at the sub-32-nm half-pitch , 2009, European Mask and Lithography Conference.

[15]  Paul B. Mirkarimi,et al.  Investigating the growth of localized defects in thin films using gold nanospheres , 2000 .

[16]  Mihirkant Upadhyaya.  Experimental and simulation studies of printability of buried EUV mask defects and study of EUV reflectivity loss mechanisms due to standard EUV mask cleaning processes , 2014 .

[17]  Patrick Naulleau,et al.  EUV mask pattern defect printability , 2006, Photomask Japan.

[18]  Sungmin Huh,et al.  Printability and inspectability of programmed pit defects on the masks in EUV lithography , 2010, Advanced Lithography.

[19]  Kenneth A. Goldberg,et al.  EUV mask multilayer defects and their printability under different multilayer deposition conditions , 2012, Advanced Lithography.

[20]  John Arnold,et al.  The use of EUV lithography to produce demonstration devices , 2008, SPIE Advanced Lithography.

[21]  S. Marokkey,et al.  Level-set multilayer growth model for predicting printability of buried native extreme ultraviolet mask defects , 2015 .

[22]  Akira Chiba,et al.  Characteristics of the Ru buffer layer for EUVL mask patterning , 2001, SPIE Advanced Lithography.

[23]  A. Antohe,et al.  Inspection and compositional analysis of sub-20 nm EUV mask blank defects by thin film decoration technique , 2013, Advanced Lithography.

[24]  Vibhu Jindal,et al.  EUV mask defects and their removal , 2012, European Mask and Lithography Conference.

[25]  Jenah Harris-Jones,et al.  Smoothing of substrate pits using ion beam deposition for EUV lithography , 2012, Advanced Lithography.

[26]  John Arnold,et al.  EUV lithography at the 22nm technology node , 2010, Advanced Lithography.

[27]  Yuusuke Tanaka,et al.  EUV exposure experiment using programmed multilayer defects for refining printability simulation , 2007, SPIE Advanced Lithography.

[28]  E. Spiller,et al.  Localized defects in multilayer coatings , 2004 .

[29]  Jenah Harris-Jones,et al.  Modeling the EUV multilayer deposition process on EUV blanks , 2011, Advanced Lithography.

[30]  Ronald Fedkiw,et al.  Level set methods and dynamic implicit surfaces , 2002, Applied mathematical sciences.