Comparative defect classifications and analysis of Lasertec's M1350 and M7360

Milton Godwin; Dave Balachandran; Tomoya Tamura; Anwei Jia

doi:10.1117/12.2047659

2 April 2014 Comparative defect classifications and analysis of Lasertec's M1350 and M7360

Milton Godwin, Dave Balachandran, Tomoya Tamura, Anwei Jia

Proceedings Volume 9050, Metrology, Inspection, and Process Control for Microlithography XXVIII; 90502Z (2014) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2047659
Event: SPIE Advanced Lithography, 2014, San Jose, California, United States

Abstract

Defect classification and characterization on mask substrates and blanks can be used to the identify defect sources within the tool and process. Defect reduction has been achieved in SEMATECH’s EUV Mask Blank Development Center (MBDC), aided by successful classifications of defect populations. Failure analysis of EUV substrate and blank defects in the MBDC begins with automatic classification of defects detected by M1350 and M7360 Lasertec inspection tools. Two sets of defect images and classification emerge from the two detection tools. The M1350 provides a more variegated set of 13 defect class types, while the M7360 provides eight. During manual review of the classifications, the defect class sets for both tools are often collapsed to only two major classes of interests with respect to production and failure analysis: particles and pits. This leaves various other classes ignored before subsequent characterization steps like SEM classification and composition analysis. The usefulness of tracking and verifying more detailed classes of defect needs to be explored. SEM analysis can be used to validate the relative size comparison yielded from inspection data alone, beyond the calibrated comparison of inspection signals from well-understood polystyrene latex spheres. The accuracy of rule-based defect classification of inspection tool data must be quantified by statistical tracking and validation SEM analysis. Classification of false counts increases as sensitivity of detection tools are increased to ensure the capture of smallest defects. The validity of calling a defect “false” is usually a manual review of pixel images created on the detection tool.

Citation Download Citation

Milton Godwin, Dave Balachandran, Tomoya Tamura, and Anwei Jia "Comparative defect classifications and analysis of Lasertec's M1350 and M7360", Proc. SPIE 9050, Metrology, Inspection, and Process Control for Microlithography XXVIII, 90502Z (2 April 2014); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2047659

ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE

INSTITUTIONAL
Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.

SELECT YOUR INSTITUTION

PERSONAL
Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.

PERSONAL SIGN IN

No SPIE Account? Create one

PURCHASE THIS CONTENT

SUBSCRIBE TO DIGITAL LIBRARY

50 downloads per 1-year subscription

Members: $195

Non-members: $335 ADD TO CART

25 downloads per 1 - year subscription

Members: $145

Non-members: $250 ADD TO CART

PURCHASE SINGLE ARTICLE

Includes PDF, HTML & Video, when available

Members: $17.00

Non-members: $21.00 ADD TO CART

PROCEEDINGS
16 PAGES

DOWNLOAD PAPER SAVE TO MY LIBRARY

GET CITATION

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Get copyright permission Get copyright permission on Copyright Marketplace

KEYWORDS

Particles

Inspection

Reflectivity

Scanning electron microscopy

Crystals

Defect detection

Extreme ultraviolet

Show All Keywords

Keywords/Phrases

Search In:

Publication Years