Method and apparatus for optically measuring periodic structures using orthogonal azimuthal sample orientation

• US 7,990,549 B2
• Filed: 12/02/2009
• Issued: 08/02/2011
• Est. Priority Date: 11/30/2006
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Bruker Technologies Ltd. (Bruker Corporation)
• Original Assignee: Jordan Valley Semiconductors Ltd. (Bruker Corporation)
• Inventors: Walsh, Phillip
• Primary Examiner(s): Chowdhury; Tarifur R.
• Assistant Examiner(s): Akanbi; Isiaka O
• Application Number:
  US12/592,773
• Publication Number:
  US 20100177324A1
• Time in Patent Office: 608 Days
• Field of Search: 356/601, 356/625, 356/600, 356/612, 356/138, 356/73, 702/82, 718/104
• US Class Current: 356/612
• CPC Class Codes: G01B 11/24 for measuring contours or curvatures
• CPC Class Codes: G01N 21/211 Ellipsometry optical thickness measurement G01B11/06
• CPC Class Codes: G01N 21/4788 Diffraction for sizing particles G01N15/0205

Abstract

An optical metrology apparatus for measuring periodic structures using multiple incident azimuthal (phi) and polar (theta) incident angles is described. One embodiment provides the enhanced calculation speed for the special case of phi=90 incidence for 1-D (line and space) structures, which has the incident plane parallel to the grating lines, as opposed to the phi=0 classical mounting, which has incident plane perpendicular to the grating lines. The enhancement reduces the computation time of the phi=90 case to the same order as the corresponding phi=0 case, and in some cases the phi=90 case can be significantly faster. One advantageous configuration consists of two measurements for each sample structure, one perpendicular to the grating lines and one parallel. This provides additional information about the structure, equivalent to two simultaneous angles of incidence, without excessive increase in computation time. Alternately, in cases where the computation for phi=90 is faster than the corresponding phi=0 incidence, it may be advantageous to measure parallel to the grating lines only. In the case where two sets of incident angles are used, the incident light can be polarized to provide a total of four sets of data—R_s⁰, R_p⁰, R_s⁹⁰, R_p⁹⁰—for each incident polar angle, all from the same structure.

Claims

1. A method of characterizing a diffraction grating structure, comprising

collecting a first set of reflected data from the grating structure by providing incident light at a first angle of azimuthal incidence with respect to the grating structure;

collecting a second set of reflected data from the grating structure by providing incident light at a second angle of azimuthal incidence with respect to the grating structure, the first and second angles being effectively orthogonal and the second angle of azimuthal incidence being different from zero;

analyzing a combination of at least the first and second set of reflected data; and

utilizing symmetrical characteristics of a diffraction analysis of the second angle of azimuthal incidence reflected data so as to reduce the computation complexity of the analysis of the second set of reflected data during the determination of at least one geometrical characteristic of the grating structure,

where one or more of the sets of data are used to normalize other set(s) of data so that optical metrology data comprises ratios of reflected data collected for different incident conditions, avoiding the need to determine incident intensity via an absolute calibration process.

2. The method of claim 1, wherein the optical metrology data comprises a first ratio of at least a portion of the first set of reflected data and at least a portion of the second set of reflected data.

3. The method of claim 2, wherein the diffraction analysis comprises a regression or library lookup procedure that minimizes the difference between a calculated reflectance or diffraction efficiency ratio and a measured intensity ratio.

4. The method of claim 3, wherein an inverse ratio is substituted in specific wavelength regions where the denominator of the first ratio is near zero.

5. The method of claim 4, wherein a weighting function is used to equalize a contribution to a merit function regardless of a reflectance ratio magnitude.

6. The method of claim 3, wherein data regions at which a denominator of the first ratio is near zero are dropped from the diffraction analysis.

7. The method of claim 1, where one or more diffracted orders of reflected data are detected along with or instead of the 0′

th order.

8. The method of claim 1, wherein data is only collected at the first azimuthal angle and the second azimuthal angle.

9. The method of claim 8, wherein the diffraction analysis comprises utilizing a rigorous coupled wave analysis.

10. The method of claim 1, wherein four data sets are utilized in the diffraction analysis for each polar angle, the data sets being comprised of two different polarizations at each of the first and second azimuthal angles.

11. The method of claim 1, further comprising utilizing multiple polar angles at each of the first and second azimuthal angles.

12. The method of claim 1, wherein the diffraction analysis comprises utilizing a rigorous coupled wave analysis.

13. The method of claim 12, wherein the symmetry properties comprise symmetry properties of the Fourier expansions of the rigorous coupled wave (RCW) analysis for the second azimuthal angle, allowing RCW eigen- and boundary problems to be reduced in complexity.

14. The method of claim 13, wherein a second azimuthal angle boundary problem is reduced to a 4(N+1)×

4(N+1) system of equations and an eigen-problem is reduced to two (N+1)×

(N+1) eigen-systems for a given truncation order, N.

15. The method of claim 14, where each of the various matrices of the eigenproblems are reduced according to one ofε

_0,0 for i=m=0, (ε

_0,m+ε

<sub>0,−

m</sub>) for i=0 and m>

0, ½

(ε

_i,0+ε

<sub>−

i,0</sub>) for i>

0 and m=0, and ½

(ε

_i,m+ε

<sub>−

i,−

m</sub>+ε

<sub>i,−

m</sub>+ε

<sub>−

i,m</sub>) for i,m>

0,

2) ε

_0,0 for i=m=0, (ε

_0,m−

ε

<sub>0,−

m</sub>) for i=0 and m>

0, ½

(ε

_i,0−

ε

<sub>−

i,0</sub>) for i>

0 and m=0, and ½

(ε

_i,m+ε

<sub>−

i,−

m</sub>−

ε

<sub>−

i,m</sub>−

ε

<sub>i,−

m</sub>) for i,m>

0,

3) ε

_0,0 for i=m=0, (ε

_0,m−

ε

<sub>0,−

m</sub>) for i=0 and m>

0, ½

(ε

_i,0+ε

<sub>−

i,0</sub>) for i>

0 and m=0, and ½

(ε

_i,m+ε

<sub>−

i,m</sub>−

ε

<sub>i,−

m</sub>−

ε

<sub>−

i,−

m</sub>) for i,m>

0, or

4) ε

_0,0 for i=m=0, (ε

_0,m+ε

<sub>0,−

m</sub>) for i=0 and m>

0, ½

(ε

_i,0−

ε

<sub>−

i,0</sub>) for i>

0 and m=0, and ½

(ε

_i,m+ε

<sub>i,−

m</sub>−

ε

<sub>−

i,m</sub>−

ε

<sub>−

i,−

m</sub>) for i,m>

0,

depending on the symmetry conditions obeyed by the original, unreduced coupled equations, and where ε

_i,m, −

N≦

i,m≦

N, are the elements of the unreduced matrices.

16. The method of claim 14, where one of the eigenproblem matrices is reduced according to ε

_0,0 for i=m=0, (ε

_0,m+ε

<sub>0,−

m</sub>) for i=0 and m>

0, ½

(ε

_i,0+ε

<sub>−

i,0</sub>) for i>

0 and m=0, and ½

(ε

_i,m+ε

<sub>−

i,−

m</sub>+ε

<sub>i,−

m</sub>+ε

<sub>−

i,m</sub>) for i,m>

0, and the second matrix is reduced according to γ

_0,0 for i=m=0, (γ

_0,m−

γ

<sub>0,−

m</sub>) for i=0 and m>

0, ½

(γ

_i,0−

γ

<sub>−

i,0</sub>) for i>

0 and m=0, and ½

(γ

_i,m+γ

<sub>−

i,−

m</sub>−

γ

<sub>−

i,m</sub>−

γ

<sub>i,−

m</sub>) for i,m>

0, where ε

_i,m and γ

_i,m, −

N≦

i,m≦

N, are the elements of the unreduced matrices.

17. The method of claim 16, where the first matrix is BE and the second matrix is E for s incident polarization, and vice versa for p incident polarization, resulting in reduced eigenproblems K_y²+(BE)_reduced and K_y²+K_x²−

E_reduced, where K_y² and K_x² are diagonal matrices with elements consisting of the 0, . . . , N elements of the unreduced diagonal matrices.

18. The method of claim 16, where the first matrix is BEinv⁻

1 and the second matrix is E for s incident polarization, and vice versa for p incident polarization, resulting in reduced eigenproblems K_y²+(BEinv<sup>−

1</sup>)_reduced and K_y²+K_x²−

E_reduced, where K_y² and K_x² are diagonal matrices with elements consisting of the 0, . . . , N elements of the unreduced diagonal matrices.