Photomask dimensional metrology in the scanning electron microscope, part I: Has anything really changed?

Postek, Michael T.; Vladár, András; Bennett, Marylyn Hoy

doi:10.1117/1.1668271

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Here, the surface potential can cause some undesirable effects by affecting motion states of both secondary electrons (SEs) emitted from the insulator surface and primary electrons (PEs) (see, for example, Ko et al, 1998;Zhang et al, 2003;Postek et al, 2004;Cazaux, 2005). On the other side, it can be utilized to image surface and buried structures of insulators in SEM (Ura, 1998;Koike et al, 1999;Zhang et al, 2004;Kokhanchik, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

The surface potential of insulating thin films negatively charged by a low-energy focused electron beam

Zhang

2010

Micron

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

The surface potential of insulating thin films negatively charged by a low-energy focused electron beam

Zhang

2010

Micron

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This methodology shows great potential if optimal balance can be achieved in a reproducible manner. This methodology, although potentially desirable for charge neutralization, has not been seriously employed in photomask or wafer metrology [50]. This is largely because there is not an instrument available for full-scale production samples with high throughput.…”

Section: 0 Some Methods For Charge Mitigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does your SEM really tell the truth? How would you know? Part 4: Charging and its mitigation

Postek

Vladár

2015

SPIE Proceedings

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the fourth part of a series of tutorial papers discussing various causes of measurement uncertainty in scanned particle beam instruments, and some of the solutions researched and developed at NIST and other research institutions. Scanned particle beam instruments, especially the scanning electron microscope (SEM), have gone through tremendous evolution to become indispensable tools for many and diverse scientifc and industrial applications. These improvements have significantly enhanced their performance and made them far easier to operate. But, the ease of operation has also fostered operator complacency. In addition, the user-friendliness has reduced the apparent need for extensive operator training. Unfortunately, this has led to the idea that the SEM is just another expensive “digital camera” or another peripheral device connected to a computer and that all of the problems in obtaining good quality images and data have been solved. Hence, one using these instruments may be lulled into thinking that all of the potential pitfalls have been fully eliminated and believing that, everything one sees on the micrograph is always correct. But, as described in this and the earlier papers, this may not be the case. Care must always be taken when reliable quantitative data are being sought. The first paper in this series discussed some of the issues related to signal generation in the SEM, including instrument calibration, electron beam-sample interactions and the need for physics-based modeling to understand the actual image formation mechanisms to properly interpret SEM images. The second paper has discussed another major issue confronting the microscopist: specimen contamination and methods to eliminate it. The third paper discussed mechanical vibration and stage drift and some useful solutions to mitigate the problems caused by them, and here, in this the fourth contribution, the issues related to specimen “charging” and its mitigation are discussed relative to dimensional metrology.

show abstract

“…This methodology shows great potential if optimal balance can be achieved in a reproducible manner. This methodology, although potentially desirable for charge neutralization, has not been seriously employed in photomask or wafer metrology [46]. This is largely because there is not an instrument available for full-scale production samples with high throughput.…”

Section: 0 Methods For Charge Mitigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is largely because there is not an instrument available for full-scale production samples with high throughput. VPSEM was proven to be useful for photomask metrology [46] but no in-line instrument was developed to use the technology, either. Variable pressure microscopy offers advantages of possible application of higher accelerating voltages and different contrast mechanisms [47].…”

Section: 0 Methods For Charge Mitigationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nanomanufacturing concerns about measurements made in the SEM part IV: charging and its mitigation

Postek

Vladár

2015

SPIE Proceedings

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the fourth part of a series of tutorial papers discussing various causes of measurement uncertainty in scanned particle beam instruments, and some of the solutions researched and developed at NIST and other research institutions. Scanned particle beam instruments especially the scanning electron microscope (SEM) have gone through tremendous evolution to become indispensable tools for many and diverse scientific and industrial applications. These improvements have significantly enhanced their performance and made them far easier to operate. But, the ease of operation has also fostered operator complacency. In addition, the user-friendliness has reduced the apparent need for extensive operator training. Unfortunately, this has led to the idea that the SEM is just another expensive “digital camera” or another peripheral device connected to a computer and that all of the problems in obtaining good quality images and data have been solved. Hence, one using these instruments may be lulled into thinking that all of the potential pitfalls have been fully eliminated and believing that, everything one sees on the micrograph is always correct. But, as described in this and the earlier papers, this may not be the case. Care must always be taken when reliable quantitative data are being sought. The first paper in this series discussed some of the issues related to signal generation in the SEM, including instrument calibration, electron beam-sample interactions and the need for physics-based modeling to understand the actual image formation mechanisms to properly interpret SEM images. The second paper has discussed another major issue confronting the microscopist: specimen contamination and methods to eliminate it. The third paper discussed mechanical vibration and stage drift and some useful solutions to mitigate the problems caused by them, and here, in this the fourth contribution, the issues related to specimen “charging” and its mitigation are discussed relative to dimensional metrology.

show abstract

Photomask dimensional metrology in the scanning electron microscope, part I: Has anything really changed?

Cited by 5 publications

References 32 publications

The surface potential of insulating thin films negatively charged by a low-energy focused electron beam

The surface potential of insulating thin films negatively charged by a low-energy focused electron beam

Does your SEM really tell the truth? How would you know? Part 4: Charging and its mitigation

Nanomanufacturing concerns about measurements made in the SEM part IV: charging and its mitigation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About