It is shown that a focused ion beam (FIB) grounding technique can be used to alleviate charge buildup on samples that would otherwise charge in the electron beam to the point where analysis by Auger electron spectroscopy (AES) was limited or impossible. FIB grounding alleviates the sample charging and permits AES analysis. The grounding technique is quick, easy and well understood as it has been used extensively for voltage-contrast analysis. The technique is shown to be useful for enabling analysis on electrically isolated conductive features as well as insulating samples.

A framework is presented for considering the relative strengths of Auger electron spectroscopy (AES)/scanning Auger microscopy (SAM) and scanning transmission electron microscopy–electron energy loss spectroscopy (STEM-EELS) when selecting a defect analysis technique. The geometry of the analysis volumes for each technique is visualized. The analysis volume for AES/SAM is shaped like a button while the STEM-EELS analysis volume is more like a thread extending throughout the thickness of the prepared sample. The usefulness of this framework is illustrated with the example of small defect particles. In this example the size and shape of the AES/SAM analysis volume is a better fit to the defect, thus it provides better chemical analysis while STEM provides better images of the defects.

The geometries of several proposed new electronic device structures put constraints on the size of the AFM images that can be obtained in the gate areas. The images that can be obtained on these structures are of a significantly smaller area, at a much higher resolution, than is typically measured. The analysis areas are limited to ~ one-tenth of what is normally scanned. The micro-roughness and feature size information contained in AFM measurements changes with scan size. Care must be taken when introducing such a dramatic change in the measurements being made. Several factors should be considered to determine an appropriate sampling plan and select a proper reference set for these high-resolution measurements. In this paper, several of these factors are discussed in the context of determining a sampling plan and reference targets for sidewall micro-roughness of fins that allow 50 nm analysis areas.