Specific Process Knowledge/Lithography/Aligners/Aligner: Maskless 01 processing - Revision history

Jehem at 11:23, 20 April 2026

2026-04-20T11:23:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:23, 20 April 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~:Specific Process Knowledge/Lithography/authors_generic~~}}		{{cc-nanolab}}

	'''Feedback to this page''': '''[mailto:labadviser@nanolab.dtu.dk?Subject=Feed%20back%20from%20page%20http://labadviser.nanolab.dtu.dk/index.php?title=Specific_Process_Knowledge/Lithography/Aligners/Aligner:_Maskless_01_processing click here]'''		'''Feedback to this page''': '''[mailto:labadviser@nanolab.dtu.dk?Subject=Feed%20back%20from%20page%20http://labadviser.nanolab.dtu.dk/index.php?title=Specific_Process_Knowledge/Lithography/Aligners/Aligner:_Maskless_01_processing click here]'''

Taran: /* Important note about correction options */

2026-01-09T10:51:32Z

Important note about correction options

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:51, 9 January 2026
Line 137:		Line 137:

	When aligning on Aligner: Maskless 01, you should either:		When aligning on Aligner: Maskless 01, you should either:
	* Use only 2 alignment marks and apply rotation correction		* Use only 2 alignment marks and apply rotation correction (for patterns printed on MLA1)
	* Use 3+ alignment marks and apply all corrections (rotation, scaling and shearing)		* Use 3+ alignment marks and apply all corrections: rotation, scaling and shearing (for patterns printed on other tools)
	<span style="color:red">If 3+ marks are used, but scaling and shearing is not applied, ''significant'' misalignment will be observed, even on chips. On a 4" wafer the shift in Y can be several hundred µm.</span>		<span style="color:red">If 3+ marks are used, but scaling and shearing is not applied, ''significant'' misalignment will be observed, even on chips. On a 4" wafer the shift in Y can be several hundred µm.</span>

Taran: /* Alignment tests */

2026-01-09T10:39:20Z

Alignment tests

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:39, 9 January 2026
Line 534:		Line 534:
	\|}		\|}

	The alignment test with 4 alignment marks shows a +40ppm scaling on the X-axis, as well as a 0.1mRad shearing of the axes. The result is a decent alignment in X, but a shift in Y as well as a relatively large deviation. The raw data shows the deviation in Y is due to a -40ppm scaling along the Y-axis, as seen in the MLA1-MLA1 test with 4 marks, suggesting that the scaling in Y is consistently overestimated.		The alignment test with 4 alignment marks shows a +40ppm scaling on the X-axis, as well as a 0.1mRad shearing of the axes. The result is a decent alignment in X, but a shift in Y as well as a relatively large deviation. The raw data shows the deviation in Y is due to a -40ppm scaling along the Y-axis, as seen in the MLA1-MLA1 test with 4 marks, suggesting that the scaling in Y is consistently overestimated. This is probably also why attempts to use field alignment on structures printed using a different tool always fail at the outer positions.
	<br>Aligning using only 2 marks yields acceptable shifts in the center of the wafer, but very large shifts in X towards the edges, as evidenced by the 7.4µm deviation in X. The raw data suggests that this deviation is mainly due to a 0.2mRad tilt in the Y-axis, which corresponds well with the 0.1mRad shearing measured using 4 marks. There is also a (-)40ppm scaling along the X-axis, again similar to what was measured during 4 mark alignment. Even a 5mm chip would be affected by the 0.2mRad tilt, so clearly 4 mark alignment is needed when aligning to a pattern that was not exposed using MLA1.		<br>Aligning using only 2 marks yields acceptable shifts in the center of the wafer, but very large shifts in X towards the edges, as evidenced by the 7.4µm deviation in X. The raw data suggests that this deviation is mainly due to a 0.2mRad tilt in the Y-axis, which corresponds well with the 0.1mRad shearing measured using 4 marks. There is also a (-)40ppm scaling along the X-axis, again similar to what was measured during 4 mark alignment. Even a 5mm chip would be affected by the 0.2mRad tilt, so clearly 4 mark alignment is needed when aligning to a pattern that was not exposed using MLA1.
	<br>Attempting to fix the shift in Y when using 4 alignment marks by adding 0;0 as the first mark makes no difference. And the success from the MLA1-MLA1 test when using 3 marks on the bottom half of the wafer is unfortunately not repeated for MLA3-MLA1 alignment. Using alignment marks on the top half of the wafer also doesn't change the shift. The raw data from all the alignment tests using scaling and shearing compensation (3+ marks) shows the best alignment at the bottom of the wafer, with an increasing shift in Y due to a scaling error around -40ppm. Reducing the exposed area reduces the shift in Y, but the raw data show the same trend as the large area; best alignment at the bottom of the exposed area and a scaling error in Y around -40ppm.		<br>Attempting to fix the shift in Y when using 4 alignment marks by adding 0;0 as the first mark makes no difference. And the success from the MLA1-MLA1 test when using 3 marks on the bottom half of the wafer is unfortunately not repeated for MLA3-MLA1 alignment. Using alignment marks on the top half of the wafer also doesn't change the shift. The raw data from all the alignment tests using scaling and shearing compensation (3+ marks) shows the best alignment at the bottom of the wafer, with an increasing shift in Y due to a scaling error around -40ppm. Reducing the exposed area reduces the shift in Y, but the raw data show the same trend as the large area; best alignment at the bottom of the exposed area and a scaling error in Y around -40ppm.

Taran: /* Alignment tests */

2026-01-09T10:26:30Z

Alignment tests

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:26, 9 January 2026
Line 146:		Line 146:
	After installation, multiple tests were conducted in order to assess the overlay accuracy of Aligner: Maskless 01. The conclusion to the early tests were that the stage accuracy is ±0.1µm, and the machine-to-self overlay accuracy is ±0.5µm. The machine-to-machine overlay accuracy was not determined (due to the lack of a suitable mask for the mask aligners). In 2019, efforts to establish regular QC of the equipment were started, and the accuracy of the alignment mark detection has been measured regularly since 2020. While both the average and the spread of the alignment errors for the x-axis (measured in 3x3 positions covering a 60x60mm<sup>2</sup> area) has consistently been within the ±1µm specification of the machine, the spread of the alignment errors for the y-axis is typically 3±1µm, despite the average error being in spec, due to negative offsets on the upper half of the wafer and positive offsets on the lower. In 2025, it was decided to investigate this problem further, in order to determine whether a specific alignment protocol could remedy the alignment error, or whether the acceptance limits for the QC would have to be changed.		After installation, multiple tests were conducted in order to assess the overlay accuracy of Aligner: Maskless 01. The conclusion to the early tests were that the stage accuracy is ±0.1µm, and the machine-to-self overlay accuracy is ±0.5µm. The machine-to-machine overlay accuracy was not determined (due to the lack of a suitable mask for the mask aligners). In 2019, efforts to establish regular QC of the equipment were started, and the accuracy of the alignment mark detection has been measured regularly since 2020. While both the average and the spread of the alignment errors for the x-axis (measured in 3x3 positions covering a 60x60mm<sup>2</sup> area) has consistently been within the ±1µm specification of the machine, the spread of the alignment errors for the y-axis is typically 3±1µm, despite the average error being in spec, due to negative offsets on the upper half of the wafer and positive offsets on the lower. In 2025, it was decided to investigate this problem further, in order to determine whether a specific alignment protocol could remedy the alignment error, or whether the acceptance limits for the QC would have to be changed.

	The result of these tests suggest that when aligning to a pattern exposed using MLA1, only 2 alignment marks on the X-axis should be used. If the first pattern was exposed using a different tool, 4 alignment marks must be used (with all corrections applied), but the alignment accuracy in Y-direction suffers. The Y-shift grows linearly with the size of the pattern/sample, so small samples will be less affected, while full wafers will experience shifts in Y that far exceed the ±1µm specification. In general, larger alignment error in Y must be accepted when aligning to a pattern exposed on a different tool. By scaling the design 40ppm in Y, however, it is possible to compensate for the Y-shift and achieve alignment within the machine specification across an entire wafer. Based on these results, it was decided to ~~keep~~ the QC procedure ~~as it is~~, but to ~~adjust~~ the QC limits ~~to ±2µm, in~~ order to ~~match~~ the tolerance needed when using the machine.		The result of these tests suggest that when aligning to a pattern exposed using MLA1, only 2 alignment marks on the X-axis should be used. If the first pattern was exposed using a different tool, 4 alignment marks must be used (with all corrections applied), but the alignment accuracy in Y-direction suffers. The Y-shift grows linearly with the size of the pattern/sample, so small samples will be less affected, while full wafers will experience shifts in Y that far exceed the ±1µm specification. In general, larger alignment error in Y must be accepted when aligning to a pattern exposed on a different tool. By scaling the design 40ppm in Y, however, it is possible to compensate for the Y-shift and achieve alignment within the machine specification across an entire wafer. Based on these results, it was decided to change the QC procedure to use only two alignment marks on the X-axis, but to keep the QC limits at ±1µm. In order to reflect the tolerance needed when using the machine, the alignment accuracy listed in the equipment performance will be changed to ±2µm.

Taran: /* Alignment tests */

2026-01-05T13:45:08Z

Alignment tests

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:45, 5 January 2026
Line 146:		Line 146:
	After installation, multiple tests were conducted in order to assess the overlay accuracy of Aligner: Maskless 01. The conclusion to the early tests were that the stage accuracy is ±0.1µm, and the machine-to-self overlay accuracy is ±0.5µm. The machine-to-machine overlay accuracy was not determined (due to the lack of a suitable mask for the mask aligners). In 2019, efforts to establish regular QC of the equipment were started, and the accuracy of the alignment mark detection has been measured regularly since 2020. While both the average and the spread of the alignment errors for the x-axis (measured in 3x3 positions covering a 60x60mm<sup>2</sup> area) has consistently been within the ±1µm specification of the machine, the spread of the alignment errors for the y-axis is typically 3±1µm, despite the average error being in spec, due to negative offsets on the upper half of the wafer and positive offsets on the lower. In 2025, it was decided to investigate this problem further, in order to determine whether a specific alignment protocol could remedy the alignment error, or whether the acceptance limits for the QC would have to be changed.		After installation, multiple tests were conducted in order to assess the overlay accuracy of Aligner: Maskless 01. The conclusion to the early tests were that the stage accuracy is ±0.1µm, and the machine-to-self overlay accuracy is ±0.5µm. The machine-to-machine overlay accuracy was not determined (due to the lack of a suitable mask for the mask aligners). In 2019, efforts to establish regular QC of the equipment were started, and the accuracy of the alignment mark detection has been measured regularly since 2020. While both the average and the spread of the alignment errors for the x-axis (measured in 3x3 positions covering a 60x60mm<sup>2</sup> area) has consistently been within the ±1µm specification of the machine, the spread of the alignment errors for the y-axis is typically 3±1µm, despite the average error being in spec, due to negative offsets on the upper half of the wafer and positive offsets on the lower. In 2025, it was decided to investigate this problem further, in order to determine whether a specific alignment protocol could remedy the alignment error, or whether the acceptance limits for the QC would have to be changed.

	The result of these tests suggest that when aligning to a pattern exposed using MLA1, only 2 alignment marks on the X-axis should be used. If the first pattern was exposed using a different tool, 4 alignment marks must be used (with all corrections applied), but the alignment accuracy in Y-direction suffers. The Y-shift grows linearly with the size of the pattern/sample, so small samples will be less affected, while full wafers will experience shifts in Y that far exceed the ±1µm specification. In general, larger alignment error in Y must be accepted when aligning to a pattern exposed on a different tool. By scaling the design 40ppm in Y, however, it is possible to compensate for the Y-shift and achieve alignment within the machine specification across an entire wafer.		The result of these tests suggest that when aligning to a pattern exposed using MLA1, only 2 alignment marks on the X-axis should be used. If the first pattern was exposed using a different tool, 4 alignment marks must be used (with all corrections applied), but the alignment accuracy in Y-direction suffers. The Y-shift grows linearly with the size of the pattern/sample, so small samples will be less affected, while full wafers will experience shifts in Y that far exceed the ±1µm specification. In general, larger alignment error in Y must be accepted when aligning to a pattern exposed on a different tool. By scaling the design 40ppm in Y, however, it is possible to compensate for the Y-shift and achieve alignment within the machine specification across an entire wafer. Based on these results, it was decided to keep the QC procedure as it is, but to adjust the QC limits to ±2µm, in order to match the tolerance needed when using the machine.

Taran: /* Alignment tests */

2026-01-05T12:42:13Z

Alignment tests

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:42, 5 January 2026
Line 149:		Line 149:


	In the MLA1-MLA1 alignment tests, the design consists of ±5µm verniers with 0.1µm resolution along the X and Y axis placed in a 3 by 3 matrix covering a 60mm by 60mm area centered on the wafer. The sample is loaded, and the first layer with linear scales is printed (without global angle). Without unloading, the second layer with vernier scales is printed on top of the first, and then the sample is developed. The deviations (±) given for the results here are calculated as half the range of measurements. If the range is small, the measurement uncertainty is used instead.		In the '''MLA1-MLA1 alignment tests''', the design consists of ±5µm verniers with 0.1µm resolution along the X and Y axis placed in a 3 by 3 matrix covering a 60mm by 60mm area centered on the wafer. The sample is loaded, and the first layer with linear scales is printed (without global angle). Without unloading, the second layer with vernier scales is printed on top of the first, and then the sample is developed. The deviations (±) given for the results here are calculated as half the range of measurements. If the range is small, the measurement uncertainty is used instead.

	{\|border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3" style="text-align:center;"		{\|border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3" style="text-align:center;"
Line 364:		Line 364:


	In the MLA3-MLA1 alignment tests, the design consists of ±5µm verniers with 0.25µm resolution along the X and Y axis placed in a 3 by 3 matrix covering a 60mm by 60mm area centered on the wafer. The first layer with linear scales was printed in MLA3 as QC test wafers a long time ago and subsequently patterned using lift-off of gold. These wafers are coated with resist, the second layer with vernier scales is printed in MLA1, and then the sample is developed. The deviations (±) given for the results here are calculated as half the range of measurements. If the range is small, the measurement uncertainty is used instead.		In the '''MLA3-MLA1 alignment tests''', the design consists of ±5µm verniers with 0.25µm resolution along the X and Y axis placed in a 3 by 3 matrix covering a 60mm by 60mm area centered on the wafer. The first layer with linear scales was printed in MLA3 as QC test wafers a long time ago and subsequently patterned using lift-off of gold. These wafers are coated with resist, the second layer with vernier scales is printed in MLA1, and then the sample is developed. The deviations (±) given for the results here are calculated as half the range of measurements. If the range is small, the measurement uncertainty is used instead.

	{\|border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3" style="text-align:center;"		{\|border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="3" style="text-align:center;"

Taran: /* Important note about correction options */

2025-12-23T14:24:21Z

Important note about correction options

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:24, 23 December 2025
Line 141:		Line 141:
	<span style="color:red">If 3+ marks are used, but scaling and shearing is not applied, ''significant'' misalignment will be observed, even on chips. On a 4" wafer the shift in Y can be several hundred µm.</span>		<span style="color:red">If 3+ marks are used, but scaling and shearing is not applied, ''significant'' misalignment will be observed, even on chips. On a 4" wafer the shift in Y can be several hundred µm.</span>

	Using only two alignment marks (on the X-axis) is recommended when aligning to patterns exposed ~~using~~ Aligner: Maskless 01. When aligning to patterns exposed on a different machine, using 4 alignment marks and all corrections applied yields the best alignment accuracy. The remaining error when using 4 alignment marks can be compensated by manipulating the design file. Please see the section below for details. <br/>		Using only two alignment marks (on the X-axis) is recommended when aligning to patterns exposed on Aligner: Maskless 01. When aligning to patterns exposed on a different machine, using 4 alignment marks and all corrections applied yields the best alignment accuracy. The remaining error when using 4 alignment marks can be compensated by manipulating the design file. Please see the section below for details. <br/>

	==Alignment tests==		==Alignment tests==

Taran: /* Important note about correction options */

2025-12-23T14:23:13Z

Important note about correction options

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:23, 23 December 2025
Line 141:		Line 141:
	<span style="color:red">If 3+ marks are used, but scaling and shearing is not applied, ''significant'' misalignment will be observed, even on chips. On a 4" wafer the shift in Y can be several hundred µm.</span>		<span style="color:red">If 3+ marks are used, but scaling and shearing is not applied, ''significant'' misalignment will be observed, even on chips. On a 4" wafer the shift in Y can be several hundred µm.</span>

	Using only two alignment marks (on the X-axis) is recommended when aligning to patterns exposed using Aligner: Maskless 01. When aligning to patterns exposed on a different machine, using 4 alignment marks and all corrections applied yields the best alignment accuracy. <br/>		Using only two alignment marks (on the X-axis) is recommended when aligning to patterns exposed using Aligner: Maskless 01. When aligning to patterns exposed on a different machine, using 4 alignment marks and all corrections applied yields the best alignment accuracy. The remaining error when using 4 alignment marks can be compensated by manipulating the design file. Please see the section below for details. <br/>

	==Alignment tests==		==Alignment tests==

Taran: /* Important note about correction options */

2025-12-23T14:20:34Z

Important note about correction options

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:20, 23 December 2025
Line 133:		Line 133:


	The stage of Aligner: Maskless 01 has suffered some kind of damage (maybe during it's relocation to E-4 in 2019), which means the stage positioning is distorted. When aligning to a pattern exposed using a different machine, we typically see a shearing on the order of 0.1 ~~rad~~, i.e. the axes are not orthogonal, but even when aligning to patterns exposed on Aligner: Maskless 01 itself, this distortion results in misalignment unless a specific procedure is followed.		The stage of Aligner: Maskless 01 has suffered some kind of damage (maybe during it's relocation to E-4 in 2019), which means the stage positioning is distorted. When aligning to a pattern exposed using a different machine, we typically see a shearing on the order of 0.1 mrad, i.e. the axes are not orthogonal, but even when aligning to patterns exposed on Aligner: Maskless 01 itself, this distortion results in misalignment unless a specific procedure is followed.


Line 139:		Line 139:
	* Use only 2 alignment marks and apply rotation correction		* Use only 2 alignment marks and apply rotation correction
	* Use 3+ alignment marks and apply all corrections (rotation, scaling and shearing)		* Use 3+ alignment marks and apply all corrections (rotation, scaling and shearing)
			<span style="color:red">If 3+ marks are used, but scaling and shearing is not applied, ''significant'' misalignment will be observed, even on chips. On a 4" wafer the shift in Y can be several hundred µm.</span>

			Using only two alignment marks (on the X-axis) is recommended when aligning to patterns exposed using Aligner: Maskless 01. When aligning to patterns exposed on a different machine, using 4 alignment marks and all corrections applied yields the best alignment accuracy. <br/>
	Using only two alignment marks is ~~usually fine for smaller chips, but~~ when ~~exposing full wafers there may be misalignment, especially if previous prints are made~~ on a different machine~~. With~~ 4 alignment marks and all corrections applied, the best alignment accuracy ~~is obtained for all substrates~~.<br/>

	<span style="color:red">If four marks are used, but scaling and shearing is not applied, ''significant'' misalignment will be observed, even on chips. On a 4" wafer the shift in Y can be several hundred µm.</span>

	==Alignment tests==		==Alignment tests==

Taran: /* Alignment tests */

2025-12-23T14:12:23Z

Alignment tests

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:12, 23 December 2025
Line 148:		Line 148:
	After installation, multiple tests were conducted in order to assess the overlay accuracy of Aligner: Maskless 01. The conclusion to the early tests were that the stage accuracy is ±0.1µm, and the machine-to-self overlay accuracy is ±0.5µm. The machine-to-machine overlay accuracy was not determined (due to the lack of a suitable mask for the mask aligners). In 2019, efforts to establish regular QC of the equipment were started, and the accuracy of the alignment mark detection has been measured regularly since 2020. While both the average and the spread of the alignment errors for the x-axis (measured in 3x3 positions covering a 60x60mm<sup>2</sup> area) has consistently been within the ±1µm specification of the machine, the spread of the alignment errors for the y-axis is typically 3±1µm, despite the average error being in spec, due to negative offsets on the upper half of the wafer and positive offsets on the lower. In 2025, it was decided to investigate this problem further, in order to determine whether a specific alignment protocol could remedy the alignment error, or whether the acceptance limits for the QC would have to be changed.		After installation, multiple tests were conducted in order to assess the overlay accuracy of Aligner: Maskless 01. The conclusion to the early tests were that the stage accuracy is ±0.1µm, and the machine-to-self overlay accuracy is ±0.5µm. The machine-to-machine overlay accuracy was not determined (due to the lack of a suitable mask for the mask aligners). In 2019, efforts to establish regular QC of the equipment were started, and the accuracy of the alignment mark detection has been measured regularly since 2020. While both the average and the spread of the alignment errors for the x-axis (measured in 3x3 positions covering a 60x60mm<sup>2</sup> area) has consistently been within the ±1µm specification of the machine, the spread of the alignment errors for the y-axis is typically 3±1µm, despite the average error being in spec, due to negative offsets on the upper half of the wafer and positive offsets on the lower. In 2025, it was decided to investigate this problem further, in order to determine whether a specific alignment protocol could remedy the alignment error, or whether the acceptance limits for the QC would have to be changed.

	The result of these tests suggest that when aligning to a pattern exposed using MLA1, only 2 alignment marks on the X-axis should be used. If the first pattern was exposed using a different tool, 4 alignment marks must be used (with all corrections applied), but the alignment accuracy in Y-direction suffers. The Y-shift grows linearly with the size of the pattern/sample, so small samples will be less affected, while full wafers will experience shifts in Y that far exceed the ±1µm specification. In general, larger alignment error in Y must be accepted when aligning to a pattern exposed on a different tool. By scaling the design, however, it is possible to compensate for the Y-shift and achieve alignment within the machine specification across an entire wafer.		The result of these tests suggest that when aligning to a pattern exposed using MLA1, only 2 alignment marks on the X-axis should be used. If the first pattern was exposed using a different tool, 4 alignment marks must be used (with all corrections applied), but the alignment accuracy in Y-direction suffers. The Y-shift grows linearly with the size of the pattern/sample, so small samples will be less affected, while full wafers will experience shifts in Y that far exceed the ±1µm specification. In general, larger alignment error in Y must be accepted when aligning to a pattern exposed on a different tool. By scaling the design 40ppm in Y, however, it is possible to compensate for the Y-shift and achieve alignment within the machine specification across an entire wafer.


Line 539:		Line 539:
	<br>Aligning using only 2 marks yields acceptable shifts in the center of the wafer, but very large shifts in X towards the edges, as evidenced by the 7.4µm deviation in X. The raw data suggests that this deviation is mainly due to a 0.2mRad tilt in the Y-axis, which corresponds well with the 0.1mRad shearing measured using 4 marks. There is also a (-)40ppm scaling along the X-axis, again similar to what was measured during 4 mark alignment. Even a 5mm chip would be affected by the 0.2mRad tilt, so clearly 4 mark alignment is needed when aligning to a pattern that was not exposed using MLA1.		<br>Aligning using only 2 marks yields acceptable shifts in the center of the wafer, but very large shifts in X towards the edges, as evidenced by the 7.4µm deviation in X. The raw data suggests that this deviation is mainly due to a 0.2mRad tilt in the Y-axis, which corresponds well with the 0.1mRad shearing measured using 4 marks. There is also a (-)40ppm scaling along the X-axis, again similar to what was measured during 4 mark alignment. Even a 5mm chip would be affected by the 0.2mRad tilt, so clearly 4 mark alignment is needed when aligning to a pattern that was not exposed using MLA1.
	<br>Attempting to fix the shift in Y when using 4 alignment marks by adding 0;0 as the first mark makes no difference. And the success from the MLA1-MLA1 test when using 3 marks on the bottom half of the wafer is unfortunately not repeated for MLA3-MLA1 alignment. Using alignment marks on the top half of the wafer also doesn't change the shift. The raw data from all the alignment tests using scaling and shearing compensation (3+ marks) shows the best alignment at the bottom of the wafer, with an increasing shift in Y due to a scaling error around -40ppm. Reducing the exposed area reduces the shift in Y, but the raw data show the same trend as the large area; best alignment at the bottom of the exposed area and a scaling error in Y around -40ppm.		<br>Attempting to fix the shift in Y when using 4 alignment marks by adding 0;0 as the first mark makes no difference. And the success from the MLA1-MLA1 test when using 3 marks on the bottom half of the wafer is unfortunately not repeated for MLA3-MLA1 alignment. Using alignment marks on the top half of the wafer also doesn't change the shift. The raw data from all the alignment tests using scaling and shearing compensation (3+ marks) shows the best alignment at the bottom of the wafer, with an increasing shift in Y due to a scaling error around -40ppm. Reducing the exposed area reduces the shift in Y, but the raw data show the same trend as the large area; best alignment at the bottom of the exposed area and a scaling error in Y around -40ppm.
	<br>When MLA3 is used to align to a pattern printed using MLA1, the resulting spread of alignment errors is quite small, showing that MAL3 is better at compensating for the differences between the two machines than MLA1, and suggesting that the problem stems only from MLA1. A final test attempted to compensate for the observed -40ppm scaling error in Y by scaling the pattern printed using MLA1 by 40ppm (around 0;0) prior to printing. This reduces the deviation in Y, showing that it is possible to achieve good alignment even when the first pattern is printed using a different tool. Unfortunately, the scaling function during conversion doesn't seem to work, so the scaling has to be done in the design file itself, using an external layout editor. The -1µm shift in Y remained, but it should be possible to compensate for this shift either by shifting the pattern during conversion (keep in mind the shift scales with the size of the pattern) or by scaling the pattern from the bottom of the design, rather than the center.		<br>When MLA3 is used to align to a pattern printed using MLA1, the resulting spread of alignment errors is quite small, showing that MAL3 is better at compensating for the differences between the two machines than MLA1, and suggesting that the problem stems only from MLA1. A final test attempted to compensate for the observed -40ppm scaling error in Y by scaling the pattern printed using MLA1 by +40ppm (around 0;0) prior to printing. This reduces the deviation in Y, showing that it is possible to achieve good alignment even when the first pattern is printed using a different tool. Unfortunately, the scaling function during conversion doesn't seem to work, so the scaling has to be done in the design file itself, using an external layout editor. The -1µm shift in Y remained, but it should be possible to compensate for this shift either by shifting the pattern during conversion (keep in mind the shift scales with the size of the pattern) or by scaling the pattern from the bottom of the design, rather than the center.

	=Optimal use of the maskless aligner=		=Optimal use of the maskless aligner=