1. 09/04/03 1 ITRS 2005 Factory Integration Chapter Material Handling Backup Section Details and Assumptions for Technology Requirements and Potential Solutions MPH Backup Hot Lot Backup

2. 09/04/03 2 AMHS Backup Outline 1.ContributorsPage 3 2.How Metrics were SelectedPage 4 3.Material Handling Technology Requirements TablePage 5 4.Translating Material Handling Technology Reqs to RealityPage 6 5.Supporting Material for Material Handling Technology ReqsPg 7-27 1. System Throughput Requirementspages 7-17 2. Reliabilitypages 18-19 3. Hot Lot Delivery TimePages 20-22 4. Delivery TimePages 23-27 6.Potential Solution OptionsPg 28-67 1. Direct Transport (Includes capabilities needed from FICS)Pages 28-42 2. Direct Transport/Delivery Time: 3 rd Party LP/BufferPages 43-46 3. Integrated Flow and ControlPages 47-54 4. Delivery Time & Storage Density: Under Track StoragePages 55-59 5. Inert Gas Purging of FOUPsPages 60-61 6. Factory Cross Linkage: Protocol Induced ConstraintsPages 62-67 7.Potential Research TopicsPg 68-69 8.450mm Inputs (2005 addition)Pg 70-98 9.Inputs on Layout Assumptions (2005 addition)Pg 99-108

3. 09/04/03 3 2004/2005 AMHS Contributors Eric Englhardt, AMAT Tom Chang, Asyst Rex Wright, Asyst Mike Bufano, Brooks Bill Fosnight, Brooks Clint Haris, Brooks Mark Magleby, Daifuku Dan Stevens, Hirata Larry Hennessy, IDC Adrian Pyke, Middlesex Ron Denison, Murata Marlin Shopbell, AMD Dave Miller, IBM Melvin Jung, Intel Steve Seall, Intel Len Foster, TI Roy Hunter, TI Sven Hahn, Infineon Harald Heinrich, Infineon Mikio Otani, ASI Makoto Yamamoto, Murata YY Chen, UMC Jonathan Chang, TSMC Junji Iwaskai, Renasas

4. 09/04/03 4 How Metrics were selected Almost every metric is a best in class or close to best in class Sources are: Individual IC maker and AMHS Supplier feedback. It is likely a factory will not achieve all the metrics outlined in the roadmap concurrently Individual business models will dictate which metric is more important than others It is likely certain metrics may be sacrificed (periodically) for attaining other metrics. The Factory Integration metrics are not really tied to the technology nodes as in other chapters such as Lithography However, nodes offer convenient interception points to bring in new capability, tools, software and other operational potential solutions Inclusion of each metric is dependent on consensus agreement We think the metrics provide a good summary of stretch goals for most companies in todays challenging environment.

5. 09/04/03 5 Material Handling Technical Requirements 2005 Update Year of Production 20052006200720082009201020112012201420172020 Technology Node hp65 hp45 DRAM ½ Pitch (nm) 80706555504540352820 MPU/ASIC ½ Pitch (nm) (Un-contacted Poly) 807065555045 352820 Wafer Diameter (mm) 300 450 Transport E-MTTR (minutes) per SEMI E10 109988888876 Storage E-MTTR (minutes) per SEMI E10 25 20 1510 Transport MMBF 8,00011,00015,00025,00035,000 45,000 55,00065,000 Storage MCBF 25,00035,00045,00055,00060,000 70,000 80,000100,000 Peak system throughput (40K WSPM) Interbay transport (moves/hour) 2250250025752660 Intrabay transport (moves/hour) high throughput bay 250260270280290300 Transport (moves/hour)unified system 4240474049005000 Stocker cycle time (seconds) (100 bin capacity) 1210 Average delivery time (minutes) 65555555555 Peak delivery time (minutes) 1210 Hot lot average delivery time (minutes) 32222222222 AMHS lead time (weeks) 12<9<8 AMHS install time (weeks) 24<10 Downtime to extend system capacity when previously planned (minutes) 120<30<15 <0 Time required to integrate process tools to AMHS (minutes per LP) 1512 10 555555

6. 09/04/03 6 Translating Material Handling metrics to Reality MetricPotential Solution it is driving Wafer Transport System CapabilityDirect transport (or integrated interbay & intrabay). Needed for hot lot, gating send- ahead, & hand-carry TPT targets Transport MMBF, Storage MCBF, Transport E-MTTR, Storage E-MTTR Storage and transport redundancy schemes; fault tolerant MCS; e-Diagnostics, EES, APC for AMHS Stocker cycle time per systemFundamental capability that permits the AMH system to successfully transport hot lots, gating send-aheads and hand-carries Stocker storage densityNew storage ideas which significantly reduce stocker footprint in the fab cleanroom (Under Track Storage, Conveyors) Downtime required for adding increased system capacity when previously planned New track and stocker extension designs that permit AMHS retrofit/expansion in a working factory with minimum downtime

7. 09/04/03 7 2003 Supporting Material for Material Handling Technology Requirements AMHS System Throughput

8. 09/04/03 8 2003 Inputs, Assumptions & Output (Numbers used in 2003 AMHS Requirements Table) M. Jung Intel

9. 09/04/03 9 Peak AMHS MPH – Sample Calculation System Throughput Requirements for 2004-2005 transition to direct transport: Sample Calculation for 2005: 40K WSPM Process Steps = 25 layers X 29 steps/layer X 40k wspm (725 steps X 40k wspm) == 1593 process steps per hour (727 Hrs/month X 25 wafers /lot) Direct Transport Average MPH = ((%Tool to Tool moves x 1 Move)+((1-%Tool to Tool moves) x 2 Moves)) x Process Steps per Hour = ((10% x 1) + ((1 – 10%) x 2)) x 1593 = 3027 MPH Direct Transport Peak MPH = Average AMHS MPH x (1+2std dev) = 3027 x (1 + 2 x.20) = ~4240 MPH

10. 09/04/03 10 2001/2002 Inputs, Assumptions & Output (Reference) M. Jung Intel

11. 09/04/03 11 2001/2002 Inputs, Assumptions & Output (Reference) System Throughput Requirements for Intrabay (2004/2005): Sample Calculation: High throughput = 20 tools/bay X 125 wafers/hour Intrabay MPH 25 wafers/carrier =100 Moves / Hr Average =~200 Moves / Hr Peak ( i.e., Avg+ 2xStd Dev)

12. 09/04/03 12 2003 Inputs, Assumptions, Outputs & Description (Additional AMHS Configurations) M. Jung Intel

13. 09/04/03 13 Transport Move Definition/Details (AMHS Configuration & Move Type Definitions) M. Jung Intel

14. 09/04/03 14 Separate Interbay & Intrabay 1. Between Tools in same bayT1 -> L1 -> T2 2. Between Tools in different baysT1 -> L1 -> S1 -> L5 -> S3 -> L2 -> T3 3. Between Tool and StorageT1 -> L1 -> S1 4. Between two Storage devicesS1 -> L5 -> S3 M. Jung Intel

15. 09/04/03 15 Separate Interbay & Intrabay w/ Some Bays Connected 1. Between Tools in same bayT1 -> L1 -> T2 2. Between Tools in different baysT1 -> L1 -> T3 OR T1 -> L1 -> S1 -> L3 -> S5 -> L2 -> T5 3. Between Tool and StorageT1 -> L1 -> S1 4. Between two Storage devicesS1 -> L1 -> S3 OR S1 -> L3 -> S3 M. Jung Intel

16. 09/04/03 16 Unified Transport System – Capable of Direct Tool to Tool L1 1. Between Tools in same bayT1 -> L1 -> T2 2. Between Tools in different baysT1 -> L1 -> T3 3. Between Tool and StorageT1 -> L1 -> S1 4. Between two Storage devicesS1 -> L1 -> S3 M. Jung Intel

17. 09/04/03 17 Multiple Transport System w/ Handoff Between Transport Systems – Capable of Direct Tool to Tool 1. Between Tools in same bay T1 -> L1 -> T2 2. Between Tools in different bays T1 -> L1 -> S1 -> L5 -> S3 -> L2 -> T3 OR T1 -> L1 -> X1 -> L5 -> X2 -> L2 -> T3 3. Between Tool and Storage T1 -> L1 -> S1 4. Between two Storage devices S1 -> L5 -> S3 M. Jung Intel

18. 09/04/03 18 2003 Supporting Material for Material Handling Technology Requirements AMHS Reliability Metrics

19. 09/04/03 19 AMHS MCBF – Translated into Failures/Day Inputs Outputs Need to update

20. 09/04/03 20 2003 Supporting Material for Material Handling Technology Requirements Hot Lot Delivery Time

21. 09/04/03 21 AMHS Hot Lot Delivery Time Goal: Determine Regular AMHS Hot Lot Delivery Time to meet Cycle Time. 1)Factory Operations and process step assumptions are listed below. 2)If a Queue time of ~2 days is acceptable for Hot Lots then AMHS Delivery Times meet Cycle Time Requirements. M. Jung Intel

22. 09/04/03 22 AMHS Hot Lot Delivery Time Cycle / Processing / Transport / Queue Time Output and Assumptions: 1)The following table outlines the Required Cycle Time and the expected processing time. 2)The transport time is directly dependent on the AMHS Delivery Time. 3)The Queue Time is determined by subtracting the Transport Time and Processing Time from the Cycle Time. M. Jung Intel

23. 09/04/03 23 2003 Supporting Material for Material Handling Technology Requirements Delivery Time

24. 09/04/03 24 Carrier Delivery Time Values & Metrics #1 TimestampDescriptionCommentExample Carrier is handed over to AMHS (e.g. at loadport, shuttle-I/O, nest) 09:13:12 Carrier is handed over to hoist, vehicle or conveyor (real transport media) may be = 09:13:50 Hoist, vehicle or conveyor arriving at (final) destination 9:20:02 Carrier is handed over from AMHS to equipment (e.g. at loadport, I/O, …) may be = 11:05:07 Operator, Host or Equipment requesting carrier 11:04:11 D. Glueer AMD

25. 09/04/03 25 Carrier Delivery Time Values & Metrics #2 DescriptionIntervalExample Travel Time Time carrier spends on vehicle, hoist or conveyor - 5 min Delivery Time Time required to transport a carrier from one production equipment to any other production equipment in the factory. - 7 min Lateness Time operator or equipment needs to wait for carrier, excluding minimum robot handling time at destination - - t Retrieve 2 min D. Glueer AMD

26. 09/04/03 26 AMHS Updates for 2003 – ITRS & ISMT Metric Definitions Definitions: Transport move definition: A transport move is defined as a carrier move between loadports (stocker to stocker, stocker to production equipment, production equipment to stocker or production equipment to production equipment). Avg. Factory wide carrier delivery time: the time begins at the request for carrier movement from the host and ends when the carrier arrives at the load port of the receiving equipment. Maximum delivery time is considered the peak performance capability defined as the average plus two standard deviations. Handling time at destination t Retrieve : the (minimum) robot handling time required to move the carrier from the last storage location to the operator or the processing tool. Combined AMHS: delivery time and lateness are aggregated times, including optional changes of transportation media along the path to the destination. D. Glueer AMD

27. 09/04/03 27 Strategic Goals for Delivery Time 5% p.a. Delivery Time decrease p.a. due to advances in AMHS technology 10% p.a. Lateness decrease due to Delivery Time, MES and dispatching improvements D. Glueer AMD

28. 09/04/03 28 ITRS AMHS 2003 Potential solutions Direct Transport: Details and assumptions for Potential Solutions

29. 09/04/03 29 AMHS is Changing to an On-Time Delivery System Intra and Inter Separate System Unified System (Dispatcher Base) Unified System (Scheduler Base) Transfer Throughput Transfer Time (Ave & Max) Punctuality (On-Time) Intra-Bay Inter-Bay Intra-Bay PushPull Re-Route Ave & Max Time Wafer Level Tracking Capacity Planning On-Time Delivery AMHS Key Indicator Equipment View Lot View H/W Efforts S/W Efforts Reduce WIP Schedule WIP J. Iwasaki Renasas

30. 09/04/03 30 E-Mfg. The Next Generation Factory Concept Direct Transport - Plays key role in next generation factories

31. 09/04/03 31 Direct Tool to Tool Transport Is Needed by 2005 Objectives: Reduce product processing cycle time Increase productivity of process tools Reduced storage requirements (# of stocker) Reduced total movement requirements Priorities for Direct Delivery: Super Hot Lots (< 1% of WIP) & Other Hot Lots (~5% of WIP) Ensure bottleneck equipment is always busy Gating metro and send ahead. Other lot movements opportunistically Capability Needs Tools indicate that WIP is needed ahead of time Event driven dispatching Transition to a delivery time based AMHS Integrated factory scheduling capabilities ID Read at Tools Timing Research Required2001-2003 Development Underway2003-2005 Qualification/Pre-Production2004-2006 Fully Connected OHV OHV with Interbay Transport Partially Connected OHV With Conveyor Interbay Several AMHS Mechanical & Layout Design Concept Options being considered

32. 09/04/03 32 Material Handling: Vehicle Based Direct Transport System Concept Under Floor Full Direct Transport Central Stocker (Large Capacity) (High Throughput) Upper Ceiling OHT Branch Note: Current OHT systems cannot meet the longer-term throughput

33. 09/04/03 33 Material Handling: High Throughput Conveyor Based Direct Transport Concept Conveyor Type Transport

34. 09/04/03 34 Material Handling: High Throughput Conveyor / Hoist Hybrid Based Direct Transport Concept Interbay Conveyor Intrabay hoist Interbay/Intrabay Conveyor Tool Delivery Hoist A. Pyke Middlesex

35. 09/04/03 35 Interbay vehicle Intrabay RGV/AGV handoff station Interbay Vehicle (passive) Intrabay Hoist handoff station Interbay Vehicle Intrabay Hoist handoff station with height translation Interbay Vehicle Intrabay Hoist handoff station. Interbay Conveyor Intrabay RGV/AGV Material Handling: Alternate Concepts for achieving Direct Transport w/ multiple transport systems A. Pyke Middlesex

36. 09/04/03 36 Waffle slab Raised metal floor Stocker robot Section X-X Conveyor installed on waffle slab Transparent cover 600mm max 12ceiling 2 nd transport loop (if needed) Conveyor Maintenance: Via the top for Subway system Via the bottom for Overhead system Stocker X X Subway Transport system Material Handling: High Throughput Subway Conveyor - Direct Transport Concept (Stocker to Stocker Moves) D. Pillai Intel Corp

37. 09/04/03 37 Loadport with Safety cover and Elevator Stocker Tool ME Tool ME Tool ME Tool ME Tool ME Tool ME Tool ME Tool ME XX Tool Pedestal envelope Mini Environment Tool body (side view) door opener zone Raised Metal Floor Waffle slab Conveyor on waffle slab 900mm 600mm PGV Dock flange Safety Cover D+D 1 = 450mm EB FOUP gripper Simple Gantry robot Material Handling: High Throughput Subway Conveyor - Direct Transport Concept (Tool Moves) D. Pillai Intel Corp

38. 09/04/03 38 EB Door opener Tool body Mini Environment D+D 1 = 450mm Gantry Rails Safety cover Material Handling: High Throughput Subway Conveyor - Direct Transport Concept (Plan View w/ Gantry) D. Pillai Intel Corp

39. 09/04/03 39 Loadport 1 Empty loadport 2 Door opener flange Subway conveyor Gantry robot takes FOUP to Loadport and places on KC Tool front face Raised Metal Floor Waffle slab FOUP lifting Exclusion zones Outline of pedestal Gantry robot picks up FOUP from Conveyor and raised to the top 900mm Material Handling: High Throughput Subway Conveyor - Direct Transport Concept (Elevation View w/ Gantry) D. Pillai Intel Corp

40. 09/04/03 40 D. Pillai Intel Corp Material Handling: High Throughput Subway Conveyor - Direct Transport Concept (Layout)

41. 09/04/03 41 Factors that affect opportunity for direct transport - AMHS Interbay and Intrabay Track Layout Unified track supporting interbay and intrabay systems Crossovers to reduce AMHS cycle time – increase empty vehicle availability Bypass capability for traffic jams Parking area for empty vehicles Advantage: Increased possibility for direct delivery. Reduced AMHS cycle time Disadvantage: Might increase complexity for MCS to manage overall AMHS system complexity increases w/ integrated system w/ multiple tracks & add l complexity in layouts (bypasses, shortcuts) # of vehicles High: Traffic jams may occur Low: FOUP will wait to be picked up AMHS Controller/MCS Functionality Support MES and Dispatching systems Balance empty vehicles throughout the fab Currently in AMHS control, this is ok for today. In future, need further integrated system to provide add l MES data (tools, WIP) to proactively optimize management of empty vehicles (stage vehicles). Integrate third party buffers Redirect vehicle route/destinations while on route C. Han AMD

42. 09/04/03 42 SEMI Standards Assessment Intrabay Side Hoist type vehicle interface: Pickup: Carrier located by conveyor rails, pickup by top flange. Drop-off: Carrier lead-in by conveyor rails (similar to KC pins). Handoff by E84 RGV/AGV type vehicle interface (AGV/RGV uses KC pins or option fork lift flanges): Pickup: Carrier located by conveyor rails, KC pins available for robot. Drop-off: Carrier lead-in by conveyor rails (similar to KC pins). Handoff by E84 RGV/AGV type vehicle interface (AGV/RGV uses conveyor rails): Pickup: Carrier located by KC pin lifter, conveyor rails available for robot. Drop-off: Carrier placed on KC pins, robot uses conveyor rails Handoff by E84 Interbay Side Most active vehicle type vehicles should work without issue: E85 Option A – Active Transport Delivers Carrier to Internal Stocker location –Internal Stocker location replaced by Conveyor Buffer. E85 Option B - Active Transport Delivers Carrier to External Stocker location –External Stocker location replaced by Conveyor Buffer. Passive Vehicle Interface will require secondary active component: Dedicated pick and place unit or robot. Software IBSEM will work as-is for Interbay, Intrabay and Hybrid systems. E84 good handoff protocol for all low level handoffs. Also, IBSEM possible for interbay vehicle to intrabay vehicle handoff but may be overkill. STKSEM also possible for interbay vehicle to intrabay vehicle handoff but extreme overkill. Minor modifications in IBSEM (E82) may allow easier vehicle-vehicle handoff, through intermediate device. Could be investigated. Further work needed. A. Pyke Middlesex

43. 09/04/03 43 ITRS AMHS 2003 Potential solutions Direct Tool-to-Tool Delivery 3 rd Party Loadport / Buffer. C. Han AMD

44. 09/04/03 44 Key Factors - # of LP (FOUP Buffers) Three loadports (for normal process tool) can increase the direct tool-to-tool delivery possibility LP #1: Processing LP #2: Non-production wafer FOUP for Send Ahead or Test LP #3: To be processed Advantage Can deliver at any time (unless next FOUP to be processed is already on the non-processing LP) Tool dedicated Non-production FOUP reside on the process tool (instead of delivery back and forth from stocker) R educed # of delivery cycles Disadvantage Tools usually have only two load ports, this approach requires an additional LP Tools may not support installation of additional LP due to their design Third party buffer is possible solution instead of additional LP Need to have internal transfer between buffer and LPs AMHS(OHT) to deliver FOUP to buffer C. Han AMD

45. 09/04/03 45 Key Factors – Operation Scenario for Non- Production Wafer FOUP for two LP Non-production wafer (i.e. Send Ahead and test) FOUP resides on process tool only for the time required Transfer from stocker to process tool (not required for the 3 LP scenario) Transfer from process tool to metrology tool Transfer from metrology tool to sorter for Send Ahead merge (may not be required for 3 LP scenario) Transfer from sorter to Stocker (in 3 LP case, transfer to process tool) Advantage Can be done with two LP in the process tool Disadvantage Next lot can not be delivered until non-production wafers processed, and FOUP removed from the tool Increase deliveries C. Han AMD

46. 09/04/03 46 Key Factors – Operation Scenario for Non- Production Wafer FOUP Non-Production Wafers Production Wafers Time Three LP Two LP LP #1 LP #2 LP #3 LP #1 LP #2 Next lot can be delivered at any time Non-production FOUP can be delivered back to LP #2 at any time Next can be delivered after finishing non-production lot Non-production FOUP need to be delivered to stocker C. Han AMD

47. 09/04/03 47 ITRS AMHS 2003 Potential solutions Integrated Flow and Control: Details and assumptions for Potential Solutions

48. 09/04/03 48 Material Handling Potential Solutions Backup Section Content Potential Solutions for Integrated Flow and Control Assumptions Carrier Level Solution with Concept Drawing Type 1: Sorter and Metrology Equipment Integration with Stockers Wafer level Solutions with Concept Drawings Type 2-1: Connected EFEMs (Equipment Front-end Modules) Type 2-2: Expanded EFEM Type 2-3: Continuous EFEM (Revolving Sushi Bar)

49. 09/04/03 49 Material Handling Potential Solutions – Integrated Flow and Control Potential Solutions for Integrated Flow and Control - See concept diagrams on following pages Assumptions: Carrier Level integrated Flow and Control Type 1: Sorter and Metrology with Stockers Compatible with existing standard carrier Must be collaboration between sorter, metrology and AMHS suppliers to integrate stockers with other equipment Hardware integration primarily owned by stocker supplier Equipment integration work primarily controls interface Requires a carrier 180º rotation during hand-off from stocker robot to tool load port(s) Wafer Level Integrated Flow and Control Type 2-1: Connected EFEMs Transition from lot handling to single wafer handling systems may require new sorting equipment Contamination control must be addressed by way of a tunnel or mini-environment expansion Bypass required for individual equipment downtimes to prevent cluster shutdown Requires standardized EFEM interfaces (at the interface between the tunnel and EFEM) are recommended for ease of wafer transport "tunnel" integration.

50. 09/04/03 50 Material Handling Potential Solutions – Integrated Flow and Control (continued) Assumptions (continued): Wafer Level Integrated Flow and Control Type 2-2: Expanded EFEM Transition from carrier handling to single wafer handling systems will require new sorting equipment There must be collaboration between equipment suppliers for EFEMs development Requires new standard physical interface between process/metrology equipment and EFEMs High throughput robot required – Concern about material handling robot downtime impact –Preventative maintenance and unscheduled downtime impact are not clear Required equipment to load port matching and lot integrity are key challenges Wafer Level Integrated Flow and Control Type 2-3: Continuous EFEM (Revolving Sushi Bar) Transition from lot handling to single wafer handling systems will require ultra high speed wafer handling equipment –Lot integrity a key issue Equipment interface robot required to replace current EFEMs wafer handling robot Targeted for 450mm transition All configurations above are valid, however it is important to select appropriate solution for each factory situation

51. 09/04/03 51 Type 1: Carrier Level integrated Flow and Control - Sorter and Metrology with Stockers End View Sorter Metro Tools OHT Loop Stocker Stocker robot loads Sorters and Metro equipment Loadports Metro Process Tools Stockers OHT Loop Sorter Metro Tools Stocker robot interfaces directly with Sorters and Metro equip Potential Solutions Require: Standardized Intrabay Operation Integrated Software When Solutions Are Needed: Development Underway in 2002 Qualification/Production by 2003 (Complete for Sorter)

52. 09/04/03 52 Potential Solutions Require: I/F Standard (H/W, S/W) Standardized EFEM Software Integrated Wafer level APC Standardized Intrabay Operation Type 2-1 Wafer Level Integrated Flow and Control (Connected EFEM When Solutions Are Needed: Research Required by TBD Development Underway by TBD Qualification/Production by TBD Wafer Staging Carrier Staging Equipment Supplier A Equipment Supplier B Equipment Supplier C Conceptual Only

53. 09/04/03 53 Potential Solutions Require: System controller of Equipment Group Wafer Dispatcher Module structure of equipment Standardized I/F Standardized Width Modular Process Steps High Speed Wafer Transfer Standardized Intrabay Operation Type 2-2 Wafer Level Integrated Flow and Control (Expanded EFEM When Solutions Are Needed: Research Required by TBD Development Underway by TBD Qualification/Production by TBD Conceptual Only Standard Tool Widths

54. 09/04/03 54 Potential Solutions Require: Ultra High Speed Wafer Transfer Target M/C to M/C 7sec. Wafer Level Dispatching Type 2-3: Wafer Level Integrated Flow and Control Continuous EFEM (Revolving Sushi Bar) When Solutions Are Needed: Research Required by 2007 Development Underway by 2010 Qualification/Production by 2013 Target 450mm Single Chamber Process Tool Stocker Metrology Tool Conceptual Only Single Wafer Transport Multi-Wafer Carrier Level Transport

55. 09/04/03 55 ITRS AMHS 2003 Potential solutions Delivery Time: Under Track Storage

56. 09/04/03 56 UTS Requirements When Solutions Are Needed: Development Underway by 2003 Qualification/Production by 2004 Potential Solutions Require: Capable of OHT pick / place Handoff by E84 (optional) Lightweight to minimize ceiling loading issues WIP management algorithms important to realize the performance benefits of UTS Alignment with kinematic pins (optional) Carrier identification capabilities (optional) Ability to detect FOUP placement/presence and/or misplacement Potential Benefits: Shorter delivery times based on storage closer to process tools Better support of quick-turn processes Hot lot handling Lower storage cost / Higher Storage Density (zero foot print, no robot) Higher AMHS reliability based on less complex storage solution T. Mariano Brooks

57. 09/04/03 57 Potential UTS Solutions – Passive Shelf T. Mariano Brooks

58. 09/04/03 58 Potential UTS Solutions – Re-circulating Buffer T. Mariano Brooks

59. 09/04/03 59 Potential UTS Solutions – Linear Buffer T. Mariano Brooks

60. 09/04/03 60 ITRS AMHS 2003 Potential solutions Inert Gas Purging of Foups

61. 09/04/03 61 End View OHT Loop Stocker Stocker robot loads to/from Purge & Non-Purge FOUP storage nests Potential Solutions Require: Inert Gas Injection Purge Nests in Wafer Stockers Gas Plumbing with High Flow Initial Purge & Low Sustaining Flow Rates Material & Stocker Control Systems to Support Partial Population of Purge Nests in Stockers User Consensus and/or Industry Hardware Standards Needed for FOUP / Purge Port Interoperability (E47.1 update – Locations on Foup Define interface in E47.1) When Solutions Are Needed: Development Underway in 2003 (65nm / 90nm) Qualification/Production starting 2004 FOUP Input FOUP Output FOUPs being Purged FOUP Input FOUP Out put Need: Option for Improvement in Wafer FOUP Level Environmental Conditioning along with Compliance to Industry Safety Standards FOUP Nest Current Port Versions: 2 Ports near Door and 4 Ports Potential Solutions – Inert Gas Purging of FOUPs L. Foster TI

62. 09/04/03 62 ITRS AMHS 2003 Potential solutions Factory Cross Linkage: Protocol Induced Constraints

63. 09/04/03 63 Facility Cross Linkage Issues Area A Area B Protocol Change Traverse Drivers: Slurry (Polish) Copper Other hazardous materials Cleanliness requirements Shipping & receiving... D. Glueer AMD

64. 09/04/03 64 Facility Cross Linkage Approaches Protocol Change: Vehicle change: Transferring a carrier from one AMHS vehicle to another vehicle requiring robotic handlers and local buffers. Potential Solutions: See presentation Direct Transport material for option to Transfer between transport devices. FOUP change: - Potential Solutions A) Via Sorter: Transferring wafer by wafer B) Via Flipper: Transferring content as a whole, e.g. via comb 1) Integrated: Transfer device integrated in Stocker 2) External: Hoist delivering carrier to Transfer Device Traverse: - Potential Solutions through tunnels on dedicated vehicles using dedicated tracks and/or routes D. Glueer AMD

65. 09/04/03 65 Facilitity Cross Linkage Considerations Directions: Unidirectional: Best separation Bi-directional: Lower COO (1 for 2, re-use of Empties) Multi-usage: E.g. from area A one transfer device both to B and to C + saving footprint - complex control structure, higher impact of down-events Availability of (appropriate) Empties: Empty vehicles / empty FOUPs Washing cycles Protocol restrictions esp. for multi-usage transfers Local buffer capacity of transfer device Facilities: Air pressure Fire protection D. Glueer AMD

66. 09/04/03 66 Facility Cross Linkage Metrics Throughput Cycle Time Availability Amount of Transfers/Layer Amount of Mask Layer Amount of Transfers due to other reasons WSPM Wafers / Carrier Bi-directionalUnidirectional =+ Sample: 40000 WSPM ÷ 25 Wafers/FOUP (4 29 + 3) = 265 Transfers per Hour = 2 Average Carrier Delivery Time + Transfer Time Sample: 2 8 Minutes + 5 Minutes = 21 Minutes D. Glueer AMD

67. 09/04/03 67 Facility Cross Linkage Conclusions Many ways to address Facility Cross Linkage issues Selection process is site-specific and needs to be made in close cooperation with CFM department High drawback to MES and AMHS control structure Transfer devices may turn out to be bottleneck, esp. when multi-usage Handling Empties increases AMHS duties significantly High impact to AMHS delivery times May lead to impact of whole wafer processing cycle time Usually trade-off between cleanliness concerns vs. AMHS performance Could be reduced by appropriate dispatching and scheduling Just in Time delivery of FOUPs Redundancy needs to be build-in D. Glueer AMD

68. 09/04/03 68 Potential Research Topics – Vibration Requirements Proposed Research TitleCharacterization of Acceptable Vibration and Acceleration Limits on Wafers BackgroundCurrent industry specs on vibration/acceleration applied to wafers by AMHS and not supported by data on potential damage to wafers ProposalNeed to analyze potential negative effects (mechanical damage, defects, yield loss) to wafers induced by different levels or types of vibration during automated handling. Project ScenarioData Characterization threshold for acceptable vibration/acceleration would allow for speed and cycle time of AMHS products to be improved without inducing WIP Jeopardy. DeliverablesRecommended specifications for vibration applied to wafers by AMHS and supporting data Support RequiredTools for characterization, wafer vibration, Skills in mechanical engineering, materials, process, yield BenefitCurrent vibration limits are constraining the AMHS cycle time (stockers, vehicles). New vibration limits have the potential to increase system throughput. Simulation results w/ new stocker and vehicle cycle time can be used to show system throughput benefits.

69. 09/04/03 69 Potential Research Topics FOUP Cleanliness Methodology for measuring cleanliness of FOUPs (other than liquid particle counts). Need repeatable technique for characterization of cleaning FOUPS. Benefit – Better cleaning system, reduced cleaning Unified Transport System Validation Demonstrate, through simulation, a unified transport system capable of achieving system throughput requirements in requirements table. Ex. Empty vehicle management in a unified system. Need to demonstrate a peak system for 40K WSPM factory with unified transport system (vehicle based). Provide distribution strategy / rules that can be used by AMHS vendors. Benefit – Validate feasibility of unified transport system in a fully loaded fab. FOUP Purging What are requirements for FOUP purging?

70. 09/04/03 70 450mm Wafer Transition - All discussions are preliminary: The following is intended for discussion and not to outline solutions at this point.

71. 09/04/03 71 July 5 th Additional Inputs Carrier Capacity Impact: Assume 5x change in carrier capacity. Transport MPH Impact: 5x change in carrier capacity results in MPH jump from 5000 to 25000 MPH! Reliability Impact: With a 5x increase in the number of AMHS moves in order to keep the same # of failures per day the Transport MMBI requirement will jump from 45,000 to 225,000. How is this factor of 5x offset? Increase in direct transport moves? Increase in reliability? Reduction in delivery time? WSPW & TPT impact: Will these be expected to be the same?

72. 09/04/03 72 Potential AMHS MPH & Reliability Implications

73. 09/04/03 73 Potential AMHS MPH Implications

74. 09/04/03 74 AMHS Thrust Team Feedback Wafer & Interface to Carrier: Will wafer thickness really stay the same? With 1.5x diameter increase, just strength to keep the wafer from drooping will need more. This drives weight as well as carrier pitch. Note that the droop is even worse on hot wafers. This might drive you to extra rear "comb" in the carrier (i.e., drive for "Y" shaped end effectors. Note also that if wafer get thicker and heavier, the longer end effector must be thicker as well, to maintain its own shape. Not sure how 10mm pitch will work. (Recall that even at 300mm the tool vendors were already begging for 15mm before the decision was made for 10mm back in late 1995). Also on carrier pitch, recall that the AMC presentation wants good purging. A 450mm diameter with tiny 6mm pitch means almost no airflow over the wafer to remove AMC from wafer center. This may influence aspect ratio decisions as much as just robot blade. Include human readable ID.

75. 09/04/03 75 AMHS Thrust Team Feedback Carrier: What was the motivation to select 5-10 wafers? Will there be multiple size carriers in the factory? Any initial estimates on the weight of the carrier? Light enough for manual movement? What is the motivation for a bottom opening FOUP? Is there an internal cassette? Will mechanism be simpler? Need more focus on agreement on external sensor locations during standards discussions (placement, door, etc.) Carriers should have conveying surfaces in BOTH directions (front-back and left-right). This could make going sideways a simple matter of just rolling that way quickly, instead of having to wait to turn the carrier by 90- degrees (assuming use of conveyors). - because turntable are bottlenecks in a conveyor system Need to focus on reliable and vibrationless carrier conveying as key issue for conveyor based transport capability 5/5 Inputs: What about the shipping box and back end carriers? Will they be bottom opening? Different interface? Same carrier?

76. 09/04/03 76 AMHS Thrust Team Feedback Tool Buffering: Provide clarification on external buffering (usually fixed LP or internal buffering) Would the robot that interfaces w/ the tool buffer be under control of the process tool or the AMHS system? Is it a tool buffer or a distributed buffer? Cost of buffer? Additional floor space required. Are we assuming storage anywhere else in the factory? Why are we assuming we need this much buffering on the tools? Is this because we will need a faster swap time due to reduce number of wafers per carrier. Should the robot able to handle carrier and wafer and also different carrier sizes ( number of wafer )?

77. 09/04/03 77 AMHS Thrust Team Feedback Transport System: Should still consider transport concepts other than just conveyor. Ex. Systems that have conveyor & vehicle systems combined. Why not have conveyor at a higher elevation? Conveyor systems can be raised enabling easier access to tools and additional floor space. Does height of conveyor prevent manual or manual assist at the tool load port? Where did MPH calculations come from? Based on a quick analysis the numbers seem to match up w/ extrapolations of the current ITRS numbers. How can we use the buffering capability of conveyor based systems for tool buffer ?

78. 09/04/03 78 AMHS Thrust Team Feedback Facility Why a 14' ceiling height? Tool height, move in path? What drives this recommendation? What about retrofits into existing facilities w/ 12, 16, 20, etc. ? What about under-floor transport concepts? RAM Where did 99% availability target come from?

79. 09/04/03 79 First draft 450mm Factory Design with conveyor solution ( floor installation ) LP1 LP2LP3 Buffer 3 Buffer 2 Buffer 1 IN ( Fast Lane ) OUT LP1 LP2LP3 Transfer units space for one carrier ? Buffer 4 Courtesy of H. Heinrich Infineon Technologies Dresden

80. 09/04/03 80 Background on 450mm Wafer Discussion ITRC International Roadmap Committee (IRC) has instructed each WG to align on next wafer size intercept at 2012 Intercept indicates the time at which the first 2 IC makers will begin ramping the technology into high volume (beyond 10k die) The Factory Integration Technology Working Group (FI-TWG) has been discussing relative timing requirements and attributes that must be determined to make this wafer size transition as successful as the 300mm wafer size transition The objective of todays 450mm agenda item is to quickly review information from previous FI meetings and start discussing Factory attributes and guidelines that should be considered for this conversion We will not attempt to discuss the economic models or development funding requirements at this meeting since these two items are outside the scope of the FI-TWG FI Material included for reference only

81. 09/04/03 81 When do we start planning for next wafer size transition? 9 yrs + 2 yrs delay* 9 yrs? + 2 yrs delay? 9 yrs + ?yrs delay 675mm/2021? 450mm/2012300mm/2001 200mm/1990 (125/150mm - 1981) FI Material included for reference only

82. 09/04/03 82 ITRS View on 450mm Timing FI Material included for reference only

83. 09/04/03 83 Proposed 450mm Wafer Transition Timeline Not final. Needs Further discussions FI Material included for reference only

84. 09/04/03 84 Examples of Next wafer size Technology Decisions that are Needed 450mm AttributeKey Technology Decisions WaferMaterial, Size, Thickness, ID, Registration, Edge Exclusion Wafer Carrier Number of Wafers, Size, Door Type, AMHS Strategy, ID Production Equipment Single wafer vs. mini-batch, cleanliness, interface standards, productivity targets relative to 300mm (NPW usage, etc.) FactoryFactory Size, Egress, Cleanliness, Sub-Fab attributes, Clean-room height Automated Material Handling Systems Direct transport concepts, carrier/wafer delivery time, overall throughput, efficient storage concepts Manufacturing Systems Process Control & Yield Data Standards, Carrier delivery time, Decision Making Time, Data Flow FI Material included for reference only

85. 09/04/03 85 Factory Design Decisions Highly Integrated Wafer Characteristics and Operational Models are Key starting Points FI Material included for reference only

86. 09/04/03 86 Vehicle Based Transport Capabilities do not meet Small Lot Throughput Needs Conveyor Transport will Likely be Required for 20k to 30k wspm Fabs Running Small (5-10 wafer) Lot Carriers FI Material included for reference only

87. 09/04/03 87 Proposed 450mm Factory Design Starting Point Starting Point: Single Wafer Process, Bottom Opening 5 Wafer Carrier + Conveyor Transport + Small Footprint Buffering FI Material included for reference only

88. 09/04/03 88 Some Other Factory Requirements More Factory Design Starting Point Proposals #RequirementDriver 1. Standards created before factory and equipment is designed Converge Supplier Requirements 2. Test wafer are not needed to characterize tool performance Reduce Fab Operating Costs 3. Equipment is designed for high and low mix manufacturing Enable Low Mix Mfg Model 4. 98% equipment availabilityReduce Cost 5. Plug and play production equipment modules + chambers Maintenance Flexibility 6. Ability to control process and yield at the wafer and field level Meet Product and Yield Targets 7. Environmentally sound resource consumption designed into tools Local Environment Laws FI Material included for reference only

89. 09/04/03 89 450mm Wafer Transition Guidelines Based on lessons learned from the 300mm Wafer Transition, industry guidelines were essentially to aligning IC Makers, Suppliers, and Standards/Consortia This document includes Rev 0 450mm guidelines for initial discussion based on 300mm lessons learned The document is intended for initial discussion and is not a proposed final revision – it will change and be updated over the time as additional data and discussions are factored into it The Proposal is that the ITRS Factory Integration body supports the initial 450mm wafer guideline discussions and documentation until active consortia are established to move forward with the transition FI Material included for reference only

90. 09/04/03 90 450mm Wafer Transition Guidelines (1) Preliminary - Rev 0 for Discussion Purposes Only 1.0 Wafer Substrate: 1.The diameter of the wafer should be 450mm + 0.20mm 2.The thickness of the wafer should be 775 + 20μm 3.The maximum variation in wafer thickness should be + 10μm 4.The maximum warp-age of the wafer should be no more than 100 μm 5.The edge exclusion zone of the wafer should be 1mm 6.All wafers should be marked with a 2 dimensional matrix code on the backside surface in the edge exclusion zone near the notch 1. The 2 dimensional matrix code must comply with the SEMI T7 mark 2. The wafer ID must be unique to each manufacturer and provide traceability back to the original ingot 7.The backside surface of the wafers should be polished FI Material included for reference only

91. 09/04/03 91 450mm Wafer Transition Guidelines (2) Preliminary - Rev 0 for Discussion Purposes Only FI Material included for reference only

92. 09/04/03 92 450mm Wafer Transition Guidelines (3) Preliminary - Rev 0 for Discussion Purposes Only 2.0 Wafer Carrier: The carrier shall be bottom opening The carrier shall support storing wafers in the horizontal orientation with appropriate wafer support to ensure damage does not occur during carrier handling The carrier size shall be flexible from 1 to 10 wafers (?) When sealed, the environment within the carrier shall sustain a cleanliness of Class 1 at 0.1um and have the capability of being N2 purged The carrier shall support a wafer pitch of 10mm between wafer substrate center line planes and 6mm between wafers The carrier shall use a unique RF identification number which shall be field programmable by the user The carrier shall support AMHS storage handling and movement by conveyor with a minimal footprint FI Material included for reference only

93. 09/04/03 93 450mm Wafer Transition Guidelines (4) Preliminary - Rev 0 for Discussion Purposes Only 2.5 The carrier shall support a wafer pitch of 10mm between wafer substrate center line planes and 6mm between wafers FI Material included for reference only

94. 09/04/03 94 450mm Wafer Transition Guidelines (5) Preliminary - Rev 0 for Discussion Purposes Only 3.0 Production Equipment: 1.Process Equipment shall have an availability > 95% 2.Metrology Equipment shall have an availability > 98% 3.Production equipment shall process each wafer independently (single wafer processing – no batch operation) 4.Production Equipment shall run non-stop (continuous) without pause for product change set-up between wafers 5.Load ports shall have a height of 900mm from the floor 6.Test wafer shall not be needed to characterize tool performance 7.The equipment shall have the ability to adjust processing at the field level (lithography) or wafer level (all other equipment) 8.Equipment shall have the ability to control each wafer independently and run unique recipes and parameters for each wafer, field, and even area of the wafer [APC + high mix] FI Material included for reference only

95. 09/04/03 95 450mm Wafer Transition Guidelines (6) Preliminary - Rev 0 for Discussion Purposes Only 3.0 Production Equipment: 9.Maintenance will only occur from the rear of the equipment (no side or front access) 10.Production equipment shall only use a sub-fab support foot print < to its cleanroom size (1:1 ratio of cleanroom to sub-fab foot print) 11.Equipment shall have the ability to identify carriers at each load port 12.Production equipment shall support use of the SEMI Equipment Data Acquisition (EDA) standards for high speed, reliable, and rich equipment data transmission to the manufacturing systems 13.Production equipment must have minimum capability of loading wafers to and from the same slot in the same carrier to maintain slot- to-slot integrity 14.Carrier presence and placement sensors located at each SEMI E15.1 load port must be integrated to the equipment control system to facilitate safe carrier transfer 15.The Production equipment shall support a communication link to the AMHS equipment to enable error free material movement between both equipment FI Material included for reference only

96. 09/04/03 96 450mm Wafer Transition Guidelines (7) Preliminary - Rev 0 for Discussion Purposes Only 4. 0 AMHS: Equipment shall have the ability to identify carriers at each load port AMHS shall have an availability > 99% The AMHS shall enable carriers to move to any factory point without intermediate storage [Direct Transport] The AMHS equipment shall support a communication link that enables error free material movement between storage and transport units and between transport units and production equipment 5.0 Factory Facilities: The facility shall have a ceiling height of 14 FI Material included for reference only

97. 09/04/03 97 450mm Wafer Transition Guidelines (8) Preliminary - Rev 0 for Discussion Purposes Only 6.0 Manufacturing Systems: The factory system shall have the ability to select the next wafer for process and to control each wafer processed at the production equipment independently [slot selection] The factory system shall have the ability to run unique recipes and parameters for each wafer, field, and even area of the wafer to meet high product mix and process control system requirements The factory system shall support communication with production equipment using the SEMI Equipment Data Acquisition (EDA) standards for high speed, reliable, and rich equipment data transmission FI Material included for reference only

98. 09/04/03 98 Next Steps Capture additional lessons learned and inputs from today Include summary in report-out to IRC Potentially discuss in Industry report-out on Wednesday or at SEMICON West FI Material included for reference only

99. 09/04/03 99 Layout for the AMHS evaluation (STRJ Inputs) October 15th, 2004

100. 09/04/03 100 Assumption(1) Production 40k wafer start/month Total transportation: ITRS roadmap Fab size 240m x 100m Bay width and length Width average 16m Length average 40m Space for AMHS Interbay 6m+3.5m*2 at bay end Intrabay 2.4m

101. 09/04/03 101 Assumption(2) Bay design 30 bays High throughput bays 200% of the average throughput; 20% of total bays Low throughput bays 50% of the average throughput; 20% of total bays Other bays Cover the rest; 60% of total bays Note:5000mph fab case Average traffic of the bays: 5000/30=167mph Traffic of the high throughput bays:5000/30*200%=333mph Traffic of the low throughput bays: 5000/30*50%=83mph Traffic of other throughput bays:138mph

102. 09/04/03 102 Assumption(3) Number of tools and load ports in a bay 700 tools in total fab. 50% of those have 4 load ports and the rest have 2 load ports. Tools are equally distributed to each bay. Each bay has 70 load ports, (700*0.5*4+700*0.5*2)/30=70

103. 09/04/03 103 Assumption(4) Storage Total storage location; 7,000 locations TAT; 60days Production wafer locations; 40k/m/25w/Foup*60days/30days=3,200bins NPW locations=80% of Production locations=2,560bins Allowance=20% in fab=1,150bins Stockers; two stockers/bay=60 units Average storage locations=7000/60=117 bins

104. 09/04/03 104 240m 100m 16m 40m 6m3.5m2.4m Image of model fab Layout Zone A Zone B

105. 09/04/03 105 From To Chart Assumptions The distribution assumption is made based on existing fab layouts and traffic distributions 30% of transports is within a same bay. 50% of transports is delivered to bays in same zone, distributed proportionally to each bay traffic. 20% of transports is delivered to bays in another zone, distributed proportionally to each bay traffic

106. 09/04/03 106 Image of traffic flow 20% to other zone Zone A Zone B 30% same bay 50% to same zone 20% to other zone 30% same bay

107. 09/04/03 107 From-Chart Based at 5Kmph

108. 09/04/03 108