| Effective characterization of an aspheric micro lens is critical for understanding and improving processing in micro-optic manufacturing. Since most microlenses are plano-convex, where the convex geometry is a conic surface, current practice is often limited to obtaining an estimate of the lens conic constant, which average out the surface geometry that departs from an exact conic surface and any addition surface irregularities. We have developed a comprehensive approach of estimating the best fit conic and its uncertainty, and in addition propose an alternative analysis that focuses on surface errors rather than best-fit conic constant. We describe our new analysis strategy based on the two most dominant micro lens metrology methods in use today, namely, scanning white light interferometry (SWLI) and phase shifting interferometry (PSI). We estimate several parameters from the measurement. The major uncertainty contributors for SWLI are the estimates of base radius of curvature, the aperture of the lens, the sag of the lens, noise in the measurement, and the center of the lens. In the case of PSI the dominant uncertainty contributors are noise in the measurement, the radius of curvature, and the aperture. Our best-fit conic procedure uses least squares minimization to extract a best-fit conic value, which is then subjected to a Monte Carlo analysis to capture combined uncertainty. In our surface errors analysis procedure, we consider the surface errors as the difference between the measured geometry and the best-fit conic surface or as the difference between the measured geometry and the design specification for the lens. We focus on a Zernike polynomial description of the surface error, and again a Monte Carlo analysis is used to estimate a combined uncertainty, which in this case is an uncertainty for each Zernike coefficient. Our approach also allows us to investigate the effect of individual uncertainty parameters and measurement noise on both the best-fit conic constant analysis and the surface errors analysis, and compare the individual contributions to the overall uncertainty. |
