1. Field of the Invention
This invention generally relates to methods and systems for design alteration for wafer inspection.
2. Description of the Related Art
The following description and examples are not admitted to be prior art by virtue of their inclusion in this section.
Inspection processes are used at various steps during a semiconductor manufacturing process to detect defects on wafers to promote higher yield in the manufacturing process and thus higher profits. Inspection has always been an important part of fabricating semiconductor devices. However, as the dimensions of semiconductor devices decrease, inspection becomes even more important to the successful manufacture of acceptable semiconductor devices because smaller defects can cause the devices to fail.
Every fab is interested in detecting defects that are relevant to yield. To achieve this, defect engineers utilize various approaches in defining knowledge-based inspection care area and binning approaches. As such, design-based inspection and binning have been widely adopted by advanced fabs in the semiconductor industry. However, despite these efforts, defect data is still convoluted with nuisance defect data, which impacts defect binning, resulting in many nuisance bins among the pattern groups.
Existing methods for removing nuisance defects involve much effort in recipe setup and post-processing. In setup, smaller care areas (CAs) may be defined based on user knowledge and building of a defect organizer such as iDO, which is commercially available from KLA-Tencor, Milpitas, Calif. In post-processing, various inspection attributes such as energy and contrast or design-based binning methods are used to filter out nuisance defects. Although some filtering may be applied to defect detection results prior to binning, significant numbers of nuisance defects are included in the defect detection results used for binning. In the case of design-based binning, binning can lead to thousands of groups since all patterns (whether critical or not) are used to generate pattern groups. Such a huge number of defect groups creates a significant challenge in identifying critical pattern types among relatively large numbers of groups. For example, the number of groups may be substantially high and contain a substantially large number of nuisance bins, making it difficult to isolate important pattern groups. While design-based binning provides significant advantages over other types of defect binning methods, such binning introduces additional challenges and time to process data upon inspection. There is also no easy way to remove the nuisance bins, and computing resources used to bin defects into the nuisance groups are essentially wasted and reduce productivity.
Accordingly, it would be advantageous to develop systems and/or methods that do not have one or more of the disadvantages described above.
The following description of various embodiments is not to be construed in any way as limiting the subject matter of the appended claims.
One embodiment relates to a computer-implemented method for binning defects on a wafer. The method includes identifying areas in a design for a layer of a device being fabricated on a wafer that are not critical to yield of fabrication of the device. The method also includes generating an altered design for the layer by eliminating features in the identified areas from the design for the layer. In addition, the method includes detecting defects on the layer using output of an inspection system. The method further includes binning the defects into groups using the altered design such that features in the altered design proximate positions of the defects in each of the groups are at least similar. The identifying, generating, detecting, and binning steps are performed by one or more computer systems.
The method described above may be performed as described further herein. In addition, the method described above may include any other step(s) of any other method(s) described herein. Furthermore, the method described above may be performed by any of the systems described herein.
Another embodiment relates to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program instructions executable on a computer system for performing a computer-implemented method for binning defects on a wafer. The computer-implemented method includes the steps of the method described above. The computer-readable medium may be further configured as described herein. The steps of the computer-implemented method may be performed as described further herein. In addition, the computer-implemented method for which the program instructions are executable may include any other step(s) of any other method(s) described herein.
An additional embodiment relates to a system configured to bin defects on a wafer. The system includes an inspection system configured to generate output for a layer in a device being fabricated on a wafer. The system also includes one or more computer systems configured for performing the steps of the method described above. The system may be further configured as described herein.
Other objects and advantages of the invention will become apparent upon reading the following detailed description and upon reference to the accompanying drawings in which:
While the invention is susceptible to various modifications and alternative forms, specific embodiments thereof are shown by way of example in the drawings and will herein be described in detail. It should be understood, however, that the drawings and detailed description thereto are not intended to limit the invention to the particular form disclosed, but on the contrary, the intention is to cover all modifications, equivalents and alternatives falling within the spirit and scope of the present invention as defined by the appended claims.
Turning now to the drawings, it is noted that the figures are not drawn to scale. In particular, the scale of some of the elements of the figures is greatly exaggerated to emphasize characteristics of the elements. It is also noted that the figures are not drawn to the same scale. Elements shown in more than one figure that may be similarly configured have been indicated using the same reference numerals. Unless otherwise noted herein, any of the elements described and shown may include any suitable commercially available elements.
One embodiment relates to a computer-implemented method for binning defects on a wafer. As will be described further herein, the embodiments may include rule-based yield-sensitive design layout generation for separation of critical and non-critical areas in a design.
The method includes identifying areas in a design for a layer of a device being fabricated on a wafer that are not critical to yield of fabrication of the device. Therefore, the identifying step may include identifying critical and non-critical areas in the design. By separating critical areas from non-critical areas as described herein, the identifying step effectively identifies patterns of interest (POIs) or the patterns of features located in areas that are critical to the yield. Although the embodiments will be described herein with respect to a layer of a device, the method may be performed for any one or more layers or all layers of the device separately. For example, the method may be performed for the metal 1 (M1) layer of a device, and the method may be performed for the metal 2 (M2) layer of the device.
In one embodiment, identifying the areas is performed using a design layout file for the design. The design layout file may be a Graphical Data System (GDS) or Open Artwork System Interchange Standard (OASIS) file. The design or design layout file used in the embodiments described herein may include any other design layout file known in the art. In addition, the design layout file used in the identifying step may have any configuration such as for a cut mask, double patterning lithography (DPL), composite layers, self-aligned double patterning (SADP), etc. The method may include acquiring the design layout file from an electronic design automation (FDA) tool. The design layout file can be pre-processed to identify areas that are prone to yield loss due to defects as described further herein.
In some embodiments, identifying the areas includes identifying the areas in the design for the layer that are not critical to the yield by applying user-defined rules to a design layout file for the design. In this manner, identifying the areas may include rule-based identification, and the methods may include using user-defined rules to identify critical areas. The user-defined rules may be based on any one or more characteristics of the features in the design such as the characteristics described herein (e.g., density of features, dimensions of spaces between features, etc.). The user-defined rules may be acquired in any suitable manner. For example, the method may be configured to acquire the user-defined rules from a storage medium. Alternatively, the method may include displaying a user interface to the user (e.g., using one of the computer systems described further herein) and receiving the user-defined rules from the user through the user interface.
In another embodiment, identifying the areas includes identifying the areas in the design for the layer that are not critical to the yield based on density of the features in different areas in the design for the layer. For example, in reality, relatively small defects or pattern abnormalities in relatively sparse regions of a die have minimal or no impact on yield. In contrast, defects of any size in relatively dense areas of the design can have significant impacts on the yield. The density of the features that separates sparse and therefore not critical areas from dense and therefore critical areas may be set in any suitable manner.
In one embodiment, identifying the areas includes identifying the areas in the design for the layer that are not critical to the yield based on dimensions of spaces between the features in different areas of the design for the layer. For example, defects falling in minimal feature areas (minimal spaces almost always have significant impact on yield. In other words, defects landing in minimal spaces will generally be critical defects. In one example, a 50 nm pattern defect located in a 200 nm space will not likely cause yield loss where the same defect located in a 50 nm space will likely short out the lines or other features located on either side of the space. Areas with minimum spaces can be identified by using the design for the layer to determine the minimum dimension of spaces in the design. The absolute minimum dimension of all of the spaces in the design can be used to determine some range of dimensions for spaces that can be considered minimal and to thereby generate a threshold for identifying areas having “minimum spaces” and those that do not. For example, the absolute minimum can be increased by a percentage, say 10%, or by an absolute value and that “increased minimum” may be used as a threshold for separating areas in the design into those that are critical to yield and those that are not.
In some embodiments, identifying the areas includes identifying the areas in the design for the layer that are not critical to the yield based on dimensions of the features in different areas of the design for the layer. For example, defects falling in areas having minimal feature dimensions (minimal line widths or minimal areas of features) almost always have significant impact on yield. A threshold that can be used to separate areas based on dimensions of the features may be determined by determining the minimum feature dimension in the design for the layer and setting the threshold value based on the minimum feature dimension. For example, the threshold may be equal to the minimum feature dimension, the minimum feature dimension increased by some percentage or absolute value, etc. Areas that include only features whose minimum dimensions are greater than that threshold may be identified as not critical to the yield. Any other areas may be identified as critical to the yield.
In an additional embodiment, identifying the areas includes identifying the areas in the design for the layer that are not critical to the yield based on function of the features in the different areas of the design for the layer. For example, areas of the design that include only supporting structures, dummy features, or features used as fillers may be identified as areas that are not critical to the yield. Therefore, main layer features can be separated from supporting structures and dummy patterns. The function of the features can be determined directly from the design for the layer in any suitable manner.
Identifying the areas that are not critical to the yield may be performed in only one manner described above or in more than one manner described above. For example, if an area includes only features whose minimum dimensions are less than the threshold for feature dimension, that area will generally not include dummy features or supporting structures and therefore examining the function of those features will generally not be beneficial. However, identifying the areas may include evaluating a number of characteristics of the design simultaneously or sequentially. For example, areas of the design that only include supporting structures or dummy features may be identified and therefore eliminated to generate one altered design and then this altered design may be evaluated for minimum space dimensions and any areas that do not include spaces having a minimum dimension below some threshold may be eliminated from that altered design to generate another altered design. The second altered design may be further processed or used in other steps described herein such as binning.
Area 104 in design 100 that includes features 106 and 108 may be identified as an area of the design that is not critical to yield of the device fabrication in a number of different manners described herein. For example, features 106 and 108 may have a width that is equal to the minimum line width of all the features in the design, but since the space between the features included in area 104 is substantially larger than the line width dimension of the features, the area does not include spaces having minimum dimensions. Therefore, the area containing features 106 and 108 may be identified as an area that is not critical to yield.
Area 104 may also be identified in other manners described herein. For example, not only are the features in area 104 separated by a space having a dimension substantially greater than the minimum dimension, the features in this area are relatively sparse due to the dimensions of the space between them. Therefore, if the identifying step was performed based on density as described above, this area would also be identified as not critical to yield of the device fabrication. As such, area 104 may be identified in a number of different manners described herein, but once the area is identified in one manner, that area may be identified as not critical to yield and not evaluated further if identifying the areas is performed in any other manner.
Area 114 in design 100 that includes features 116, 118, 120 and 122 may also be identified as an area of the design that is not critical to yield of the device fabrication in a number of different manners described herein. For example, features 116 and 118 included in area 114 are separated by a space having a dimension that is equal to the smallest dimension of the features, and features 120 and 122 are separated from each other by a space having a dimension that is equal to the smallest dimension of those features, but since the smallest dimensions of features 116, 118, 120 and 122 are substantially greater than the minimum feature dimension in the design, features 116, 118, 120 and 122 will not have minimum spaces between them and will not have minimum feature dimensions. Therefore, the area containing features 116, 118, 120 and 122 may be identified as an area that is not critical to yield.
Area 114 may also be identified in other manners described herein. For example, since the features in area 114 are separated by spaces having dimensions greater than the minimum space in the design and have feature dimensions that are greater than the minimum feature dimension in the design, the features in this area may be relatively sparse due to the dimensions of the features and the spaces between them. Therefore, if the identifying step was performed as described above based on density, this area would also be identified as not critical to yield of the device fabrication. As such, area 114 may be identified in a number of different manners described herein, but once the area is identified in one manner, that area may be identified as not critical to yield and not evaluated further if identifying the areas is performed in any other manner.
Any other characteristics of a device design relevant to yield of device fabrication may also be taken into consideration when identifying the areas that are not critical to yield. For example, identifying the areas may include using information about array edges in the design to determine if features in an area of the design are critical to yield, which may in of itself be used to identify the areas or may be used in combination with other manners for identification described above. In addition, information about other layers of the design (a layer to be formed on the wafer subsequent to the layer in question (i.e., a future layer) or a layer that is or will be formed on the wafer prior to the layer in question (i.e., a previous layer)) may be used in combination with the design for the layer to determine areas of the layer that are not critical to yield. For example, if an area of the design for the layer is determined to be not critical to the layer in a manner described herein but is located above or below a critical area of the design for a future or previous layer of the device, that area may be identified as critical where, taking into consideration only the layer itself, it would have been identified as not critical. Furthermore, pattern searching may be used to identify areas that are not critical to yield. For example, if a particular pattern is known a priori to be critical or not critical to yield, the design may be searched for those patterns using any suitable pattern matching method and/or algorithm and the areas containing them may be identified accordingly. In addition, design rule checking (DRC) information or software may be used for identifying areas that are not critical to the yield.
The method also includes generating an altered design for the layer by eliminating features in the identified areas from the design for the layer. The features in the altered design may include features in areas of the design for the layer other than the identified areas. For example, with the knowledge gained in the identifying step described above, design layout files can be pre-processed in the generating step to eliminate or group the identified areas before sending the design to the binning operation. In one such example, a new layout can be created for only the areas that have a minimum space. In this manner, non-critical patterns can be eliminated from the design. Since the identified areas that are eliminated include areas that are not critical to the yield, eliminating features in those identified areas produces a yield-sensitive design layout by separating critical and non-critical areas of the design. Therefore, the altered design may also be referred to as a “yield critical layout” in that it includes only those device features that are critical to the yield of device fabrication.
In the example shown in
Using the altered design in additional steps described herein provides a number of advantages. For example, any defects that are detected in the identified areas will most likely be nuisance defects or defects that the user does not care about because those defects will be located in areas that are not critical to yield. Therefore, those areas and the features located therein can be considered as a nuisance source and eliminating them from the design eliminates a nuisance source from the design. As such, the embodiments described herein are advantageous since a nuisance source can be eliminated from the design and therefore before inspection or any steps are performed with the altered design thereby reducing the computation requirement for the inspection system or any other system that uses the altered design instead of the design. For example, areas that are not critical can be eliminated from the design layout and this customized layout can be used for defect binning such as that described further herein. In addition to reducing the computation requirement of steps performed using the altered design instead of the original design, the embodiments described herein reduce the data size used in such steps for easier data handling.
In one embodiment, generating the altered design includes eliminating the features in the identified areas from a design layout file for the design thereby creating a modified design layout file and converting a file format of the modified design layout file to a different file format that can be used for the binning step described further herein. In this manner, the non-critical patterns in the design layout can be eliminated prior to creating a design layout for use by an inspection system or method. Therefore, one advantage of the embodiments described herein is that any intellectual property in the original design can be protected since the modified design layout file contains insufficient data to build a device. As such, the embodiments can reduce any intellectual property concerns by fragmenting the design file. In addition, by converting the altered design (or modified design layout) to another format, the modified layout file generated as described herein may be non-functional and have a format that is specific for inspection. The file format of the modified design layout file can be converted in any suitable manner into any file format such as those that can be used by commercially available inspection systems.
Generating the altered design may also include eliminating the features in the identified areas and replacing features in areas of the design for the layer other than the identified areas with different features. For example, the features in the identified areas may be eliminated as described above. Then, the design layout that includes the remaining features may be changed from its original intent to something totally different that can be used for inspection and binning purposes. For example, the altered design can be generated by adding and subtracting features to create new features that are not present in the original design layout and to create new design layout that does not show the original design intent.
In one such example shown in
Generating the altered design may then include adding and subtracting any areas in the spaces that do not include features or portions of the features having one or more characteristics such as those described above. For example, as shown in
Generating the altered layout may then include subtracting the remaining features in spaces 130 and 132 from those spaces to create new features in a new design layout. For example, subtracting features 110 from space 130 results in features 136 that include a number of spaces 134. In addition, subtracting features 112 from space 132 results in features 140 that include a number of spaces 138. Therefore, only the empty spaces that remain after the steps described above may be used to generate the new design layout.
The altered design does not include care areas. In addition, the method does not include generating care areas for the design, the altered design, or the wafer. For example, some currently used methods and systems use the layout file to create care areas for inspection, but this is not to be confused with the embodiments described herein. In particular, the embodiments described herein do not create care areas but use the design layout to identify critical areas. In addition, unlike care area generation methods and systems, the altered design generated by the embodiments described herein may retain the features in the areas identified as critical to yield. In contrast, generating care areas generally involves determining characteristics of the care areas such as dimensions and coordinates, but the care areas themselves and the characteristics of the care areas do not include any features in the design.
In another embodiment, the altered design does not include information for criticality of the areas in the design for the layer. For example, since the altered design does not include features in the design that are not critical to the yield, the altered design may only include features in the design that are critical to yield. Therefore, information about the yield criticality of different features in the design can be determined based on the presence or absence of features in the altered design, but the altered design itself does not include any information about criticality such as tags or other indicia indicating which areas are critical and which are not.
The method also includes detecting defects on the layer using output of an inspection system. The output of the inspection system may include any output generated by any inspection system such as that described further herein. For example, the output may include signals or data generated by one or more detectors of the inspection system. The method may include acquiring the output of the inspection system by using the inspection system to scan the wafer and generating output responsive to light from the wafer during the scanning. Alternatively, the method may include acquiring the output from a storage medium in which the output has been stored (e.g., by the inspection system). Detecting the defects using the output may be performed using any suitable defect detection method and/or algorithm known in the art. For example, detecting the defects may include subtracting the output generated at a within die position in a reference die from the output generated at the same within die position in a test die and comparing the subtraction results to a threshold. Any subtraction results above the threshold may be identified as defects or possible defects.
In one embodiment, detecting the defects is performed without regard to position of the output of the inspection system with respect to the altered design. For example, all of the output that is generated by the inspection system may be used for defect detection that is performed with the highest sensitivity available on the inspection system. The highest available sensitivity is often not used for inspection or for inspection performed using all of the output generated for a wafer because of the substantially high numbers of defects that will be detected on the wafer with that sensitivity, which increases the complexity and decreases the throughput of any functions performed on the inspection results. However, as will be described further herein, binning may be performed such that any defects that are not located on, near, or proximate to features in the altered design may not be binned into any groups and may thereby be eliminated from any functions performed using the binning results. In other words, the binning may effectively eliminate defects in non-critical areas of the design from the inspection results thereby eliminating the deleterious effect that large numbers of nuisance defects can have on steps performed using the inspection results. In addition, unlike some methods that select the defect detection to be performed based on position of the output with respect to the design or position of the output in design data space, since additional steps described herein will be performed using the altered design that includes only features in areas that are yield critical, the same defect detection can be performed for all areas in the design.
The method also includes binning the defects into groups using the altered design such that features in the altered design proximate positions of the defects in each of the groups are at least similar. In this manner, the binning step may include using the modified layout file to group defects according to critical pattern. For example, the position of a defect may be determined with respect to the altered design in any suitable manner (e.g., by aligning the altered design to the output of the inspection system for the wafer). The features in the altered design that are at or proximate to the position of the defect with respect to the altered design may then be determined. Features that are “at” the position of the defect with respect to the altered design may be defined as features on which the defect is completely or partially located. In this manner, the location of features “at” the position of a defect and the location of the defect may completely or partially overlap. Features in the altered design that are “proximate to” a position of a defect with respect to the altered design may be defined as features that are immediately adjacent to a defect (i.e., next to a defect) or features that are spaced from a defect but are still “near” the defect features and defects that are spaced apart by a dimension equal to or less than a critical dimension of the design for the layer or some dimension defined by the user). Therefore, features that are “proximate to” a position of a defect with respect to the altered design would include features that are “at” the position of the defect.
If any features are located at or proximate to the position of the defect, those features may be compared to the features at or proximate the positions of other defects. Determining if the features in the altered design are at least similar may include comparing results of the feature comparing step with predetermined criteria for similarity. For example, results of the comparing step may be compared to a threshold value. If the features in the altered design are at least similar by at least this threshold value, the method may bin the defects in a group. In this manner, detects located proximate to similar features may be binned into the same group. In another example, results of the comparing step may be compared to a “percent similar” value. If the features in the altered design are at least similar by at least this percent, then the method may bin the defects in a group.
Binning the defects as described above may also be performed in any other manner described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,570,796 issued on Aug. 4, 2009 to Zafar et al., which is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein. In addition, binning the defects as described above may be performed using any commercially available design-based binning methods by substituting the altered design generated as described herein for any design used by those binning methods. Therefore, the embodiments described herein can be implemented immediately by leveraging existing design-based binning technology. Since only yield critical areas are fed into the binning step (by eliminating unwanted polygons from the design as described further herein), the computation load or requirement of the binning step is reduced and throughput is faster.
One of the main challenges today for the inspection industry is to remove nuisance from inspection data. By removing non-critical areas from the design layout data as described herein, an altered design can be created that can be used to reduce nuisance while grouping defects that are only in critical areas in a device layout. For example, in one embodiment, in the binning step, the defects having positions that are not proximate any of the features in the altered design are not binned into any of the groups. Since features located in areas that are not critical to the yield have been eliminated from the design, defects that are not relevant to yield will not be binned into any groups since any features to which these defects may be proximate will have been eliminated from the design. In this manner, defects that are not relevant to the yield can be automatically separated from other defects by the binning step. In other words, using the yield-aware design layout (i.e., the altered layout) for grouping of defect data, defects can be separated into critical defects and nuisance defects automatically.
In this manner, the embodiments described herein reduce the nuisance defects in binning results such as pareto charts. For example, the number of defect groups included in binning results such as pareto charts can be drastically reduced in the embodiments described herein compared to other binning methods. Therefore, the binning results will include less nuisance. In addition, reducing the number of bins, and in particular the number of nuisance bins, can lead to improved defect sampling for other steps performed using the inspection results such as defect review. In other words, grouping defects by critical pattern only can lead to better review sampling (e.g., for DOI identification or for a better chance of sampling DOI for defect review). Nuisance defect reduction by separating critical from non-critical areas as described herein can also lead to better POI identification (e.g., where POI identification involves identifying patterns located in critical areas that are prone to defects).
In another embodiment, information about which of the areas in the layer are not critical to the yield is not used for the detecting and binning steps. For example, since the altered design does not include features in the design that are not critical to the yield, the altered design may only include features in the design that are critical to yield. Therefore, information about the yield criticality of different features in the design may be determined based on the presence or absence of features in the altered design, but the altered design itself does not include any information about criticality such as tags or other indicia indicating which areas are critical and which are not. Therefore, although the binning step described herein is performed using the altered design from which features in non-critical areas have been eliminated, the binning step is not performed based on information about which of the areas in the layer are critical to the yield and which are not. In a similar manner, detecting the defects as described above may be performed without regard to which areas in the layer are critical to the yield and which are not. For example, as described further above, the same detect detection method and/or algorithm with the same defect detection parameters such as threshold may be used to detect defects in all areas of the design regardless of the yield criticality of the different areas.
Identifying the areas, generating the altered design, detecting the defects, and binning the defects are performed by one or more computer systems, which may be configured as described further herein.
In one embodiment, the one or more computer systems that perform the identifying and generating steps include a computer system of an EDA tool. For example, an EDA tool may be used to determine yield critical areas in a design layout file. In addition, the embodiments may be implemented by using currently available EDA tools (or design rule checking (DRC) software) by tailoring the EDA tool function for the embodiments described herein thereby taking advantage of existing data plumbing while using the EDA tool in a new manner. In particular, without building new infrastructure, EDA tool capability can be tailored for the embodiments described herein. The one or more computer systems that are used to perform the identifying and generating steps and the EDA tool may be further configured as described herein.
In another embodiment, the one or more computer systems that perform the detecting and binning steps include a computer system of the inspection system. The computer system of the inspection system may be further configured as described herein. Therefore, different computer systems may be used to perform different steps of the method. As described further herein, the different computer systems may be configured such that the altered design generated by one computer system can be sent to and received by another computer system that performs one or more steps such as binning using the altered design. Although using different computer systems to perform different steps of the method may be advantageous, one computer system can be used to perform all steps of the methods described herein. For example, in some instances, a stand alone computer system or a virtual inspector (VI) such as that described in U.S. Pat. No. 8,126,255 issued on Feb. 28, 2012 to Bhaskar et al., which is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein, may be used to perform all steps of the methods described herein.
In some embodiments, the inspection system is a light-based inspection system. In this manner, the inspection tool may be an optical inspection tool. In some embodiments, the inspection system is an electron beam-based inspection system. The inspection system may include any suitable commercially available light- or electron beam-based inspection system known in the art. In addition, the light-based inspection system may be a bright field (BF) and/or dark field (DF) inspection system. In this manner, the inspection system used in the embodiments described herein is not limited to BF, DF, and/or electron beam inspection. In other words, the embodiments described herein are independent of the inspection system platform.
Each of the embodiments of the method described above may include any other step(s) of any other method(s) described herein. Furthermore, each of the embodiments of the method described above may be performed by any of the systems described herein.
All of the methods described herein may include storing results of one or more steps of the method embodiments in a computer-readable storage medium. The results may include any of the results described herein and may be stored in any manner known in the art. The storage medium may include any storage medium described herein or any other suitable storage medium known in the art. After the results have been stored, the results can be accessed in the storage medium and used by any of the method or system embodiments described herein, formatted for display to a user, used by another software module, method, or system, etc.
An additional embodiment relates to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program instructions executable on a computer system for performing a computer-implemented method for binning defects on a wafer. One such embodiment is shown in
Program instructions 202 implementing methods such as those described herein may be stored on computer-readable medium 200. The computer-readable medium may be a storage medium such as a magnetic or optical disk, or a magnetic tape or any other suitable non-transitory computer-readable medium known in the art.
The program instructions may be implemented in any of various ways, including procedure-based techniques, component-based techniques, and/or object-oriented. techniques, among others. For example, the program instructions may be implemented using ActiveX controls, C++ objects, JavaBeans, Microsoft Foundation Classes (“MFC”), or other technologies or methodologies, as desired.
The computer system may take various forms, including a personal computer system, image computer, mainframe computer system, workstation, network appliance, Internet appliance, or other device. In general, the term “computer system” may be broadly defined to encompass any device having one or more processors, which executes instructions from a memory medium. The computer system may also include any suitable processor known in the art such as a parallel processor. In addition, the computer system may include a computer platform with high speed processing and software, either as a standalone or a networked tool.
An additional embodiment relates to a system configured to bin defects on a wafer. One embodiment of such a system is shown in
In the embodiment shown in
The inspection system may be configured to generate the output for the layer in the device being fabricated on a wafer by scanning the wafer with light and detecting light from the wafer during the scanning. For example, as shown in
Light from wafer 310 may be collected and detected by one or more channels of the inspection system during scanning. For example, light reflected from wafer 310 at angles relatively close to normal (i.e., specularly reflected light when the incidence is normal) may pass through beam splitter 308 to lens 312. Lens 312 may include a refractive optical element as shown in
Since the inspection system shown in
The inspection system may also include a computer system that is configured to perform one or more steps of the methods described herein. For example, the optical elements described above may form optical subsystem 316 of inspection subsystem 300, which may also include computer system 318 that is coupled to the optical subsystem. In this manner, output generated by the detector(s) during scanning may be provided to computer system 318. For example, the computer system may be coupled to detector 314 (e.g., by one or more transmission media shown by the dashed line in
The computer system of the inspection system may be configured to perform any step(s) described herein. For example, computer system 318 may be configured for performing the detecting and binning steps as described herein. In addition, computer system 318 may be configured to perform any other steps described herein. Furthermore, although some of the steps described herein may be performed by different computer systems, all of the steps of the method may be performed by a single computer system such as that of the inspection system or a stand alone computer system. In addition, the one or more of the computer system(s) may be configured as a virtual inspector such as that described in U.S. Pat. No. 8,126,255 issued on Feb. 28, 2012 to Bhaskar et al., which is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
The computer system of the inspection system may also be coupled to the other computer system that is not part of the inspection system such as computer system 302, which may be included in another tool such as the EDA tool described above such that computer system 318 can receive output generated by computer system 302, which may include the altered design generated by that computer system. For example, the two computer systems may be effectively coupled by a shared computer-readable storage medium such as a fab database or may be coupled by a transmission medium such as that described above such that information may be transmitted between the two computer systems.
It is noted that
Further modifications and alternative embodiments of various aspects of the invention will be apparent to those skilled in the art in view of this description. For example, methods and systems for binning defects on a wafer are provided. Accordingly, this description is to be construed as illustrative only and is for the purpose of teaching those skilled in the art the general manner of carrying out the invention. It is to be understood that the forms of the invention shown and described herein are to be taken as the presently preferred embodiments. Elements and materials may be substituted for those illustrated and described herein, parts and processes may be reversed, and certain features of the invention may be utilized independently, all as would be apparent to one skilled in the art after having the benefit of this description of the invention. Changes may be made in the elements described herein without departing from the spirit and scope of the invention as described in the following claims.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3495269 | Mutschler et al. | Feb 1970 | A |
3496352 | Jugle | Feb 1970 | A |
3909602 | Micka | Sep 1975 | A |
4015203 | Verkuil | Mar 1977 | A |
4247203 | Levy et al. | Jan 1981 | A |
4347001 | Levy et al. | Aug 1982 | A |
4378159 | Galbraith | Mar 1983 | A |
4448532 | Joseph et al. | May 1984 | A |
4475122 | Green | Oct 1984 | A |
4532650 | Wihl et al. | Jul 1985 | A |
4555798 | Broadbent, Jr. et al. | Nov 1985 | A |
4578810 | MacFarlane et al. | Mar 1986 | A |
4579455 | Levy et al. | Apr 1986 | A |
4595289 | Feldman et al. | Jun 1986 | A |
4599558 | Castellano, Jr. et al. | Jul 1986 | A |
4633504 | Wihl | Dec 1986 | A |
4641353 | Kobayashi | Feb 1987 | A |
4641967 | Pecen | Feb 1987 | A |
4734721 | Boyer et al. | Mar 1988 | A |
4748327 | Shinozaki et al. | May 1988 | A |
4758094 | Wihl et al. | Jul 1988 | A |
4766324 | Saadat et al. | Aug 1988 | A |
4799175 | Sano et al. | Jan 1989 | A |
4805123 | Specht et al. | Feb 1989 | A |
4812756 | Curtis et al. | Mar 1989 | A |
4814829 | Kosugi et al. | Mar 1989 | A |
4817123 | Sones et al. | Mar 1989 | A |
4845558 | Tsai et al. | Jul 1989 | A |
4877326 | Chadwick et al. | Oct 1989 | A |
4926489 | Danielson et al. | May 1990 | A |
4928313 | Leonard et al. | May 1990 | A |
5046109 | Fujimori et al. | Sep 1991 | A |
5124927 | Hopewell et al. | Jun 1992 | A |
5189481 | Jann et al. | Feb 1993 | A |
5355212 | Wells et al. | Oct 1994 | A |
5444480 | Sumita | Aug 1995 | A |
5453844 | George et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
5481624 | Kamon | Jan 1996 | A |
5485091 | Verkuil | Jan 1996 | A |
5497381 | O'Donoghue et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
5528153 | Taylor et al. | Jun 1996 | A |
5544256 | Brecher et al. | Aug 1996 | A |
5563702 | Emery et al. | Oct 1996 | A |
5572598 | Wihl et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5578821 | Meisberger et al. | Nov 1996 | A |
5594247 | Verkuil et al. | Jan 1997 | A |
5608538 | Edgar et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5619548 | Koppel | Apr 1997 | A |
5621519 | Frost et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5644223 | Verkuil | Jul 1997 | A |
5650731 | Fung et al. | Jul 1997 | A |
5661408 | Kamieniecki et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5689614 | Gronet et al. | Nov 1997 | A |
5694478 | Braier et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5696835 | Hennessey et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5703969 | Hennessey et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5737072 | Emery et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5742658 | Tiffin et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5754678 | Hawthorne et al. | May 1998 | A |
5767691 | Verkuil | Jun 1998 | A |
5767693 | Verkuil | Jun 1998 | A |
5771317 | Edgar | Jun 1998 | A |
5773989 | Edelman et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5774179 | Chevrette et al. | Jun 1998 | A |
5795685 | Liebmann et al. | Aug 1998 | A |
5822218 | Moosa et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5831865 | Berezin et al. | Nov 1998 | A |
5834941 | Verkuil | Nov 1998 | A |
5852232 | Samsavar et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5866806 | Samsavar et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5874733 | Silver et al. | Feb 1999 | A |
5884242 | Meier et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5889593 | Bareket | Mar 1999 | A |
5917332 | Chen et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5932377 | Ferguson et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5940458 | Suk | Aug 1999 | A |
5948972 | Samsavar et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5955661 | Samsavar et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5965306 | Mansfield et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5978501 | Badger et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5980187 | Verhovsky | Nov 1999 | A |
5986263 | Hiroi et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5991699 | Kulkarni et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
5999003 | Steffan et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6011404 | Ma et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6014461 | Hennessey et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6040912 | Zika et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6052478 | Wihl et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6060709 | Verkuil et al. | May 2000 | A |
6072320 | Verkuil | Jun 2000 | A |
6076465 | Vacca et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6078738 | Garza et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6091257 | Verkuil et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6091846 | Lin et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6097196 | Verkuil et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6097887 | Hardikar et al. | Aug 2000 | A |
6104206 | Verkuil | Aug 2000 | A |
6104835 | Han | Aug 2000 | A |
6117598 | Imai | Sep 2000 | A |
6121783 | Horner et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6122017 | Taubman | Sep 2000 | A |
6122046 | Almogy | Sep 2000 | A |
6137570 | Chuang et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6141038 | Young et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6146627 | Muller et al. | Nov 2000 | A |
6171737 | Phan et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6175645 | Elyasaf et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6184929 | Noda et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6184976 | Park et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6191605 | Miller et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6201999 | Jevtic | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6202029 | Verkuil et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6205239 | Lin et al. | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6215551 | Nikoonahad et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6224638 | Jevtic et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6233719 | Hardikar et al. | May 2001 | B1 |
6246787 | Hennessey et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6248485 | Cuthbert | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6248486 | Dirksen et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6259960 | Inokuchi | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6266437 | Eichel et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6267005 | Samsavar et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6268093 | Kenan et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6272236 | Pierrat et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6282309 | Emery | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6292582 | Lin et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6324298 | O'Dell et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6344640 | Rhoads | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6363166 | Wihl et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6373975 | Bula et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6388747 | Nara et al. | May 2002 | B2 |
6393602 | Atchison et al. | May 2002 | B1 |
6407373 | Dotan | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6415421 | Anderson et al. | Jul 2002 | B2 |
6445199 | Satya et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6451690 | Matsumoto et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6459520 | Takayama | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6466314 | Lehman | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6466315 | Karpol et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6470489 | Chang et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6483938 | Hennessey et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6513151 | Erhardt et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6526164 | Mansfield et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6529621 | Glasser et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6535628 | Smargiassi et al. | Mar 2003 | B2 |
6539106 | Gallarda et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6569691 | Jastrzebski et al. | May 2003 | B1 |
6581193 | McGhee et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6593748 | Halliyal et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6597193 | Lagowski et al. | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6602728 | Liebmann et al. | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6608681 | Tanaka et al. | Aug 2003 | B2 |
6614520 | Bareket et al. | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6631511 | Haffner et al. | Oct 2003 | B2 |
6636301 | Kvamme et al. | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6642066 | Halliyal et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6658640 | Weed | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6665065 | Phan et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6670082 | Liu et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6680621 | Savtchouk | Jan 2004 | B2 |
6691052 | Maurer | Feb 2004 | B1 |
6701004 | Shykind et al. | Mar 2004 | B1 |
6718526 | Eldredge et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6721695 | Chen et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6734696 | Horner et al. | May 2004 | B2 |
6738954 | Allen et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6748103 | Glasser et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6751519 | Satya et al. | Jun 2004 | B1 |
6753954 | Chen | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6757645 | Chang et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6759655 | Nara et al. | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6771806 | Satya et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6775818 | Taravade et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6777147 | Fonseca et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6777676 | Wang et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6778695 | Schellenberg et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6779159 | Yokoyama et al. | Aug 2004 | B2 |
6784446 | Phan et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6788400 | Chen | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6789032 | Barbour et al. | Sep 2004 | B2 |
6803554 | Ye et al. | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6806456 | Ye et al. | Oct 2004 | B1 |
6807503 | Ye et al. | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6813572 | Satya et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6820028 | Ye et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6828542 | Ye et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6842225 | Irie et al. | Jan 2005 | B1 |
6859746 | Stirton | Feb 2005 | B1 |
6879403 | Freifeld | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6879924 | Ye et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6882745 | Brankner et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6884984 | Ye et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
6886153 | Bevis | Apr 2005 | B1 |
6892156 | Ye et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
6902855 | Peterson et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6906305 | Pease et al. | Jun 2005 | B2 |
6918101 | Satya et al. | Jul 2005 | B1 |
6919957 | Nikoonahad et al. | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6937753 | O'Dell et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6948141 | Satya et al. | Sep 2005 | B1 |
6959255 | Ye et al. | Oct 2005 | B2 |
6966047 | Glasser | Nov 2005 | B1 |
6969837 | Ye et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6969864 | Ye et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6983060 | Martinent-Catalot et al. | Jan 2006 | B1 |
6988045 | Purdy | Jan 2006 | B2 |
7003755 | Pang et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7003758 | Ye et al. | Feb 2006 | B2 |
7012438 | Miller et al. | Mar 2006 | B1 |
7026615 | Takane et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7027143 | Stokowski et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
7030966 | Hansen | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7030997 | Neureuther et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7053355 | Ye et al. | May 2006 | B2 |
7061625 | Hwang et al. | Jun 2006 | B1 |
7071833 | Nagano et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7103484 | Shi et al. | Sep 2006 | B1 |
7106895 | Goldberg et al. | Sep 2006 | B1 |
7107517 | Suzuki et al. | Sep 2006 | B1 |
7107571 | Chang et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7111277 | Ye et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7114143 | Hanson et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7114145 | Ye et al. | Sep 2006 | B2 |
7117477 | Ye et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7117478 | Ye et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7120285 | Spence | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7120895 | Ye et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7123356 | Stokowski et al. | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7124386 | Smith et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7133548 | Kenan et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7135344 | Nehmadi et al. | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7136143 | Smith | Nov 2006 | B2 |
7152215 | Smith et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7162071 | Hung et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7171334 | Gassner | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7174520 | White et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7194709 | Brankner | Mar 2007 | B2 |
7207017 | Tabery et al. | Apr 2007 | B1 |
7231628 | Pack et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7236847 | Marella | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7271891 | Xiong et al. | Sep 2007 | B1 |
7379175 | Stokowski et al. | May 2008 | B1 |
7383156 | Matsusita et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7386839 | Golender et al. | Jun 2008 | B1 |
7388979 | Sakai et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7418124 | Peterson et al. | Aug 2008 | B2 |
7424145 | Horie et al. | Sep 2008 | B2 |
7440093 | Xiong et al. | Oct 2008 | B1 |
7570796 | Zafar et al. | Aug 2009 | B2 |
7676077 | Kulkarni et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7683319 | Makino et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7738093 | Alles et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7739064 | Ryker et al. | Jun 2010 | B1 |
7760929 | Orbon et al. | Jul 2010 | B2 |
7769225 | Kekare et al. | Aug 2010 | B2 |
7877722 | Duffy et al. | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7890917 | Young et al. | Feb 2011 | B1 |
7904845 | Fouquet et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7968859 | Young et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
8041103 | Kulkarni et al. | Oct 2011 | B2 |
8073240 | Fischer et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8112241 | Xiong | Feb 2012 | B2 |
8126255 | Bhaskar et al. | Feb 2012 | B2 |
8204297 | Xiong et al. | Jun 2012 | B1 |
20010017694 | Oomori et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20010019625 | Kenan et al. | Sep 2001 | A1 |
20010022858 | Komiya et al. | Sep 2001 | A1 |
20010043735 | Smargiassi et al. | Nov 2001 | A1 |
20020010560 | Balachandran | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20020019729 | Chang et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020026626 | Randall et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020033449 | Nakasuji et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020035461 | Chang et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020035641 | Kurose et al. | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020035717 | Matsuoka | Mar 2002 | A1 |
20020088951 | Chen | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020090746 | Xu et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020134936 | Matsui et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020144230 | Rittman | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020145734 | Watkins et al. | Oct 2002 | A1 |
20020164065 | Cai et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020176096 | Sentoku et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20020181756 | Shibuya et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020186878 | Hoon et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20020192578 | Tanaka et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030004699 | Choi et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030014146 | Fujii et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030017664 | Pnueli et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030022401 | Hamamatsu et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030033046 | Yoshitake et al. | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030048458 | Mieher et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030048939 | Lehman | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030057971 | Nishiyama et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030076989 | Maayah et al. | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030086081 | Lehman | May 2003 | A1 |
20030094572 | Matsui et al. | May 2003 | A1 |
20030098805 | Bizjak | May 2003 | A1 |
20030128870 | Pease et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030138138 | Vacca et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030138978 | Tanaka et al. | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030169916 | Hayashi et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030173516 | Takane et al. | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030192015 | Liu | Oct 2003 | A1 |
20030207475 | Nakasuji et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030223639 | Shlain et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030226951 | Ye et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030227620 | Hirokazu et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030228714 | Smith et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030229410 | Smith et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030229412 | White et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030229868 | White et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030229875 | Smith et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030229880 | White et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030229881 | White et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20030237064 | White et al. | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040030430 | Matsuoka | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040032908 | Hagai et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040049722 | Matsushita | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040052411 | Qian et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040057611 | Lee et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040066506 | Elichai et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040091142 | Peterson et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040094762 | Hess et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040098216 | Ye et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040102934 | Chang | May 2004 | A1 |
20040107412 | Pack et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040119036 | Ye et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040120569 | Hung et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040133369 | Pack et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040147121 | Nakagaki et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040174506 | Smith | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040179738 | Dai et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040199885 | Lu et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20040223639 | Sato et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040228515 | Okabe et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040234120 | Honda et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040243320 | Chang et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040246476 | Bevis et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040254752 | Wisniewski et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050004774 | Volk et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050008218 | O'Dell et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050010890 | Nehmadi et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050013474 | Sim | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050062962 | Fairley et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050069217 | Mukherjee | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050117796 | Matsui et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050132306 | Smith et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050141764 | Tohyama et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050166174 | Ye et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050184252 | Ogawa et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050190957 | Cai et al. | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050198602 | Brankner | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20060000964 | Ye et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060036979 | Zurbrick et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060038986 | Honda et al. | Feb 2006 | A1 |
20060048089 | Schwarzband | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060051682 | Hess et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060062445 | Verma et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060066339 | Rajski et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060082763 | Teh et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060159333 | Ishikawa | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060161452 | Hess | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060193506 | Dorphan et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060193507 | Sali et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060236294 | Saidin et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060236297 | Melvin, III et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060239536 | Shibuya et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060265145 | Huet et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060266243 | Percin et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060269120 | Nehmadi et al. | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20060273242 | Hunsche et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060273266 | Preil et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060277520 | Gennari | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060291714 | Wu et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20060292463 | Best et al. | Dec 2006 | A1 |
20070002322 | Borodovsky et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070011628 | Ouali et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070013901 | Kim et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070019171 | Smith | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070019856 | Furman et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070031745 | Ye et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070032896 | Ye et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070035322 | Kang et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070035712 | Gassner et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070035728 | Kekare et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070052963 | Orbon et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070064995 | Oaki et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070133860 | Lin et al. | Jun 2007 | A1 |
20070156379 | Kulkarni et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070230770 | Kulkarni et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070248257 | Bruce et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070280527 | Almogy et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20070288219 | Zafar et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080013083 | Kirk et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080049994 | Rognin et al. | Feb 2008 | A1 |
20080058977 | Honda | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080072207 | Verma et al. | Mar 2008 | A1 |
20080081385 | Marella et al. | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080163140 | Fouquet et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080167829 | Park et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080250384 | Duffy et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080295047 | Nehmadi et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080295048 | Nehmadi et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080304056 | Alles et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090024967 | Su et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090037134 | Kulkarni et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090041332 | Bhaskar et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090043527 | Park et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090055783 | Florence et al. | Feb 2009 | A1 |
20090080759 | Bhaskar et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090210183 | Rajski et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090257645 | Chen et al. | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090284733 | Wallingford et al. | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20090290782 | Regensburger | Nov 2009 | A1 |
20100142800 | Pak et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100146338 | Schalick et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100150429 | Jau et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100226562 | Wu et al. | Sep 2010 | A1 |
20110052040 | Kuan | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110184662 | Badger et al. | Jul 2011 | A1 |
20110276935 | Fouquet et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20120308112 | Hu et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20120319246 | Tan et al. | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130009989 | Chen et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
20130027196 | Yankun et al. | Jan 2013 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1339140 | Mar 2002 | CN |
1398348 | Feb 2003 | CN |
1646896 | Jul 2005 | CN |
0032197 | Jul 1981 | EP |
0370322 | May 1990 | EP |
1061358 | Dec 2000 | EP |
1061571 | Dec 2000 | EP |
1065567 | Jan 2001 | EP |
1066925 | Jan 2001 | EP |
1069609 | Jan 2001 | EP |
1093017 | Apr 2001 | EP |
1329771 | Jul 2003 | EP |
1480034 | Nov 2004 | EP |
1696270 | Aug 2006 | EP |
7-159337 | Jun 1995 | JP |
2002-071575 | Mar 2002 | JP |
2002-365235 | Dec 2002 | JP |
2003-215060 | Jul 2003 | JP |
2004-045066 | Feb 2004 | JP |
2005-283326 | Oct 2005 | JP |
2009-122046 | Jun 2009 | JP |
10-2001-0007394 | Jan 2001 | KR |
10-2001-0037026 | May 2001 | KR |
10-2001-0101697 | Nov 2001 | KR |
10-2003-0055848 | Jul 2003 | KR |
10-2006-0075691 | Jul 2005 | KR |
10-2005-0092053 | Sep 2005 | KR |
10-2010-0061018 | Jun 2010 | KR |
9857358 | Dec 1998 | WO |
9922310 | May 1999 | WO |
9925004 | May 1999 | WO |
9959200 | May 1999 | WO |
9938002 | Jul 1999 | WO |
9941434 | Aug 1999 | WO |
0003234 | Jan 2000 | WO |
0036525 | Jun 2000 | WO |
0055799 | Sep 2000 | WO |
0068884 | Nov 2000 | WO |
0070332 | Nov 2000 | WO |
0109566 | Feb 2001 | WO |
0140145 | Jun 2001 | WO |
03104921 | Dec 2003 | WO |
2004027684 | Apr 2004 | WO |
2006012388 | Feb 2006 | WO |
2006063268 | Jun 2006 | WO |
2009152046 | Sep 2009 | WO |
2010093733 | Aug 2010 | WO |
Entry |
---|
U.S. Appl. No. 60/681,095, filed May 13, 2005 by Nehmadi et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 60/684,360, filed May 24, 2005 by Nehmadi et al. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/652,377, filed Oct. 15, 2012 by Wu et al. |
Allan et al., “Critical Area Extraction for Soft Fault Estimation,” IEEE Transactions on Semiconductor Manufacturing, vol. 11, No. 1, Feb. 1998. |
Barty et al., “Aerial Image Microscopes for the inspection of defects in EUV masks,” Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 4889, 2002, pp. 1073-1084. |
Budd et al., “A New Mask Evaluation Tool, the Microlithography Simulation Microscope Aerial Image Measurement System,” SPIE vol. 2197, 1994, pp. 530-540. |
Cai et al., “Enhanced Dispositioning of Reticle Defects Using the Virtual Stepper With Automoated Defect Severity Scoring,” Proceedings of the SPIE, vol. 4409, Jan. 2001, pp. 467-478. |
Diebold et al., “Characterization and production metrology of thin transistor gate oxide films,” Materials Science in Semiconductor Processing 2, 1999, pp. 103-147. |
Dirksen et al., “Impact of high order aberrations on the performance of the aberration monitor,” Proc. Of SPIE vol. 4000, Mar. 2000, pp. 9-17. |
Dirksen et al., “Novel aberration monitor for optical lithography,” Proc. Of SPIE vol. 3679, Jul. 1999, pp. 77-86. |
Garcia et al., “New Die to Database Inspection Algorithm for Inspection of 90-nm Node Reticles,” Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 5130, 2003, pp. 364-374. |
Granik et al- “Sub-resolution process windows and yield estimation technique based on detailed full-chip CD simulation,” Mentor Graphics, Sep. 2000, 5 pages. |
Hess et al., “A Novel Approach: High Resolution Inspection with Wafer Plane Defect Detection,” Proceedings of SPIE—International Society for Optical Engineering; Photomask and Next-Generation Lithography Mask Technology 2008, vol. 7028, 2008. |
Huang et al., “Process Window Impact of Progressive Mask Defects, Its Inspection and Disposition Techniques (go/no-go criteria) Via a Lithographic Detector,” Proceedings of SPIE—The International Society for Optical Engineering; 25th Annual Bacus Symposium on Photomask Technology 2005, vol. 5992, No. 1, 2005, p. 6. |
Huang et al., “Using Design Based Binning to Improve Defect Excursion Control for 45nm Production,” IEEE, International Symposium on Semiconductor Manufacturing, Oct. 2007, pp. 1-3. |
Karklin et al., “Automatic Defect Severity Scoring for 193 nm Reticle Defect Inspection,” Proceedings of SPIE—The International Society for Optical Engineering, 2001, vol. 4346, No. 2, pp. 898-906. |
Lo et al., “Identifying Process Window Marginalities of Reticle Designs for 0.15/0.13 μm Technologies,” Proceedings of SPIE vol. 5130, 2003, pp. 829-837. |
Lorusso et al. “Advanced DFM Appins. Using design-based metrology on CDSEM,” SPIE vol. 6152, Mar. 27, 2006. |
Lu et al., “Application of Simulation Based Defect Printability Analysis for Mask Qualification Control,” Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 5038, 2003, pp. 33-40. |
Mack, “Lithographic Simulation: A Review,” Proceedings of SPIE vol. 4440, 2001, pp. 59-72. |
Martino et al., “Application of the Aerial Image Measurement System (Aims(TM)) to the Analysis of Binary Mask Imaging and Resolution Enhancement Techniques,” SPIE vol. 2197, 1994, pp. 573-584. |
Nagpal et al., “Wafer Plane Inspection for Advanced Reticle Defects,” Proceedings of SPIE—The International Society for Optical Engineering; Photomask and Next-Generation Lithography Mask Technology. vol. 7028, 2008. |
Numerical Recipes in C. The Art of Scientific Computing, 2nd Ed., @ Cambridge University Press 1988, 1992, p. 683. |
O'Gorman et al., “Subpixel Registration Using a Concentric Ring Fiducial,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Pattern Recognition, vol. ii, Jun. 16, 1990, pp. 249-253. |
Otsu, “A Threshold Selection Method from Gray-Level Histograms,” IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, vol. SMC-9, No. 1, Jan. 1979, pp. 62-66. |
Pang et al., “Simulation-based Defect Printability Analysis on Alternating Phase Shifting Masks for 193 nm Lithography,” Proceedings of SPIE, vol. 4889, 2002, pp. 947-954. |
Pettibone et al., “Wafer Printability Simulation Accuracy Based on UV Optical Inspection Images of Reticle Defects,” Proceedings of SPIE—The International Society for Optical Engineering 1999 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers, vol. 3677, No. II, 1999, pp. 711-720. |
Phan et al., “Comparison of Binary Mask Defect Printability Analysis Using Virtual Stepper System and Aerial Image Microscope System,” Proceedings of SPIE—The International Society for Optical Engineering 1999 Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers, vol. 3873, 1999, pp. 681-692. |
Sahouria et al., “Full-chip Process Simulation for Silicon DRC,” Mentor Graphics, Mar. 2000, 6 pages. |
Sato et al., “Defect Criticality Index (DCI): A new methodology to significantly improve DOI sampling rate in a 45nm production environment,” Metrology, Inspection, and Process Control for Microlithography XXII, Proc. Of SPIE vol. 6922, 692213 (2008), pp. 1-9. |
Schurz et al., “Simulation Study of Reticle Enhancement Technology Applications for 157 nm Lithography,” SPIE vol. 4562, 2002, pp. 902-913. |
Svidenko et al. “Dynamic Defect-Limited Yield Prediction by Criticality Factor,” ISSM Paper: YE-O-157, 2007. |
Tang et al., “Analyzing Volume Diagnosis Results with Statistical Learning for Yield Improvement” 12th IEEE European Test Symposium, Freiburg 2007, IEEE European, May 20-24, 2007, pp. 145-150. |
Volk et al. “Investigation of Reticle Defect Formation at DUV Lithography,” 2002, BACUS Symposium on Photomask Technology. |
Volk et al. “Investigation of Reticle Defect Formation at DUV Lithography,” 2003, IEEE/SEMI Advanced Manufacturing Conference, pp. 29-35. |
Volk et al., “Investigation of Smart Inspection of Critical Layer Reticles using Additional Designer Data to Determine Defect Significance,” Proceedings of SPIE vol. 5256, 2003, pp. 489-499. |
Yan et al., “Printability of Pellicle Defects in DUV 0.5 um Lithography,” SPIE vol. 1604, 1991, pp. 106-117. |
Guo et al., “License Plate Localization and Character Segmentation with Feedback Self-Learning and Hybrid Binarization Techniques,” IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology, vol. 57, No. 3, May 2008, pp. 1417-1424. |
Liu, “Robust Image Segmentation Using Local Median,” Proceedings of the 3rd Canadian Conference on Computer and Robot Vision (CRV'06) 0-7695-2542-3/06, 2006 IEEE, 7 pages total. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20130318485 A1 | Nov 2013 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61652052 | May 2012 | US |