The invention relates to the modeling of integrated circuit devices, and more particularly to the modeling of stress impact on transistor performance.
It has long been known that semiconductor materials such as silicon and germanium exhibit the piezoelectric effect (mechanical stress-induced changes in electrical resistance). See for example C. S. Smith, “Piezoresistance effect in germanium and silicon”, Phys. Rev., vol. 94, pp. 42-49 (1954), incorporated by reference herein. The piezoelectric effect has formed the basis for certain kinds of pressure sensors and strain gauges, but only recently has it received attention in the manufacture of integrated circuits. In integrated circuit fabrication, one of the major sources of mechanical stress is the differential expansion and contraction of the different materials used. For example, typical fabrication technologies involve electrically isolating the active regions of groups of one or more transistor by surrounding them with shallow trench isolation (STI) regions which are etched into the silicon and then filled with an insulator, such as an oxide. During cooling, oxides tend to shrink less than the surrounding silicon, and therefore develop a state of compressive stress laterally on the silicon regions of the device. Of significance is the stress exerted by the STI regions on the silicon forming a Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor Field-Effect Transistor (MOSFET) channel, because the piezoelectric impact of such stress can affect carrier mobility, and therefore current flow through the channel (Ion). In general, the higher the electron mobility in the channel, the faster the transistor switching speed.
The stress exerted on a region of silicon decays rapidly as a function of distance from the stress-causing interfaces. In the past, therefore, while process technologies could not produce today's extremely narrow channel widths, the stress-induced impact on performance could be ignored because only the edges of the diffusion region (adjacent to the STI regions) were affected. The channel regions were too far away from the STI regions to exhibit any significant effect. As process technologies have continued to shrink, however, the piezoelectric effect on transistor performance is no longer negligible.
Technology Computer Aided Design (TCAD) models are frequently used to model the behavior of integrated circuit devices at the level of individual transistors. Behaviors characterized at this level can be fed back to improve the circuit layout or the fabrication process, or they can be used to derive circuit level parameters (e.g. SPICE parameters) of the device for subsequent analysis of the circuit at macroscopic levels. TCAD analysis has long been able to take stress effects into account, but only by performing 3-dimensional finite element analysis of a single transistor or a small fragment of the chip. The computation time required to obtain accurate results, however, limited the utility of this kind of analysis to only small regions of a chip layout that include only several transistors. For example, it has not been practical to perform a TCAD analysis to obtain reasonably accurate circuit level parameters for layout regions larger than about a dozen transistors, or about 2-3 diffusion regions. Even then, huge amounts of CPU time, up to several hours per transistor, were required to obtain reasonably accurate results. The required computation time makes this approach prohibitively expensive for any large fragments of the chip layout.
Recently, a simplified model was developed for approximating stress effects on electron and hole mobilities. See R. A. Bianchi et al., “Accurate Modeling of Trench Isolation Induced Mechanical Stress Effects on MOSFET Electrical Performance,” IEEE IEDM Tech. Digest, pp. 117-120 (December 2002), and U.S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0173588 (2003), both incorporated herein by reference. A variation of this model, with some additional fitting terms and parameters, was incorporated into Revision 4.3.0 of the Berkeley BSIM standard model. See Xuemei (Jane) Xi, et al., “BSIM4.3.0 Model, Enhancements and Improvements Relative to BSIM4.2.1”, University of California at Berkeley (2003), available at http://www-device.eecs.berkeley.edu/˜bsim3/BSIM4/BSIM430/doc/BSIM430_Enhancement.pdf, incorporated by reference herein. The model is known as the Length of Diffusion (LOD) model, since its primary parameter is the length of the diffusion region on each side of the channel of a transistor under study. Roughly, the model analyzes the layout to find the LOD at different segments along the width of the channel, calculates a weighted average LOD for the entire channel width, calculates a stress based on the weighted average LOD, and then converts that stress value to a change in mobility.
There are a number of problems with the LOD model. First, the model is limited to STI-induced stress. It therefore ignores many other potential sources of stress. For example, some integrated circuit manufacturers form SiGe in the source and drain areas of a p-channel transistor intentionally to induce certain stresses on the channel; this source of stress is not taken into account in the LOD model, nor are stresses induced by differential coefficients of expansion of superposing layers. Additionally, several semiconductor manufacturers use strained cap layers covering the transistors on top of the gate stacks. It is typical to use tensile nitride cap layers for n-channel transistors and compressive nitride cap layers for p-channel transistors. Some other potential stress sources include tensile STI that is beneficial for both n-channel and p-channel transistors and tensile Si:C (carbon-doped silicon) in the source/drain of the n-channel transistors. None of these stress sources are taken into account by the LOD methodology.
Second, the LOD model fails to take into account stresses that might be present transversely to the length of diffusion, across the channel width-wise. It has been discovered that compressive stress in this direction can affect carrier mobility in the channel in significant and surprising ways.
Third, more generally than the second deficiency, since the LOD model considers only hydrostatic pressure, which is a sum of all normal (i.e. volume changing rather than rotational) stress components, it fails to take into account differing vector stress components. Different stress components relative to the channel direction are known to affect carrier mobility differently.
Fourth, the LOD model fails to take into account the presence of other structures in the neighborhood of a region under study, apart from the nearest STI interface. Other structures beyond this interface might reduce the amount of oxide presumed to be exerting a force, and therefore might reduce the actual stress in the channel.
Accordingly, it would be extremely desirable to provide a stress analysis method that approximates the stresses in a region of an integrated circuit chip, more accurately than does the LOD model, and without incurring the computation costs of a 3-dimensional finite element analysis. Such a method can enable stress analysis of much larger regions of the circuit, including of an entire integrated circuit chip.
The invention will be described with respect to specific embodiments thereof, and reference will be made to the drawings, in which:
In order to best describe an embodiment of the invention, reference will be made to an illustrative layout portion as shown in
The description herein will also be assisted if the following definitions are established. As shown in
In the layout of
The methods described herein can also take into account stress mitigating features, whereas the LOD method cannot. For example, the STI region 134 exerts a particular stress longitudinally toward the channels of transistors 112 and 110, and that stress is maximum at the interface between the STI region 134 and the diffusion region 130 and decays by a predetermined function of distance toward the channels. The LOD method assumes that the STI region to the right of the interface has a particular typical length in that direction, and therefore assumes a particular maximum stress value at the interface. But another diffusion region 124 is present in the layout of
The methods described herein can also take into account the stresses caused by other stress generation mechanisms aside from STI/silicon interfaces. For example, in an embodiment in which the source and drain regions of the p-channel transistors are formed of silicon-germanium alloy, but the channel regions are not, stresses are exerted on the channel regions due to the crystal lattice mismatch at their interface with the silicon-germanium alloy regions. These stresses, too, can be taken into account by methods described herein. As used herein, a “stress generation mechanism” is one that arises at an interface between a pair of different materials. Typically the stress arises due to either thermal mismatch or crystal lattice mismatch or built-in stress obtained as a consequence of specific deposition chemistry. Two stress generation mechanisms are themselves considered herein to be “different” if they differ in at least one material of the pair. Two stress generation mechanisms are themselves considered herein to be different also if they arise from different physical principles, even where the material pairs are the same.
Referring to
In step 212, the system identifies the channel region of the selected transistor. The channel region can be identified by the intersection of the gate and diffusion layout layers.
In step 214, several sample points are selected in the channel.
In step 216 the stress at each of the sample points 310 is approximated. (As used herein, the term “approximation” includes exactness as a special case. Therefore it is possible that in some instances the approximations developed in step 216 will be exact.)
In step 412, a search region is determined for the current sample point and stress generation mechanism. The search region should be large enough to include layout features outside the diffusion region containing the sample point, but since stress decays with distance, it should not extend to such a great distance that the stress contribution at the sample point is negligible. In one embodiment, a rectangular region can be chosen. In another embodiment, a circular region with a predefined radius can be chosen. Typically, the greater the depth into the wafer at which the current stress generation mechanism contributes to the stress at the surface of the wafer, the larger the search region should be. As an example, for STI-induced stress, the search radius might be approximately 2 microns and encompass (with current technology) 16-20 transistors. The search radius for silicon-germanium-induced stress would typically be smaller, since the silicon-germanium source/drain regions are typically much shallower than STI.
In step 414, the system combines the approximate stress contributions to the stress at the current sample point, due to the current stress generation mechanism, of each stress source in the current search region. As used herein, the “combining” of values means evaluating the values together in a predetermined mathematical function. In the present embodiment, an assumption is made that the stress contributions from all sources and all stress generation mechanisms are additive, and so in step 414, the system simply sums the approximate stress contributions.
In one embodiment, the combining of approximate stress contributions can involve dividing the search region into a rectangular grid and calculating the stress caused by each grid rectangle in which there is a source of stress. In a preferred embodiment, however, these stress contributions are approximated using an edge walking technique such as that illustrated in the flow chart of
In the method of
In one embodiment, the layout is restricted to edges that are aligned with the X and Y Cartesian axes in the layout plane. In another embodiment, the edges of the layout features can have arbitrary shapes, usually described as polygons with edges that are oriented arbitrarily in the X-Y layout plane. This can be important whenever there are significant optical proximity effects that distort the original rectangular layout.
The depth of the edges into the wafer is taken into account in the present embodiment not by calculating a stress component in the Z direction, but by appropriate calibration of the stress peak at the edges and the function by which the stress decays with distance. This calibration is discussed below. Stress components in the Z direction due to edges buried below the surface and not visible in the plan view of
Referring to
In step 512, another loop is begun, nested within the loop of step 510, through the three dimensions of the layout. The third dimension (Z) may be omitted in some embodiments. All the edges shown in
In step 514, the system approximates the contribution of the current edge to the stress in the current direction at the current sample point. Reference is made to
Consider first the normal stress introduced in the X direction by the STI edges oriented in the Y direction. Initially, the stress at sample point 310 due to a nearby edge 610 is considered. The stress contribution in the X direction can be approximated by a materials-dependent factor σ0, times the decay function of the distance in the X direction between the current edge and the current sample point, times a decay function of the length in the Y direction of the edge. More specifically, the stress contribution σxx can be approximated by:
σxx(x,y)=sign*σ0*σxx(x)*σxx(y), (1)
where
σxx(x)=λx(x0−x1) (2)
and
σxx(y)=λy(y0−y2)−λy(y0−y1) (3)
and λx(r) and λy(r) are decay functions describing the reduction of the stress contribution as a function of distance in the X and Y directions of the layout, respectively.
In eq.(1), the value of “sign” is +1 or −1, whichever is required such that near edges of an STI region (such as edge 610 in
The factor σ0 is a function of the current stress generation mechanism. It can be calculated using a detailed TCAD finite element stress analysis for example, or it can be extracted from electrical measurements of a specifically designed test structure. Once determined, σ0 remains constant over the entire chip for a given manufacturing technology. Whenever the manufacturing process flow is modified, the stress distribution might be affected and therefore σ0 has to be re-calibrated.
The decay function λi(r) can be different for different embodiments, and for different dimensions of the layout. Because of the difficulty of deriving the true decay function from physical principles, most embodiments will only approximate it. Roughly, the function chosen should be strong but finite in the near field, asymptotically reducing to zero in the far field, and in the midfield it should behave somewhere between the appropriate behavior for two extreme cases of approximations of the actual geometry of the stress source: if the stress source represented by a layout edge were a line source on the surface of the chip, then the proper decay would have the form 1/r2; whereas if the stress source represented by a layout edge were a plane source extending vertically into the chip, the plane containing the layout edge, then the proper decay would have the form 1/r. In fact the stress source represented by a layout edge is somewhere between those two extremes, which motivates a decay function of the form 1/rβ, 1<β<2. In a preferred embodiment the following decay function is used for each i'th dimension:
λi(r)=1/(αi*rβi+εi). (4)
In eq.(4), βi depends roughly on the depth into the chip of the stress source material, and can be on the order of 1.2 for both the X and Y stress component directions. The factor αi is determined by mechanical properties of silicon. The additive factor εi is small, much less than αi*rβi. It is included in part to avoid the degenerate result of infinite stress at r=0, and in part because it can improve the accuracy of the midfield behavior of the function. The values of αi, βi and εi each of which may be different for the different stress contribution directions X and Y, may be estimated using a full TCAD simulation or calibrated using electrical measurements of the test structures.
Other types of decay function approximations can be used in other embodiments. Another function type that might be used is the error function, erfc(r). In some embodiments, the decay function λi(r) might not be strictly monotonic, especially in the very near field where the stress might increase slightly before beginning a monotonic decay.
For the normal stress component in the Y direction, similar equations can be used. In the present embodiment, the stress contribution in the Y direction due to edge 630, having endpoints (x3, y1) and (x1, y1) is approximated by:
σyy(x,y)=sign*σ0*σyy(x)*σyy(y), (5)
where
σyy(x)=λx(x0−x3)−λx(x0−x1) (6)
σyy(Y)=λy(y0−y1) (7)
and λi(r) is as given in eq.(4).
Similarly, for the Z direction, again similar equations can be used.
Note that whereas the layout diagrams of
After the stress contribution due to the current edge in the current direction is approximated from eq.(1), it is added to a total stress value in the current direction at the current sample point (step 516). The routine then loops back to evaluating the stress contribution of the current edge in the next layout dimension (step 518). If there are no more dimensions to consider, then in step 520, the routine loops back to begin considering the next diffusion-STI interface edge within the search region.
Returning to
Returning now to
Δμ=fx(σxx)+fy(σyy)+fz(σzz). (8)
To a first order approximation, where the silicon wafer on which the layout will be fabricated has (100) surface orientation and the transistor channels are aligned with the <110> crystalline direction, the following functions can be used:
fx(σxx)=a*σxx,
fy(σyy)=b*σyy, and
fz(σzz)=c*σzz
where a=0.3, b=−0.5 and c=0.2 for electron mobility, and
where a=−0.7, b=0 and c=0.7 for hole mobility. Different functions would be used for different crystalline orientations of the wafer and the channel.
In step 220, the mobility enhancements approximated for the several sample points in the channel are averaged, to approximate the average mobility enhancement for the entire channel in current transistor. The actual mobility in the channel of the current transistor can then be approximated as
μ=μ0+Δμ, (9)
where μ0 is the mobility in the channel before stress effects are taken into account.
In step 222, if there are more transistors to be analyzed, the routine returns to step 210 to determine the average mobility enhancement for the next transistor. If not, then in step 224, modified mobility values for the analyzed transistors can now be provided for circuit simulation or other purposes.
As used herein, a given value is “responsive” to a predecessor value if the predecessor value influenced the given value. If there is an intervening processing element or step, the given value can still be “responsive” to the predecessor value. If the intervening processing element or step combines more than one value, the value output of the processing element or step is considered “responsive” to each of the value inputs. If the given value is the same as the predecessor value, this is merely a degenerate case in which the given value is still considered to be “responsive” to the predecessor value. “Dependency” of a given value upon another value is defined similarly.
The foregoing description of preferred embodiments of the present invention has been provided for the purposes of illustration and description. It is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise forms disclosed. Obviously, many modifications and variations will be apparent to practitioners skilled in this art. For example, whereas the description above focuses on modeling stresses and converting stresses into stress-induced mobility enhancements, stress also affects several other transistor properties. It is known to affect the band gap structure and as a result of the modified band gap structure it shifts the threshold voltage of the transistor under stress. Stress that is applied early in the process flow can also affect the dopant diffusion, activation, and segregation in the transistor channel and source/drain and result in modified doping profiles in the channel and source/drain. These other stress-induced modifications of transistor properties are typically much weaker than the stress-induced mobility enhancements, but nevertheless can be noticeable. The approaches described herein can be used for estimating such second-order effects in a similar way they are used to model stress-induced mobility enhancements.
The embodiments were chosen and described in order to best explain the principles of the invention and its practical application, thereby enabling others skilled in the art to understand the invention for various embodiments and with various modifications as are suited to the particular use contemplated. It is intended that the scope of the invention be defined by the following claims and their equivalents.
This is a Continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 12/510,182, filed 27 Jul. 2009, by Victor Moroz and Dipankar Pramanik, entitled “ANALYSIS OF STRESS IMPACT ON TRANSISTOR PERFORMANCE” (SYNP 0693-2), which is a Division of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/291,294, filed 1 Dec. 2005, by Victor Moroz and Dipankar Pramanik, entitled “ANALYSIS OF STRESS IMPACT ON TRANSISTOR PERFORMANCE” (SYNP 0693-1). Both applications are incorporated herein.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5600578 | Fang et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5606518 | Fang et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
6420231 | Harari et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6599781 | Li | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6831292 | Currie et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6881632 | Fitzgerald et al. | Apr 2005 | B2 |
7032194 | Hsueh et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
7219045 | Wu et al. | May 2007 | B1 |
7266787 | Hughes et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7291519 | Bhattacharyya | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7307273 | Currie | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7337420 | Chidambarrao et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7437260 | Ausserlechner et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7440861 | Ausserlechner et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7480604 | Bianchi | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7484198 | Lin et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7542891 | Lin et al. | Jun 2009 | B2 |
7567891 | Liu et al. | Jul 2009 | B1 |
7921401 | Ito et al. | Apr 2011 | B2 |
8086990 | Lin et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8615728 | Moroz et al. | Dec 2013 | B2 |
20020008252 | Koike | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20030173588 | Bianchi | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20040044511 | Sekido et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040059559 | Shimizu et al. | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040075149 | Fitzgerald et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040153986 | Sahara et al. | Aug 2004 | A1 |
20050017304 | Matsushita et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050040460 | Chidambarrao et al. | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050077511 | Fitzergald | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050093059 | Belyansky et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050104057 | Shaheed et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050110039 | Chi et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050112822 | Litwin | May 2005 | A1 |
20050121727 | Ishitsuka et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050139929 | Rost | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050158931 | Chen et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050176204 | Langdo et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050184345 | Lin et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050247926 | Sun et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20060003510 | Kammler et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060019458 | Chidambarrao et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060043529 | Chidambarrao et al. | Mar 2006 | A1 |
20060091475 | Fujii et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060142987 | Ishizu et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060186478 | Hughes et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060190893 | Morton | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060228863 | Zhang et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060240650 | Orlowski et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20060267130 | Rao | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070026599 | Peidous et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070028195 | Chidambarrao et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070096170 | Chidambarrao et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070096206 | Chidambarrao | May 2007 | A1 |
20070108531 | Chidambarrao | May 2007 | A1 |
20070202652 | Moroz et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20080127005 | Lin et al. | May 2008 | A1 |
20080195983 | Chidambarrao et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20090057777 | Fujii et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090095987 | Rost | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090113368 | Lin et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090217217 | Lin et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20140115556 | Moroz et al. | Apr 2014 | A1 |
Entry |
---|
Dec. 31, 2012 Final Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,182 16 pp. |
Oct. 3, 2012 Response A in U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,185 12 pp. |
Jan. 15, 2013 Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,185 7 pp. |
Nov. 28, 2012 Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,187 9 pp. |
Jan. 13, 2013 Response B in U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,188 15 pp. |
Jan. 18, 2013 Advisory Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,188 2 pp. |
Sep. 6, 2012 Interview Summary in U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,190 2 pp. |
Nov. 2, 2012 Response B filed in U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,190 15 pp. |
Jan. 28, 2013 Office Action in U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,190 14 pp. |
Oct. 22, 2012 Notice of Abandonment in U.S. Appl. No. 12/582,453 2 pp. |
RCE filed Apr. 4, 2013 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,188 20 pp. |
Mar. 28, 2013 Response to Final OA in U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,182 5 pp. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/852,963, filed Mar. 28, 2013, “Analysis of Stress Impact on Transistor Performance,” 26 pp. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/850,133, filed Mar. 25, 2013, “Analysis of Stress Impact on Transistor Performance,” 29 pp. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,182, filed Jul. 27, 2009 “Analysis of Stress Impact on Transistor Performance,” 23 pp. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,185, filed Jul. 27, 2009 “Analysis of Stress Impact on Transistor Performance,” 22 pp. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,188, filed Jul. 27, 2009 “Analysis of Stress Impact on Transistor Performance,” 23 pp. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,190, filed Jul. 27, 2009 “Analysis of Stress Impact on Transistor Performance,” 26 pp. |
Chidambaram et al., “35% Drive Current Improvement from Recessed-SiGe Drain Extensions on 37 nm Gate Length PMOS,” 2004 Symposium on VLSI Technology Digest of Technical Papers, pp. 48-49. |
Ghani et al., “A 90nm High Volume Manufacturing Logic Technology Featuring Novel 45nm Gate Length Strained Silicon CMOS Transistors,” 2003 IEEE, pp. 978-980. |
Moroz et al., “The Impact of Layout on Stress-Enhanced Transistor Performance,” Int'l Conference on Simulation of Semiconductor Processes and Devices, 2005. SISPAD 2005, pp. 143-146. |
Moroz et al., “Modeling the Impact of Stress on Silicon Porcesses and Devices,” Materials Science in Semiconductor Processing, 2003, pp. 27-36. |
Nouri et al., “A Systematic Study of Trade-Offs in Engineering a Locally Strained pMOSFET,” 2004, IEEE, pp. 1055-1058. |
Thompson et al., “A 90-nm Logic Technology Featuring Strained-Silicon,” IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, vol. 51, No. 11, Nov. 2004, pp. 1790-1797. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,185—Final Office Action dated Jun. 12, 2013. |
Response to Final Office Action and RCE filed Dec. 15, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,187. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,182—Notice of Allowance dated Jun. 13, 2013, 45 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,188—Office Action dated Jun. 26, 2013. |
U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,190—Notice of Allowance dated Aug. 27, 2013, 25 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/852,963—Office Action dated Jun. 11, 2013, pp. 1-29. |
R.A. Bianchi et al., “Accurate Modeling of Trench Isolation Induced Mechanical Stress Effects on MOSFET Electrical Performance,” IEEE IEDM Tech. Digest, pp. 117-120 (Dec. 2002). |
Xuemei (Jane) XI, et al., “BSIM4.3.0 Model, Enhancements and Improvements Relative to BSIM4.2.1”, University of California at Berkeley (2003) available at http://www-devices.eecs.berkeley.edu/bsim3/BSIM4/BSIM430/doc/BSIM430—Enhancement .pdf. |
F. Nouri et al., “A Systematic Study of Trade-offs in Engineering a Locally Strained pMOSFET”, Proc. IEDM, pp. 1055-1058, 2004. |
S.E. Thompson et al., “A 90-nm Logic Technology Featuring Strained-Silicon”, IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, 2004. |
G. Eneman et al, “Layout Impact on the Performance of a Locally Strained PMOSFET”, 2005 Symposium on VLSI Technology Digest of Technical Papers, pp. 22-23, 2005. |
V. Moroz et al, “Analyzing strained-silicon options for stress-engineering transistors”, Solid State Technology, Jul. 2004. |
Y. Kanda, “A Graphical Representation of the Piezoresistance Coefficients in Silicon”, IEEE Transactions on Electron Devices, vol. Ed-29, No. 1, Jan. 1982. |
C.S. Smith, “Piezoresistance Effect in Germanium and Silicon”, Physical Review, vol. 94, No. 1, Apr. 1, 1954. |
Smith, et al., “Exploring the Limits of Stress-Enhanced Hole Mobility”, IEEE Electron Device Letters, vol. 26, No. 9, Sep. 2005. |
Moroz, et al., “Options at the 45 nm node include engineered substrates”, Solid State Technology, Jul. 2005. |
Gildenblat, G., et al., “PSP Model” Department of Electrical Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University and Philips Research, (Aug. 2005) 82 pages. |
First Office Action, mailed Feb. 3, 2010 in (U.S. Appl. No. 11/291,294). |
First Office Action, mailed Mar. 18, 2010 in (U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,187). |
Response filed Jul. 29, 2010 to Office Action mailed Feb. 3, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/291,294. |
Response filed Aug. 13, 2010 to Office Action mailed Mar. 18, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,187. |
First Office Action mailed Sep. 15, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,182. |
Office action mailed Oct. 14, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/291,294. |
Response C filed Dec. 15, 2010 to Office action mailed Oct. 14, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/291,294. |
Response A filed Dec. 15, 2010 to First Office Action mailed Sep. 15, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,182. |
Final Office Action mailed Nov. 10, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,187. |
Response B filed Dec. 15, 2010 to Final Office Action mailed Nov. 10, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,187. |
Final Office Action mailed Mar. 2, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/291,294. |
Office Action mailed May 20, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/291,294. |
Final Office Action mailed Mar. 10, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,182. |
Amendment After Final Office Action mailed Jul. 11, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,182. |
Response A filed Aug. 13, 2010 to Office Action mailed Mar. 18, 2010 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,187. |
Office Action mailed Nov. 28, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/291,294. |
Office Action mailed Aug. 26, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,182 9pp. |
Office Action mailed Feb. 28, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,188 19pp. |
Office Action mailed Feb. 6, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,190 19pp. |
Final office action mailed Aug. 20, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/582,453 8pp. |
Office Action mailed Feb. 28, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/582,453 24pp. |
Office Action mailed Aug. 24, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,190 8pp. |
Office action mailed Jul. 3, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,185 14pp. |
Final office action mailed Jul. 30, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/291,294 8pp. |
Amendment after final office action filed Apr. 11, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/291,294 7pp. |
Response mailed Aug. 19, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/291,294 8pp. |
Response filed Mar. 19, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 11/291,294 10pp. |
Office Action mailed Dec. 22, 2011 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,182 11pp. |
Response filed Mar. 19, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,182 10pp. |
Office Action mailed Jul. 24, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,182 9pp. |
Response to Office Action filed May 29, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,188 12pp. |
Final Office Action mailed Oct. 4, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,188 17pp. |
Response to Office Action filed May 7, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,190 14pp. |
Response to Office Action filed May 29, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/582,453 12pp. |
Letter of Express Abandonment filed Oct. 16, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/582,453, 1p. |
Response G mailed Oct. 10, 2012, responding to Jul. 12, 2012 Office Action, in U.S. Appl. No. 11/291,294 10 pp. |
Dec. 28, 2012 Examiner Amendment in U.S. Appl. No. 11/291,294 3 pp. |
Nov. 23, 2012 Notice of Allowance in U.S. Appl. No. 11/291,294 4 pp. |
Nov. 1, 2012 Response D to Office Action mailed Jul. 24, 2012 in U.S. Appl. No. 12/510,182 13 pp. |
U.S. Appl. No. 13/850,133—Office Action dated Dec. 19, 2013, 10 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/506,434—Office Action dated Nov. 7, 2014, 38 pages. |
U.S. Appl. No. 14/506,434—Notice of Allowance dated May 8, 2015, 8 pages. |
Response to Nov. 7, 2014 Office Action filed Mar. 4, 2015 in U.S. Appl. No. 14/506,434. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11291294 | Dec 2005 | US |
Child | 12510182 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 12510182 | Jul 2009 | US |
Child | 14025600 | US |