The present invention relates to the field of electronic semiconductor design and manufacture. In particular the present invention discloses methods for performing optical proximity correction. The present application is a divisional of commonly owned U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/514,551, “METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MIXED-MODE OPTICAL PROXIMITY CORRECTION” filed Feb. 28, 2000 now U.S. Pat. No. 6,584,609, issued Jun. 24, 2003.
Semiconductor manufacturers produce semiconductors using optical lithography. Optical lithography is a specialized printing process that puts detailed patterns onto silicon wafers. Semiconductor manufacturers create a “mask” and then shine light through the mask to project a desired pattern onto a silicon wafer that is coated with a very thin layer of photosensitive material called “resist.” The bright parts of the image pattern cause chemical reactions that make the resist material become soluble. After development, the resist forms a stenciled pattern across the wafer surface that accurately matches the desired pattern of the semiconductor circuit. Finally, this pattern is transferred onto the wafer surface via another chemical process.
To improve semiconductor performance, semiconductor researchers and engineers keep shrinking the size of the circuits on semiconductor chips. There are two main reasons to reduce the size of semiconductor circuits: (1) smaller features allow silicon chips to contain more circuit elements and thus be more complex. Similarly, a smaller circuit size allows more copies of the same die to appear on a single silicon wafer. (2) smaller circuit devices use less power and may operate at higher frequencies (faster rates) to produce higher performance semiconductor chips.
As semiconductor circuit sizes have reduced, the limits of optical lithography are being tested. However, the move to new semiconductor processes such as X-ray lithography is viewed as difficult and expensive. To extend the use of optical lithography into feature sizes that are smaller than the light wavelength used in the optical lithography process, a set of sub-wavelength techniques have been developed. Two sub-wavelength technologies that have been developed include phase-shifting and optical proximity correction. Phase shifting utilizes optical interference to improve depth-of-field and resolution in lithography. Optical proximity correction alters the original layout mask to compensate for nonlinear distortions caused by optical diffraction and resist process effects. Optical proximity correction may also correct for mask proximity effects, dry etch effects, and other undesirable effects of the optical lithography process.
Optical proximity correction is often performed by modeling the final manufactured output of a semiconductor design and then determining what changes should be made to the semiconductor layout design to obtain a desired result. The semiconductor process modeling produces very accurate results. However, the semiconductor process modeling is extremely computationally expensive. Furthermore, adjusting a semiconductor layout design using model-based optical proximity correction is a very laborious task. It would be desirable to have a method of using optical proximity correction that produces good results within a short amount of time and reduce human intervention.
A semiconductor layout testing and correction system is disclosed. The system combines both rule-based optical proximity correction and model-based optical proximity correction in order to test and correct semiconductor layouts. In a first embodiment, a semiconductor layout is first processed by a rule-based optical proximity correction system and then subsequently processed by a model-based optical proximity correction system. In another embodiment, the system first processes a semiconductor layout with a rule-based optical proximity correction system and then selectively processes difficult features using a model-based optical proximity correction system. In yet another embodiment, the system selectively processes the various features of a semiconductor layout using a rule-based optical proximity correction system or a model-based optical proximity correction system.
Other objects, features, and advantages of present invention will be apparent from the company drawings and from the following detailed description.
The objects, features, and advantages of the present invention will be apparent to one skilled in the art, in view of the following detailed description in which:
A method and apparatus for mixed-mode optical proximity correction is disclosed. In the following description, for purposes of explanation, specific nomenclature is set forth to provide a thorough understanding of the present invention. However, it will be apparent to one skilled in the art that these specific details are not required in order to practice the present invention. For example, the present invention has been described with reference to optical lithography. However, the same techniques can easily be applied to other types of semiconductor processes such as X-ray lithography, Extreme UV lithography, electron beam manufacturing, and focused ion beam manufacturing.
Semiconductor manufacturers are reaching the limits of optical lithography using visible light wavelengths.
When the photomask of
To extend the use of optical lithography to create geometric features that are smaller than the light wavelength used in the optical lithography process, a set of sub-wavelength techniques have been developed. Optical proximity correction is one of those sub-wavelength techniques. Optical proximity correction is the process of altering the original mask to compensate for nonlinear distortions caused by optical diffraction and photoresist process effects.
There are two main methods of performing optical proximity correction: rule-based optical proximity correction and model-based optical proximity correction. Each method has its own advantages and disadvantages.
A first method of performing optical proximity correction is to create and apply a set of optical proximity correction rules. Each optical proximity correction rule tests for a particular condition wherein optical proximity correction may be necessary. To illustrate how rule-based optical proximity correction operates, a couple of sample optical proximity correction rules are provided:
The first rule is illustrated with reference to
The second rule ensures that adjacent parallel feature lines are not too close.
Rule-based optical proximity correction has the advantage that it is relatively simple to apply once a set of optical proximity correction rules have been defined. No very complex calculations are required to improve the final layout. A rule engine simply attempts to apply each rule to each feature of a proposed layout. However, the rules-based optical proximity correction system is rigid in that only problems that have associated rules are handled. Furthermore, the number of rules can grow exponentially as smaller and smaller processes are used. This is especially true when the features size is much smaller than the range of the proximity effect. It is very difficult to maintain such large rule sets. Since each layout change affects the entire nearby region, it is difficult to create rules when the light wavelength exceeds the feature's size.
Model-based optical proximity correction operates using a mathematical model of the manufacturing process. The mathematical model of the manufacturing process accurately determines how the output circuit pattern would appear if a given photomask layout pattern was put through that particular manufacturing process. It should be noted that many different models are created for many different manufacturing processes. Each manufacturing process may have more than one different type of model. For an optical lithography processes, the model may handle effects such as mask fabrication effects, optical effects, resist processing effects, dry or wet etching effects, or other effects of the optical lithography process.
By examining the output modeled circuit pattern from an optical lithography convolution model, trouble spots can be located. The source areas of the pattern mask that created the trouble spots can then be adjusted. Typically, reference points on the output circuit pattern are selected and specified to be located at a certain defined location within a designated threshold tolerance. Then, the related feature of the input layout pattern is adjusted until the reference point of the output circuit pattern falls within the designated threshold of the defined location.
One method of performing model-based optical proximity correction is to divide each feature into many sub segments and adjust each individual sub segment to obtain the desired resultant feature. An example of this is provided with reference to
To correct the shortening and rounding of the upper-right corner, segment 610 and segment 620 may be moved out to provide more area. An example of this is illustrated in
Model-based optical proximity correction is a very powerful tool for ensuring that a fabricated circuit operates as desired since it can be used to verify that all the created circuit features meet the minimum requirements. However, this power comes at a cost. To use model-based optical proximity correction across an entire complex design requires many hours of computation time. For many projects, having a fast turn-around time is very important. It would therefore be desirable to have methods that produces the accuracy of model-based optical proximity correction without requiring such a large amount of time for computations.
To perform optical proximity correction in a time-efficient manner that produces functional results, the present invention introduces a mixed-mode system of optical proximity correction. Specifically, the present invention introduces several methods of combining the two different methods of performing optical proximity correction such that very good results can be achieved in short amount of time.
Rule Based OPC then Model Based OPC
In a first embodiment, a rule-based optical proximity correction system parses through a semiconductor layout to perform a first pass optical proximity correction and then a model-based optical proximity correction system is used to cure any remaining trouble spots. A sample implementation is illustrated in
Referring to
Next, at step 730, the system applies a lithography model to the semiconductor to determine how the manufactured output of the current layout would appear. At step 740, the system tests the modeled output to determine if the manufactured output from the layout conforms to a designated specification. If no problem is detected, the system proceeds to step 770 to output a final semiconductor layout.
If a layout problem is detected, the system proceeds to step 750 to correct the problem using the model-based optical proximity correction system. In one embodiment, a model-based OPC system determines the outcome of two different feature placements and then interpolates an ideal position between the two placements. A number of different identified problems may be addressed during step 750. The system then proceeds to again check the layout with manufacturing model at step 730. This process iterates until no more significant problems are detected at step 740. Once no significant problems are detected at step 740 the system outputs a final semiconductor layout at step 770.
The method illustrated in
Rule-Based OPC and Selective Model-Based OPC
In other embodiments of the present invention, a rule-based proximity correction system and a proximity correction system are selectively used depending on the situation. Various different embodiments of this technique have been implemented.
At step 830, the system enters a loop that begins to examine every feature in the layout to determine if model-based optical proximity correction should be applied to that feature. The system may look for certain features where layout problems that cannot be easily corrected using a rule. The features that need model based OPC are marked at step 830.
At step 830, the system breaks down all the features identified for model-based OPC. The feature break down may occur as illustrated in
Referring back to
After examining a feature to determine if it falls within one of conditions wherein model-based optical proximity correction is required, the system proceeds from step 830 to step 840 where it determines if this was the last feature to examine. If the examined feature was not the last feature then the system proceeds back to step 830 to examine the next feature. Once all the features have been tested, the system may optionally pre-bias the marked features at step 850. However, it is not likely that the pre-bias is needed in this case since all the edges have been pre-corrected using rules-based OPC.
After pre-biasing (if done), the system applies a lithography model to the layout at step 860 to determine how the manufactured output of the current layout would appear. At step 870, the system tests the modeled output to determine if the manufactured output from the layout conforms to a designated specification. If no problem is detected, the system proceeds to step 890 to output a final semiconductor layout.
If one or more layout problems are detected, the system proceeds to step 880 to correct the problems using the model-based optical proximity correction system. The system then proceeds to again check the layout with manufacturing model at step 860. This process iterates until no more significant problems are detected at step 870. Once no significant problems are detected at step 870 the system outputs a final semiconductor layout at step 890.
The system of
Selective Rule-Based OPC or Model-Based OPC
The embodiment of
At step 950 the system invokes rule-based optical proximity correction to correct all the features marked for rule based OPC at step 930. Those features marked for model-based OPC are not examined.
At step 960, the system may optionally pre-bias the features marked for model-based optical proximity correction. The pre-bias may be a set of rules in which the pattern is defined solely by the feature shape itself and the surrounding environment is ignored.
A step 970, the system tests the features marked for model-based OPC with a model of the manufacturing process. If all features are to specification at step 980, then the system outputs a final semiconductor layout at step 990. Otherwise, the features marked for model-based OPC are corrected using model-based OPC at step 985.
Selective Rule-Based OPC, Model-Based OPC, Rule and Model OPC or No Correction
Referring to the conceptual diagram of
Next, at step 1020, all of the segments are examined and divided into different sets wherein each set will have a different OPC correction system used. Some segments will be placed into a set where no correction (NC) is needed. A second set of segments will then be placed into a set wherein only rule-based correction (RC) will be applied. A third set of segments will then be placed into a set wherein only model-based correction (MC) will be applied. Finally, a fourth set of segments will be placed into a set that will use both rule and model based correction (RMC).
The system will then process each set of segments accordingly. The segments that require no correction will be placed directly into the output. The segments that require rule-based correction (RC) or rule and model based correction (RMC) segments will be processed using rule-based correction at step 1030. The rule-based correction only (RC) segments will then be placed into the output as set forth in step 1040.
The model-based correction only (MC) segments may be pre-biased at step 1050. Finally, the model-based correction only (MC) segments and the rule and model based correction (RMC) segments are processed using model-based OPC at step 1060.
Referring to
If the edge needs rule-based OPC (RC) or rule and model based OPC (RMC) then the system proceeds to step 1120 to apply the rules 1125. Note that rule-based correction can be performed on an edge by edge basis. If the edge required only rule-based OPC (RC) then the system applies the correction to the layout database as specified in step 1135 before returning to step 1110 to examine another edge. If the edge requires rule and model based OPC (RMC) then the system proceeds to step 1140 to initialize the edge with the correction from the rule. That corrected edge is then used to update a model-based OPC edge database 1147 at step 1145. After updating the model-based OPC edge database 1147, the system proceeds back to step 1110 to examine another edge.
Referring back to step 1110, if the edge requires model-based OPC only (MC), then the system proceeds to step 1150 where the system may pre-bias the edge. Then, the system updates the model-based OPC edge database 1147 at step 1145 with that pre-biased edge. After updating the model-based OPC edge database 1147, the system proceeds back to step 1110 to examine another edge. After all the edges have been examined at step 1110, the system proceeds to begin the model-based correction stage.
At step 1160, the system applies the manufacturing model to the edge database. At step 1170, the system tests all the evaluation points for the various edges to correct with model-based correction. If, at step 1175, all the edges meet a defined specification then the system is done. Otherwise, the system proceeds to step 1180 to iteratively extract each edge from the model-based edge database 1147 and apply a model based correction at step 1185. This is performed until all the edges needing model based OPC have been adjusted. The system then again applies the manufacturing model and tests the evaluation points at steps 1160, 1170 and 1175 to determine if the all edges are now to specification. This iterative process continues until the layout conforms to the defined specification.
As set forth in the introductory section on model-based OPC, many different types of models have been created to model various semiconductor-manufacturing processes. Each model may have its own particular strengths and weaknesses. Some models may be better than other models in certain defined circumstances.
The hybrid OPC system of the present invention may take advantage of these different models. As set forth in the previous sections, many embodiments use various rules to specify a particular correction system to be used. These rule sets may be expanded to select a particular type of OPC model that should be used to evaluate a particular feature. Thus, if a particular manufacturing model is better than other manufacturing models at modeling a particular feature, then that manufacturing model may be used to test and correct that particular feature. For example, a rule set may specify that inner corner segments should be modeled with model 1, the outer corner segments should be modeled with model 2, and the edge segments should be modeled with model 3. In this manner, the system will take advantage of the best model for each particular circumstance.
The hybrid OPC system of the present invention is very useful for traditional optical lithography semiconductor manufacturing. However, its application is not limited to that area. The teachings of the present invention may be used for any photo-mask based manufacturing process. For example, the teachings of the present invention may be applied to both binary masks and phase-shifting masks. Information about phase-shifting masks can be found in U.S. Pat. No. 5,858,580 issued on Jan. 12, 1999 entitled “Phase shifting circuit manufacture method and apparatus” which is hereby incorporated by reference.
In one embodiment, the rules may be adjusted to support specialized layouts. For example, a set of rules may specify that rule-based OPC should be used to process the binary portion of a layout and that model-based OPC should be used to process the phase-shifted portion of a layout. In this manner, the best processing is provided to those critical sections that need it the most.
To limit the hybrid OPC system of the present invention, the software may be configured to “pre-filter” its operation. For example, a user may designate only specific areas for hybrid OPC processing. In one embodiment, the user may specify only certain cells of a layout for OPC processing. Furthermore, the type of processing to perform may be limited on a cell by cell basis. For example, certain cells may be processed with rule only OPC, other cells may be processed with model based OPC, and other cells may be processed with the hybrid OPC system. Certain features may overlap areas. For an area-based correction, the present invention may define another layer in the layout and decide that all the segments overlapped by this layer should be, corrected by a specific OPC system.
As set forth in the previous sections, many embodiments of the present invention use model based OPC to test and set all the features in a layout design. The testing is performed using a verification specification. In such embodiments wherein all the features are tested with a verification specification, the layout is inherently fully verified by the OPC processing. Thus, no separate verification step is necessary.
To enhance the verification capabilities, the model based OPC portion of such embodiments may be improved to offer additional features sometimes available in traditional verification tools. For example, the model-based OPC portion may provide an option to test a layout design at various dose settings. This may be accomplished by adjusting the model threshold (dose). Similarly, the model-based OPC portion may provide an option to test a layout design at various focus settings. This may be accomplished by building new models at certain defocus values in order to provide focus latitude verification.
When performing model-based OPC, the system will perform an iterative trial and error process to adjust features (such as edge placements) in order to correct defects in a layout. However, if changes are made to a layout design, then the entire OPC process must be performed again. Since the OPC process is a very long computationally expensive task, a simple design change may cause a long delay due to the OPC process.
To prevent such delays, the present invention introduces the idea of creating a database of changes made to a particular layout such that if a slightly changed version of the same layout is again processed, the unchanged areas can be quickly corrected using the stored database of changes. The process would simply verify that an area that was corrected in a previous OPC process has not changed such that the same correction can be applied.
In one embodiment, this correction database takes the form of a rule database. Specifically, each model-based OPC correction is stored along with the initial condition that caused the model-based OPC correction. In this manner, the set of rules can be applied to quickly bring a slightly modified design into a form where it is nearly fully corrected. The system then just applies model-based OPC to the changed areas.
The hybrid OPC system of the present invention may be used in many different environments.
The hybrid OPC program 1225 may also work within a network environment. Referring to
The hybrid OPC program 1225 may be leased or sold to customers that wish to improve their semiconductor layouts. The hybrid OPC program 1225 may be distributed on magnetic, optical, or other computer readable media. Alternatively, the hybrid OPC program 1225 may be distributed electronically using any transmission medium such as the Internet, a data broadcast, or any other digital transmission medium.
The foregoing has described a method and apparatus for mixed-mode optical proximity correction of semiconductor circuit layouts. It is contemplated that changes and modifications may be made by one of ordinary skill in the art, to the materials and arrangements of elements of the present invention without departing from the scope of the invention.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4231811 | Somekh et al. | Nov 1980 | A |
4426584 | Bohlen et al. | Jan 1984 | A |
4456371 | Lin | Jun 1984 | A |
4812962 | Witt | Mar 1989 | A |
4895780 | Nissan-Cohen et al. | Jan 1990 | A |
4902899 | Lin et al. | Feb 1990 | A |
5051598 | Ashton et al. | Sep 1991 | A |
5182718 | Harafuji et al. | Jan 1993 | A |
5208124 | Sporon-Fiedler et al. | May 1993 | A |
5241185 | Meiri et al. | Aug 1993 | A |
5242770 | Chen et al. | Sep 1993 | A |
5256505 | Chen et al. | Oct 1993 | A |
5340700 | Chen et al. | Aug 1994 | A |
5447810 | Chen et al. | Sep 1995 | A |
5498579 | Borodovsky et al. | Mar 1996 | A |
5553273 | Liebmann | Sep 1996 | A |
5553274 | Liebmann | Sep 1996 | A |
5631110 | Shioiri et al. | May 1997 | A |
5636002 | Garofalo | Jun 1997 | A |
5657235 | Liebmann et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5663017 | Schinella et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5663893 | Wampler et al. | Sep 1997 | A |
5682323 | Pasch et al. | Oct 1997 | A |
5705301 | Garza et al. | Jan 1998 | A |
5707765 | Chen | Jan 1998 | A |
5723233 | Garza et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5740068 | Liebmann et al. | Apr 1998 | A |
5766806 | Spence | Jun 1998 | A |
5815685 | Kamon | Sep 1998 | A |
5821014 | Chen et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5825647 | Tsudaka | Oct 1998 | A |
5827623 | Ishida et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5847959 | Veneklasen et al. | Dec 1998 | A |
5862058 | Samuels et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5863682 | Abe et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
5879844 | Yamamoto et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5885734 | Pierrat et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5900338 | Garza et al. | May 1999 | A |
5900340 | Reich et al. | May 1999 | A |
5920487 | Reich et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5958635 | Reich et al. | Sep 1999 | A |
5972541 | Sugasawara et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
5991006 | Tsudaka | Nov 1999 | A |
5994002 | Matsuoka | Nov 1999 | A |
6007310 | Jacobsen et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6014456 | Tsudaka | Jan 2000 | A |
6077310 | Yamamoto et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6078738 | Garza et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6081658 | Rieger et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6114071 | Chen et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6154563 | Tsudaka | Nov 2000 | A |
6168891 | Shibata | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6185727 | Liebmann | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6243855 | Kobayashi et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6249597 | Tsudaka | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6249904 | Cobb | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6269472 | Garza et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6282696 | Garza et al. | Aug 2001 | B1 |
6289499 | Rieger et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6298473 | Ono et al. | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6370679 | Chang et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6467076 | Cobb | Oct 2002 | B1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2324169 | Oct 1998 | GB |
2344436 | Jun 2000 | GB |
3-80525 | Apr 1991 | JP |
3-210560 | Sep 1991 | JP |
8-236317 | Sep 1996 | JP |
10-133356 | May 1998 | JP |
11-143085 | May 1999 | JP |
WO 0067074 | Nov 2000 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20030097647 A1 | May 2003 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 09514551 | Feb 2000 | US |
Child | 10327454 | US |