The present invention relates to a method for examining wafers, and more particularly, to a method of weak point inspection for improving manufacture yield in semiconductor industry by using a charged particle beam tool.
An integrated circuit (also referred to as IC, chip, or microchip) is an electronic circuit manufactured by the patterned diffusion of trace elements into the surface of a thin substrate of semiconductor material. Additional materials are deposited and patterned to form interconnections between semiconductor devices.
ICs were made possible by experimental discoveries showing that semiconductor device could perform the functions of vacuum tubes and by mid-20th-century technology advancements in semiconductor device fabrication. The integration of large numbers of tiny transistors into a small chip was an enormous improvement over the manual assembly of circuits using discrete electronic components. The integrated circuit's mass production capability, reliability, and building-block approach to circuit design ensured the rapid adoption of standardized ICs in place of designs using discrete transistors.
In the early days of integrated circuits, only a few transistors could be placed on a chip, as the scale used was large because of the contemporary technology, and manufacturing yields were low by today's standards. As the degree of integration was small, the design was done easily. Over time, millions and today billions, of transistors could be placed on one chip, to make a good design become a task to be planned thoroughly.
ICs have consistently migrated to smaller feature sizes over the years, allowing more circuitry to be packed on each chip. In general, as the feature size shrinks, almost everything improves—the cost per unit and the switching power consumption go down, while the speed goes up. However, ICs with nanometer-scale devices still incur their original problems, principal among which is leakage current, although these problems will likely be solved or at least ameliorated by the introduction of high-k dielectrics.
Semiconductor ICs are fabricated in a layer process which includes these key processes: deposition, patterning, removal, and modification of electrical properties.
In order to achieve the setting yield, the yield management of a fab needs to monitor, classify, eliminate or avoid defects from all kind of processes. A wafer map analysis has been developed for detecting and classifying patterns or process signatures based on low-resolution (e.g., 0.5 μm/pixel) optical defect image distribution. As wafers exit a fabrication process, wafer map data is generated by an in-line defect detection workstation incorporating a microscopy or light-scattering system. The information in the wafer map consists of detected defect coordinates as well as process information such as step, layer, and product. The wafer map data may be combined across wafers to further view the evaluation of process signatures which may assist in diagnosing manufacturing problems.
As the feature size shrinks, ICs yield improvement by defect reduction becomes more and more important. A pre-analysis of signatures of a process or a structure with computer workstation starts with using graphical database system (GDS) to construct photomask far a die, then to utilize the computational lithography to numerically simulate, and to improve the performance (resolution and contrast) of cutting-edge photomasks. Next optical proximity correction (OPC) process is introduced in the modern semi con due tor manufacturing. The OPC uses computational methods to counteract the effects of diffraction related blurring and under-exposure by modifying on mask geometries with means:
As a part of the wafer map process, an off-line defect review station examines these hot spots with a high resolution microscope, e.g., a defect inspection/review tool comprising scanning electron microscope (SEM), and classifies the defect according to individual morphology, color, texture, and relationship to process or layer.
The defect inspection/review tool proceeds wafer inspection/review job according to a process instruction called a “recipe”. A “recipe” is a set of operating instructions (a processing program) that educates a tool how the tool should perform the process. The recipe varies for each kind of machine, and even among different machine manufactures for the same kind of machine. For example, an etch system by Applied Materials of Santa Clara, Calif. may require a 10-minute reaction time with a certain flow of gases, while the reaction chamber is kept at a certain, elevated temperature. At the end of the 10-minute reaction time, the flow of reactive gases is gradually reduced and replaced with inert gases as the temperature is lowered. Another etch system by Lam Research of Fremont, Calif. may require a 15-minute reaction time, with a different mixture of gases and a different temperature. Other kinds of semiconductor processing equipment require vastly different recipes. These recipes can become quite complex and vary as process engineers attempt to tweak the process for desired electrical and manufacturing-yield results. Different semiconductor products may require different recipes or combinations of steps. A DRAM process may require lighter ion implant doses than a process for logic chips and different oxide thicknesses require different reaction time in the furnace.
The recipe for a defect inspection/review tool contains instructions such as (a) product information that record the current inspection is after what semiconductor process; (b) inspection parameters that set the inspection tool, detecting area; and (e) detecting parameters that instruct the tool what to do in the detecting area. As an SEM-based defect inspection/review tool provides images at high resolution (e.g., 0.01 μm/pixel), however, the throughput of a fully examined wafer (e.g., 24 hours/wafer) is away below the expectation (e.g., 1 wafer/hour).
The wafer map analysis illustrates defects distribution after processing, in which the defect clustering area on the wafer is called “weak points” of the wafer. In order to meet the throughput requirement, a recipe instructs the inspection/review tool to perform the inspection according to the weak points might be a solution.
The present invention provides a weak point inspection method performed by a charged particle beam inspection/review tool to meet the throughput requirement in semiconductor manufacturing.
A weak point inspection method is disclosed. The present invention utilize high resolution SEM with SORIL objective lens, smart review sampling filter, and universal defect identification unit to construct wafer map and perform weak point inspection of the wafer and/or the “lot” of wafers accordingly.
The weak point inspection method examine only the critical area of a wafer defined by a predetermined wafer map instead of the whole wafer to enhance inspection throughput.
The weak point inspection method updates the wafer map of a specific process or a specific device after each wafer has been examined through. Therefore the weak point algorithm of the present invention has self-learning ability.
The weak, point inspection method may construct the “lot” own wafer map if no previous hot spot information can be referred to.
A machine to perform weak point inspection of wafers is equipped with a high resolution SORIL objective lens. The machine also is equipped with a smart review sampling filter to confine inspection area defined by wafer map, the universal defect identification unit to identify and classify defects.
Reference will now be made in detail to specific embodiments of the invention. Examples of these embodiments are illustrated in accompanying drawings. While the invention will be described in conjunction with these specific embodiments, it will be understood that it is not Intended to limit the invention to these embodiments. On the contrary, it is intended to cover alternatives, modifications, and equivalents as may be included, within the spirit and scope of the invention as defined by the appended claims. In the following description, numerous specific details are set forth in order to provide a through understanding of the present invention. The present invention may be practiced without some or all of these specific details. In other instances, well known process operations are not described in detail in order not to unnecessarily obscure the present invention.
Terminology definition:
Wafer inspection tools help semiconductor manufacturer increase and maintain ICs yield. The IC industry employs inspection tools to detect defects that occur during the fabrication process. The important characteristics of an inspection tool are defect detection sensitivity and wafer throughput. Sensitivity to detect a defect and wafer throughput are coupled such that greater sensitivity usually means lower throughput.
An scanning electron microscope (SEM) based inspection tool, for example, has an inspection probe spot diameter of 100 nm and a pixel rate of 12.5 million pixels per sec (Mpps), has a throughput of 0.05 300-mm wafers per hour (wph). A throughput at this level can not bear to do a full wafer inspection after a fabrication process. In order to perform valuable tool time to inspect critical position, a “hot spot” inspection and or a “weak point” inspection with a high resolution charged particle beam inspection tool is developed.
U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/303,953 in titled of “Smart Defect Review for Semiconductor Integrated Circuit” by Wang et al., filed in Nov. 23, 2011, all of which is incorporated herein by reference. As shown in
Hot spot information of a specific semiconductor fabrication process with a specific processing tool maybe come from numerical simulation, wafer map analysis, and output file from other defect scanning tool. A “recipe” is constructed for a SEM-base defect inspection/review tool to instruct the tool perform defect inspection/review on those “hot spot” positions, to examine the possible defect positions with high resolution, to classify the real defect according to the defect shape, size, physical characteristics, and fabrication process. A wafer “weak point” map illustrates real defect distribution can be constructed after perform wafer map analysis according to the output of SEM-based defect review. Base on the result of the defect inspection/review tool, a fab manager can recommend corrective actions to the corresponding process or processing tool thereafter improve the yield of the fabrication process.
For a semiconductor fabrication process or processing tool that without previous experience to determine wafer “hot spot”, one embodiment of the present invention to set up the inspection/review tool's own “weak point” map according to the inspection/review result of previous wafers.
The tool 100 will identify defects in step 440 using algorithm of the universal defect locating unit 250. There are several methods can be chosen for defect identification. Three points comparison method, the method identify defects by comparing Images acquired from three different positions and mark error (defect) on the one deviate from the other two images. Die to golden die, the method identify defects by comparing images acquired from one die of the loaded wafer and a golden die to distinguish if a defect exists, where the golden die is refer to a perfect die without any defects. Die to design database or die to database, the method identify defects by comparing images acquired from a layout for a die or device of the loaded wafer and the original layout for a die or device on the design database.
The following step 450 is wafer mapping, this step records defects and its die/wafer location to database. The defect classification information such as defect type, size of the defect, composition of the defect if applied, process history of the wafer, coordinates on the wafer, location of the die (local coordinates), and etc., are recorded. After wafer mapping, the tool 100 compares found defects' position on the current wafer map and the previous wafer map. If the defects' position consistency is over 90% then set flag=1. Flag=1 indicates that the wafer map can pretty much represent the defect clustering area of a wafer in this “lot” and a weak point inspection plan setup according to this wafer map may cover most of the defect clustering area. If the defects position consistency is less than 90% then set flag=0. Flag=0 indicates next wafer will perform full wafer inspection again to accumulate defect distribution information. The tool 100 utilizes the smart review sampling algorithm 240 to construct the weak point inspection plan to save inspection time when Flag is set to 1.
Step 460 releases the wafer after inspection and in step 470 the recipe will request next wafer within the “lot” If there is any, the recipe will end the batch job in step 480 if no more wafer need to be inspected within the “lot”.
It is because the information of the new discovered defect within the specified area will be updated to the wafer map database, therefore the weak point algorithm of the present invention has self-learning ability. Since the inspecting area of the next wafer loaded is varied according to the previous inspection results, in another word, the recipe of the inspection is varied in each inspection process.
The first advantage of the present invention is increasing throughput by focusing inspect ion area on critical or weak point area on the wafer. The second advantage of the present invention is that knowledge learned will accumulate automatically onto the database.
Although the present invention has been explained in relation to its preferred embodiment, it is to be understood that other modifications and variation can be made without departing the spirit and scope of the invention as hereafter claimed.
The present invention is a continuation in part of the patent application in title of “Method and Machine for Examining Wafers” with application Ser. No. 12/370,913 filed in Feb. 13, 2009, currently pending, all of which is incorporated herein by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
6091249 | Talbot et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6246787 | Hennessey | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6336086 | Perez et al. | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6363382 | Kotani et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6449524 | Miller et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6509750 | Talbot et al. | Jan 2003 | B1 |
6535774 | Bode et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6724929 | Matsuoka | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6738682 | Pasadyn | May 2004 | B1 |
6830941 | Lee et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6869807 | Yoshitake et al. | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6917849 | Pasadyn et al. | Jul 2005 | B1 |
6957120 | Bode et al. | Oct 2005 | B1 |
6980687 | Ikegaya et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
7142992 | Huet | Nov 2006 | B1 |
7248939 | Chamness et al. | Jul 2007 | B1 |
7310585 | Brodsky | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7313450 | Fu et al. | Dec 2007 | B1 |
7327444 | Naka et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7327475 | Chu et al. | Feb 2008 | B1 |
7369236 | Sali | May 2008 | B1 |
7619731 | Lally et al. | Nov 2009 | B2 |
7636649 | Li et al. | Dec 2009 | B2 |
7676077 | Kulkarni | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7747062 | Chen | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7853920 | Preil | Dec 2010 | B2 |
7877722 | Duffy | Jan 2011 | B2 |
7881520 | Ueno | Feb 2011 | B2 |
7906758 | Stults et al. | Mar 2011 | B2 |
7960697 | Chen et al. | Jun 2011 | B2 |
8000922 | Chen | Aug 2011 | B2 |
8026481 | Fukuda | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8041103 | Kulkarni | Oct 2011 | B2 |
8135204 | Chen | Mar 2012 | B1 |
8611639 | Kulkarni | Dec 2013 | B2 |
20030121022 | Yoshitake et al. | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030149506 | Haanstra et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20040001619 | Tai | Jan 2004 | A1 |
20040046125 | Chen | Mar 2004 | A1 |
20040141640 | Lee et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040185583 | Tomoyasu et al. | Sep 2004 | A1 |
20040262290 | Haanstra et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20040267399 | Funk | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050033528 | Toth | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20060015206 | Funk et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060078189 | Hosoya | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060195218 | Yamashita et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060265145 | Huet | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070019856 | Furman et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070019858 | Shimura | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070041631 | Fushida et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070045536 | Nakasuji et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070067134 | Borowicz | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070156379 | Kulkarni et al. | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070269101 | Hiroi et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070288219 | Zafar | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20070293968 | Fu et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080163140 | Fouquet | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080204739 | Huet | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080250384 | Duffy | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080298670 | Nakagaki et al. | Dec 2008 | A1 |
20090058444 | McIntyre | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090070644 | Markle et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090080759 | Bhaskar | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090093904 | Baseman et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090212213 | Nakasuji et al. | Aug 2009 | A1 |
20090297019 | Zafar et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20090299681 | Chen | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100119144 | Kulkarni et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100150429 | Jau | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100158346 | Fang et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100189339 | Amanullah et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20110001820 | Sato | Jan 2011 | A1 |
20110286656 | Kulkarni et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110320149 | Lee | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120019279 | Huang | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120087569 | O'Dell | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120245861 | Greene | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120314054 | Chou | Dec 2012 | A1 |
20130202187 | Goren et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
543081 | Jul 2003 | TW |
200416504 | Sep 2004 | TW |
200842341 | Nov 2008 | TW |
Entry |
---|
Taiwan Intellectual Property Office, “Office Action” issued Dec. 10, 2015. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20120314054 A1 | Dec 2012 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 12370913 | Feb 2009 | US |
Child | 13589378 | US |