The present invention pertains to the field of Resolution Enhancement Techniques (RET) in photolithography. More particularly, it relates to the use of two-dimensional models to improve the performance of layout corrections using Optical Proximity Correction (OPC) by providing an improved set of initial conditions to the iterative OPC process.
In photolithography, a design is transferred onto a surface of a wafer by exposing and selectively etching a pattern of features onto a photo-sensitive material. Although advanced photolithography techniques routinely fit millions of circuit components onto a single chip, the wavelength of the exposing light is too long to produce undistorted layout replicas. OPC (Optical Proximity Correction, or sometimes Optical and Process Correction when effects other than proximity effects are included as well) is a technique that is used to adjust the mask features so that the transferred pattern will be a sufficiently accurate replica of the intended target.
OPC is a computationally expensive calculation that typically requires an iterative calculation of optical, resist, and etch effects. Typically, a figure of merit, such as edge placement error (EPE), is used in conjunction with a feedback factor to adjust the position of the mask edges for the next iteration. Ideally, each iteration improves the result, and the process continues until the EPE of each edge is near zero.
Since each iteration is a time consuming calculation, it is common to use a rule-based approach to provide an initial correction for edges in the layout. This improves the image quality and provides an approximation of the desired result, which normally reduces the number of model-based iterations required.
The rule-based modifications are typically expressed as tables, which characterize each feature of interest by its width and space (to the closest neighbor). While this method has proven to be sufficient for 90 nm processes and larger, it becomes very complex as feature sizes decrease and is no longer practical for advanced device fabrication. For that reason, there is a need for a technique of providing an improved initial set of conditions to a desired layout.
The present invention is a technique for calculating bias values for layout features prior to the application of OPC modifications. In one embodiment, a model of the OPC process is calibrated by correlating density values in a test layout and a known OPC result. Once the model is calibrated, density signature values for edges in a desired layout pattern are applied to the OPC model to determine a pre-OPC bias value for the edges.
This summary is provided to introduce a selection of concepts in a simplified form that are further described below in the Detailed Description. This summary is not intended to identify key features of the claimed subject matter, nor is it intended to be used as an aid in determining the scope of the claimed subject matter.
The foregoing aspects and many of the attendant advantages of this invention will become more readily appreciated as the same become better understood by reference to the following detailed description, when taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, wherein:
If only one type of structure is to be imaged onto a wafer, it is possible to select the process parameters to adjust the critical dimension to the desired target, as illustrated in
Before the advent of model-based OPC, proximity correction was a simple matter of defining biases based on near-neighbor features.
This complexity accelerated the adoption of model-based OPC, in which such tables are not necessary. However, since most OPC techniques are iterative, these tables have persisted as a way to provide a better initial set of conditions before launching the iterative process, thus facilitating convergence and guiding the OPC towards a more robust solution. The rule-based “hints” enable OPC tools to achieve acceptable results with fewer iterations and, therefore, more quickly.
An embodiment of the present invention replaces the need to create very large pre-OPC bias tables for all structures by characterizing layout features according to layout density. As
In one embodiment of the invention, polygons defining the desired target layer to be created on a wafer are fragmented to define a number of edge fragments around the perimeter of the polygons. Simulation sites are defined for the edge fragments where the OPC tool will calculate the EPE of the edge fragment.
In one embodiment, the density signature D is a vector (i.e., an array) of numbers having values proportional to the area of a kernel overlapping polygons in the layout.
where the integration covers all 2-dimensional space S, D is the Density value for a particular site, F(x,y) is the kernel, and L(x,y) a function corresponding to the layout, for example
A kernel may in turn be made up of a set of smaller kernels, such as a set of concentric top-hat functions. For example, if a top-hat based function F(x,y) is used having five different concentric circles (kernels), each centered over a simulation site, the density signature of the edge fragment may have the form
[1,D1,i,D2,i . . . D5,i] [3]
where i is the number of the edge fragment, and D1 represents the percentage of the first top-hat kernel that is covering layout features. D2 is the percentage of the second top-hat kernel covering layout features, etc. In one embodiment, the area inside a feature is defined as logic 1 and the area outside a feature is defined as logic 0. If a kernel covers layout features over 50% of its area, then the value of D for that kernel is 0.5. In practice, the a top hat function F(x,y) may include 50+ kernels. Different edge fragments typically will have different density signatures depending on the location of their neighbors. In the case of a top-hat function these results can be thought of as representing area but for the more general case of arbitrary kernels it is necessary to realize that a convolution is being done as shown in
Typically, the functions F(x,y) are normalized
but this is not a requirement for their use. In
Before pre-OPC bias values can be calculated for edges in a desired layout pattern, the OPC model is calibrated to a known OPC solution. Therefore, test layout data, including feature patterns and spacings likely to be used in the actual desired layout, is analyzed with an OPC tool to determine how the feature edges should be moved to print as desired. Next, the test layout data is analyzed to determine the density signatures of the edge fragments in the test data. Finally, a mathematical analysis is performed to correlate the various density signatures to the known OPC correction values. The result of the analysis is a model that models the OPC process itself. In one embodiment, the correlation is determined by solving the following system of non-linear equations set forth in Equation 5 below for various coefficients α0, α1, α2 . . . αm
from the known density signature values Dm,n and the known displacements (Disp1, Disp2, Disp3 etc) from the OPC results.
Once the OPC model is calibrated from the test layout data and the known OPC solution, the coefficients αi represent the relationship between the Density values and the displacements that the OPC procedure will produce. A displacement function Disp that determines a pre-OPC bias amount for a feature edge given its density signature Di can therefore take the form:
Disp=α0+α1D1+ . . . +αmDm [6]
Other forms are possible, as well, and could include cross terms (such as α3D1D2) as well as optical terms such those used in model-based OPC.
Since the solution of this system provides a mechanism to predict a first order approximation of the OPC, it is expected that these functions will be very different between process layers and process technologies. Composite 2D functions, calibrated with this method, are shown for several 65 nm layers in
To qualitatively examine the accuracy of the fast pass OPC method,
Table 1 summarizes the relative speed of pre-OPC models with respect to traditional (iterative) OPC.
In one embodiment, the present invention is implemented by a networked or stand alone computer system that executes a sequence of computer instructions. The instructions are stored on a computer storage media such as a CD-ROM, hard disc, DVD, flash memory of the like. Alternatively the instructions may be received by the computer system over a wired or wireless communication link. The computer executes the instructions to read a desired layout pattern or portion thereof and to compute pre-OPC bias amounts for at least some edge fragments in the layout in accordance with the techniques described above.
While illustrative embodiments have been illustrated and described, it will be appreciated that various changes can be made therein without departing from the scope of the invention. It is therefore intended that the scope of the invention is to be determined from the following claims and equivalents thereof.
This application is a divisional of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/673,515, filed Feb. 9, 2007, now U.S. Pat. No. 7,739,650, which is hereby incorporated by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4532650 | Wihl et al. | Jul 1985 | A |
4762396 | Dumant et al. | Aug 1988 | A |
5396584 | Lee et al. | Mar 1995 | A |
5502654 | Sawahata | Mar 1996 | A |
5558963 | Tsudaka et al. | Sep 1996 | A |
5655110 | Krivokapic et al. | Aug 1997 | A |
5723233 | Garza et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5723235 | Tsudaka et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5815685 | Kamon | Sep 1998 | A |
5825647 | Tsudaka | Oct 1998 | A |
5879844 | Yamamoto et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5991006 | Tsudaka | Nov 1999 | A |
6016357 | Neary et al. | Jan 2000 | A |
6033814 | Burdorf et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6042257 | Tsudaka | Mar 2000 | A |
6049660 | Ahn et al. | Apr 2000 | A |
6077310 | Yamamoto et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6080527 | Huang et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6120952 | Pierrat et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6128067 | Hashimoto | Oct 2000 | A |
6187483 | Capodieci et al. | Feb 2001 | B1 |
6243855 | Kobayashi et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6249904 | Cobb | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6263299 | Aleshin et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6269472 | Garza et al. | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6301697 | Cobb | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6317859 | Papadopoulou | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6415421 | Anderson et al. | Jul 2002 | B2 |
6425113 | Anderson et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6430737 | Cobb et al. | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6453457 | Pierrat et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6467076 | Cobb | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6470489 | Chang et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6487503 | Inui | Nov 2002 | B2 |
6499003 | Jones et al. | Dec 2002 | B2 |
6574784 | Lippincott et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6643616 | Granik et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6649309 | Mukherjee | Nov 2003 | B2 |
6665856 | Pierrat et al. | Dec 2003 | B1 |
6668367 | Cobb et al. | Dec 2003 | B2 |
6718526 | Eldredge et al. | Apr 2004 | B1 |
6748578 | Cobb | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6778695 | Schellenberg et al. | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6792590 | Pierrat et al. | Sep 2004 | B1 |
6815129 | Bjorkholm et al. | Nov 2004 | B1 |
6817003 | Lippincott et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6857109 | Lippincott | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6862726 | Futatsuya et al. | Mar 2005 | B2 |
6887633 | Tang | May 2005 | B2 |
6928634 | Granik et al. | Aug 2005 | B2 |
6973633 | Lippincott et al. | Dec 2005 | B2 |
6989229 | Lucas et al. | Jan 2006 | B2 |
7010776 | Gallatin et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7013439 | Robles et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7017141 | Anderson et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7024655 | Cobb | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7028284 | Cobb et al. | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7047516 | Futatsuya | May 2006 | B2 |
7073162 | Cobb et al. | Jul 2006 | B2 |
7155689 | Pierrat et al. | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7155699 | Cobb | Dec 2006 | B2 |
7172838 | Maurer et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7181721 | Lippincott et al. | Feb 2007 | B2 |
7194725 | Lukanc et al. | Mar 2007 | B1 |
7237221 | Granik et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7240305 | Lippincott | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7240321 | Cobb et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7281234 | Lippincott | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7293249 | Torres Robles et al. | Nov 2007 | B2 |
7324930 | Cobb | Jan 2008 | B2 |
7367009 | Cobb et al. | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7378202 | Granik et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7392168 | Granik et al. | Jun 2008 | B2 |
7506301 | Kotani et al. | Mar 2009 | B2 |
20010018759 | Andreev et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20010049811 | Taoka | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020026626 | Randal et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020094680 | Lin | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20030037309 | Utsunomiya | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030134205 | Yu | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030208728 | Pierrat | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20040128118 | Croffie et al. | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20040268282 | Rittman et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050022150 | Liu et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050050490 | Futatsuya et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050149901 | Tang | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050177810 | Heng et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050229125 | Tabery et al. | Oct 2005 | A1 |
20050251771 | Robles | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050278686 | Word et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060005154 | Cobb et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060074611 | Wong et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060188796 | Word | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060190875 | Arisawa et al. | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060199084 | Word | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060200790 | Shang et al. | Sep 2006 | A1 |
20060240342 | Tang | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20070006118 | Pierrat et al. | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20070074143 | Cobb et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070118826 | Lippincott | May 2007 | A1 |
20070124708 | Robles et al. | May 2007 | A1 |
20070204242 | Brunet et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070204256 | Brunet et al. | Aug 2007 | A1 |
20070240086 | Sinha | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20080141195 | Robles et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080148217 | Park | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080166639 | Park et al. | Jul 2008 | A1 |
20080195996 | Robles et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080256500 | Cobb et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20090132980 | Sinha | May 2009 | A1 |
20090186429 | Kotani et al. | Jul 2009 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
07-175204 | Jul 1995 | JP |
09-319067 | Dec 1997 | JP |
2001-350250 | Dec 2001 | JP |
2002-131882 | May 2002 | JP |
2004-502961 | Jan 2004 | JP |
WO 9914637 | Mar 1999 | WO |
WO 9914638 | Mar 1999 | WO |
WO 0165315 | Jul 2001 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20090178018 A1 | Jul 2009 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 11673515 | Feb 2007 | US |
Child | 12406820 | US |