12 May 2004 High accuracy 65nm OPC verification: full process window model vs. critical failure ORC
Author Affiliations +
It is becoming more and more difficult to ensure robust patterning after OPC due to the continuous reduction of layout dimensions and diminishing process windows associated with each successive lithographic generation. Lithographers must guarantee high imaging fidelity throughout the entire range of normal process variations. The techniques of Mask Rule Checking (MRC) and Optical Rule Checking (ORC) have become mandatory tools for ensuring that OPC delivers robust patterning. However the first method relies on geometrical checks and the second one is based on a model built at best process conditions. Thus those techniques do not have the ability to address all potential printing errors throughout the process window (PW). To address this issue, a technique known as Critical Failure ORC (CFORC) was introduced that uses optical parameters from aerial image simulations. In CFORC, a numerical model is used to correlate these optical parameters with experimental data taken throughout the process window to predict printing errors. This method has proven its efficiency for detecting potential printing issues through the entire process window [1]. However this analytical method is based on optical parameters extracted via an optical model built at single process conditions. It is reasonable to expect that a verification method involving optical models built from several points throughout PW would provide more accurate predictions of printing errors for complex features. To verify this approach, compact optical models similar to those used for standard OPC were built and calibrated with experimental data measured at the PW limits. This model is then applied to various test patterns to predict potential printing errors. In this paper, a comparison between these two approaches is presented for the poly layer at 65 nm node patterning. Examples of specific failure predictions obtained separately with the two techniques are compared with experimental results. The details of implementing these two techniques on full product layouts are also included in this study.
© (2004) COPYRIGHT Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE). Downloading of the abstract is permitted for personal use only.
Amandine Borjon, Amandine Borjon, Jerome Belledent, Jerome Belledent, Shumay D. Shang, Shumay D. Shang, Olivier Toublan, Olivier Toublan, Corinne Miramond, Corinne Miramond, Kyle Patterson, Kyle Patterson, Kevin Lucas, Kevin Lucas, Christophe Couderc, Christophe Couderc, Yves Rody, Yves Rody, Frank Sundermann, Frank Sundermann, Jean-Christophe Urbani, Jean-Christophe Urbani, Stanislas Baron, Stanislas Baron, Yorick Trouiller, Yorick Trouiller, Patrick Schiavone, Patrick Schiavone, } "High accuracy 65nm OPC verification: full process window model vs. critical failure ORC", Proc. SPIE 5754, Optical Microlithography XVIII, (12 May 2004); doi: 10.1117/12.600471; https://doi.org/10.1117/12.600471


Wafer sub layer impact in OPC ORC models for advanced...
Proceedings of SPIE (March 30 2014)
Using custom features to check OPC model performance
Proceedings of SPIE (October 13 2011)
Resist loss in 3D compact modeling
Proceedings of SPIE (March 12 2012)
Lithography yield enhancement through optical rule checking
Proceedings of SPIE (January 26 2005)
Smart data filtering for enhancement of model accuracy
Proceedings of SPIE (March 16 2009)

Back to Top