Threedimensional mask model for photolithography simulation

0Associated
Cases 
0Associated
Defendants 
0Accused
Products 
62Forward
Citations 
0
Petitions 
2
Assignments
First Claim
1. A lithography simulation system, comprising:
 a threedimensional mask model of a type of photolithography mask, comprising;
a correction factor configured to modify the Fourier transform of a thinmask transmission function of a mask;
a correction factor configured to modify the Fourier transform of a horizontal maskedge function of the mask;
a correction factor configured to modify the Fourier transform of a vertical maskedge function of the mask; and
a correction factor configured to modify the Fourier transform of a maskcorner function of the mask,wherein the correction factors collectively represent the effects of the topography of the type of photolithography mask on light passing through a mask of that type; and
a software tool adapted to use the model to simulate an image produced by a lithographic tool using the mask.
2 Assignments
0 Petitions
Accused Products
Abstract
A threedimensional mask model of the invention provides a more realistic approximation of the threedimensional effects of a photolithography mask with subwavelength features than a thinmask model. In one embodiment, the threedimensional mask model includes a set of filtering kernels in the spatial domain that are configured to be convolved with thinmask transmission functions to produce a nearfield image. In another embodiment, the threedimensional mask model includes a set of correction factors in the frequency domain that are configured to be multiplied by the Fourier transform of thinmask transmission functions to produce a nearfield image.
64 Citations
View as Search Results
Method of inspecting mask using aerial image inspection apparatus  
Patent #
US 7,865,866 B2
Filed 05/16/2008

Current Assignee
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

Sponsoring Entity
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

PATTERN VERIFYING METHOD, METHOD OF MANUFACTURING A SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICE AND PATTERN VERIFYING PROGRAM  
Patent #
US 20100234973A1
Filed 02/11/2010

Current Assignee
Toshiba Corporation

Sponsoring Entity
Toshiba Corporation

Method and apparatus for determining an optical model that models the effect of optical proximity correction  
Patent #
US 7,788,630 B2
Filed 03/21/2007

Current Assignee
Synopsys Incorporated

Sponsoring Entity
Synopsys Incorporated

HARMONIC RESIST MODEL FOR USE IN A LITHOGRAPHIC APPARATUS AND A DEVICE MANUFACTURING METHOD  
Patent #
US 20100128969A1
Filed 11/24/2009

Current Assignee
ASML Netherlands BV

Sponsoring Entity
ASML Netherlands BV

Method For Forming Arbitrary Lithographic Wavefronts Using Standard Mask Technology  
Patent #
US 20100281449A1
Filed 04/29/2009

Current Assignee
Mentor Graphics Corporation

Sponsoring Entity
International Business Machines Corporation

Method and apparatus for determining an optical model that models the effects of optical proximity correction  
Patent #
US 20080235651A1
Filed 03/21/2007

Current Assignee
Synopsys Incorporated

Sponsoring Entity
Synopsys Incorporated

METHOD OF INSPECTING MASK USING AERIAL IMAGE INSPECTION APPARATUS  
Patent #
US 20080288912A1
Filed 05/16/2008

Current Assignee
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

Sponsoring Entity
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.

Method for forming arbitrary lithographic wavefronts using standard mask technology  
Patent #
US 8,108,802 B2
Filed 04/29/2009

Current Assignee
Mentor Graphics Corporation

Sponsoring Entity
International Business Machines Corporation

Harmonic resist model for use in a lithographic apparatus and a device manufacturing method  
Patent #
US 8,447,095 B2
Filed 11/24/2009

Current Assignee
ASML Netherlands BV

Sponsoring Entity
ASML Netherlands BV

METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR FORMING PATTERNS USING CHARGED PARTICLE BEAM LITHOGRAPHY  
Patent #
US 20130283219A1
Filed 04/15/2013

Current Assignee
D2S Inc.

Sponsoring Entity
D2S Inc.

SIMULATION APPARATUS, SIMULATION METHOD AND NONTRANSITORY COMPUTER READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM  
Patent #
US 20140063010A1
Filed 12/05/2012

Current Assignee
Toshiba Corporation

Sponsoring Entity
Toshiba Corporation

Harmonic resist model for use in a lithographic apparatus and a device manufacturing method  
Patent #
US 8,682,059 B2
Filed 05/17/2013

Current Assignee
ASML Netherlands BV

Sponsoring Entity
ASML Netherlands BV

Edgebased full chip mask topography modeling  
Patent #
US 8,918,743 B1
Filed 08/12/2013

Current Assignee
Synopsys Incorporated

Sponsoring Entity
Synopsys Incorporated

Threedimensional mask model for photolithography simulation  
Patent #
US 8,938,694 B2
Filed 11/15/2013

Current Assignee
ASML Netherlands BV

Sponsoring Entity
ASML Netherlands BV

Harmonic resist model for use in a lithographic apparatus and a device manufacturing method  
Patent #
US 8,942,463 B2
Filed 03/25/2014

Current Assignee
ASML Netherlands BV

Sponsoring Entity
ASML Netherlands BV

Simulation apparatus, simulation method and nontransitory computer readable recording medium  
Patent #
US 9,183,673 B2
Filed 12/05/2012

Current Assignee
Toshiba Corporation

Sponsoring Entity
Toshiba Corporation

Lithography model for 3D resist profile simulations  
Patent #
US 9,235,662 B2
Filed 02/01/2013

Current Assignee
ASML Netherlands BV

Sponsoring Entity
ASML Netherlands BV

APPARATUS AND METHODS FOR PREDICTING WAFERLEVEL DEFECT PRINTABILITY  
Patent #
US 20160012579A1
Filed 08/10/2015

Current Assignee
KLATencor Corporation

Sponsoring Entity
KLATencor Corporation

Method for forming circular patterns on a surface  
Patent #
US 9,268,214 B2
Filed 11/24/2014

Current Assignee
D2S Inc.

Sponsoring Entity
D2S Inc.

Method and system for design of a reticle to be manufactured using variable shaped beam lithography  
Patent #
US 9,274,412 B2
Filed 09/08/2014

Current Assignee
D2S Inc.

Sponsoring Entity
D2S Inc.

Mask that provides improved focus control using orthogonal edges  
Patent #
US 9,310,674 B2
Filed 02/20/2014

Current Assignee
GlobalFoundries Inc.

Sponsoring Entity
GlobalFoundries Inc.

Method and system for forming a pattern on a reticle using charged particle beam lithography  
Patent #
US 9,323,140 B2
Filed 02/11/2014

Current Assignee
D2S Inc.

Sponsoring Entity
D2S Inc.

Method and system for dimensional uniformity using charged particle beam lithography  
Patent #
US 9,343,267 B2
Filed 07/14/2014

Current Assignee
D2S Inc.

Sponsoring Entity
D2S Inc.

Method and system for forming a pattern on a reticle using charged particle beam lithography  
Patent #
US 9,341,936 B2
Filed 02/11/2014

Current Assignee
D2S Inc.

Sponsoring Entity
D2S Inc.

MASK3D model accuracy enhancement for small feature coupling effect  
Patent #
US 9,348,964 B2
Filed 04/21/2014

Current Assignee
Synopsys Incorporated

Sponsoring Entity
Synopsys Incorporated

Integrated maskaware lithography modeling to support offaxis illumination and multitone masks  
Patent #
US 9,354,511 B2
Filed 12/06/2013

Current Assignee
Synopsys Incorporated

Sponsoring Entity
Synopsys Incorporated

THREEDIMENSIONAL COMPOSITE SOLID COMPONENT MODELING  
Patent #
US 20160171144A1
Filed 01/29/2015

Current Assignee
Mentor Graphics Corporation

Sponsoring Entity
Mentor Graphics Corporation

Threedimensional mask model for photolithography simulation  
Patent #
US 9,372,957 B2
Filed 01/20/2015

Current Assignee
ASML Netherlands BV

Sponsoring Entity
ASML Netherlands BV

Method and system for forming patterns using charged particle beam lithography with variable pattern dosage  
Patent #
US 9,372,391 B2
Filed 07/25/2015

Current Assignee
D2S Inc.

Sponsoring Entity
D2S Inc.

Method and system for forming patterns using charged particle beam lithography  
Patent #
US 9,400,857 B2
Filed 04/15/2013

Current Assignee
D2S Inc.

Sponsoring Entity
D2S Inc.

Method for fracturing and forming a pattern using shaped beam charged particle beam lithography  
Patent #
US 9,448,473 B2
Filed 12/15/2015

Current Assignee
D2S Inc.

Sponsoring Entity
D2S Inc.

Method and system for forming patterns with charged particle beam lithography  
Patent #
US 9,465,297 B2
Filed 05/18/2015

Current Assignee
D2S Inc.

Sponsoring Entity
D2S Inc.

Apparatus and methods for predicting waferlevel defect printability  
Patent #
US 9,547,892 B2
Filed 08/10/2015

Current Assignee
KLATencor Corporation

Sponsoring Entity
KLATencor Corporation

Method and system for design of enhanced edge slope patterns for charged particle beam lithography  
Patent #
US 9,612,530 B2
Filed 03/11/2016

Current Assignee
D2S Inc.

Sponsoring Entity
D2S Inc.

Method and system for forming patterns using charged particle beam lithography with variable pattern dosage  
Patent #
US 9,625,809 B2
Filed 06/16/2016

Current Assignee
D2S Inc.

Sponsoring Entity
D2S Inc.

METHOD FOR THREEDIMENSIONALLY MEASURING A 3D AERIAL IMAGE OF A LITHOGRAPHY MASK  
Patent #
US 20170132782A1
Filed 01/20/2017

Current Assignee
CARL Zeiss SMT GmbH

Sponsoring Entity
CARL Zeiss SMT GmbH

Method and system for forming a pattern on a reticle using charged particle beam lithography  
Patent #
US 9,715,169 B2
Filed 05/17/2016

Current Assignee
D2S Inc.

Sponsoring Entity
D2S Inc.

Lithography model for 3D topographic wafers  
Patent #
US 9,835,955 B2
Filed 08/08/2012

Current Assignee
ASML Netherlands BV

Sponsoring Entity
ASML Netherlands BV

Method and system for dimensional uniformity using charged particle beam lithography  
Patent #
US 9,859,100 B2
Filed 05/17/2016

Current Assignee
D2S Inc.

Sponsoring Entity
D2S Inc.

METHOD AND DEVICE FOR GENERATING A REFERENCE IMAGE IN THE CHARACTERIZATION OF A MASK FOR MICROLITHOGRAPHY  
Patent #
US 20180129131A1
Filed 11/09/2017

Current Assignee
CARL Zeiss SMT GmbH

Sponsoring Entity
CARL Zeiss SMT GmbH

METHOD OF MODELING A MASK HAVING PATTERNS WITH ARBITRARY ANGLES  
Patent #
US 20180149967A1
Filed 08/02/2017

Current Assignee
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited

Sponsoring Entity
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited

METHOD OF MODELING A MASK BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT OF MASK PATTERN EDGE INTERACTION  
Patent #
US 20180150578A1
Filed 05/10/2017

Current Assignee
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited

Sponsoring Entity
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited

Flows of optimization for lithographic processes  
Patent #
US 10,025,201 B2
Filed 02/13/2015

Current Assignee
ASML Netherlands BV

Sponsoring Entity
ASML Netherlands BV

Method and system for forming patterns using charged particle beam lithography  
Patent #
US 10,031,413 B2
Filed 07/25/2016

Current Assignee
D2S Inc.

Sponsoring Entity
D2S Inc.

Method for threedimensionally measuring a 3D aerial image of a lithography mask  
Patent #
US 10,068,325 B2
Filed 01/20/2017

Current Assignee
CARL Zeiss SMT GmbH

Sponsoring Entity
CARL Zeiss SMT GmbH

Method and system for forming a pattern on a reticle using charged particle beam lithography  
Patent #
US 10,101,648 B2
Filed 07/20/2017

Current Assignee
D2S Inc.

Sponsoring Entity
D2S Inc.

Threedimensional mask model for photolithography simulation  
Patent #
US 10,198,549 B2
Filed 06/06/2016

Current Assignee
ASML Netherlands BV

Sponsoring Entity
ASML Netherlands BV

Simulating near field image in optical lithography  
Patent #
US 10,209,615 B2
Filed 05/26/2017

Current Assignee
ASML US LLC

Sponsoring Entity
ASML US LLC

Method of Mask Simulation Model for OPC and Mask Making  
Patent #
US 20190094680A1
Filed 11/15/2017

Current Assignee
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited

Sponsoring Entity
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited

Threedimensional composite solid component modeling  
Patent #
US 10,296,693 B2
Filed 01/29/2015

Current Assignee
Mentor Graphics Corporation

Sponsoring Entity
Mentor Graphics Corporation

Apparatus and methods for predicting waferlevel defect printability  
Patent #
US 10,304,180 B2
Filed 07/03/2017

Current Assignee
KLATencor Corporation

Sponsoring Entity
KLATencor Corporation

Lithography model for threedimensional patterning device  
Patent #
US 10,359,704 B2
Filed 02/04/2014

Current Assignee
ASML Netherlands BV

Sponsoring Entity
ASML Netherlands BV

Apparatus and methods for inspecting reticles  
Patent #
US 10,395,361 B2
Filed 11/03/2017

Current Assignee
KLATencor Corporation

Sponsoring Entity
KLATencor Corporation

Method and device for generating a reference image in the characterization of a mask for microlithography  
Patent #
US 10,429,731 B2
Filed 11/09/2017

Current Assignee
CARL Zeiss SMT GmbH

Sponsoring Entity
CARL Zeiss SMT GmbH

Method and system for dimensional uniformity using charged particle beam lithography  
Patent #
US 10,431,422 B2
Filed 12/13/2017

Current Assignee
D2S Inc.

Sponsoring Entity
D2S Inc.

Flows of optimization for lithographic processes  
Patent #
US 10,459,346 B2
Filed 07/16/2018

Current Assignee
ASML Netherlands BV

Sponsoring Entity
ASML Netherlands BV

Method of modeling a mask having patterns with arbitrary angles  
Patent #
US 10,466,586 B2
Filed 08/02/2017

Current Assignee
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited

Sponsoring Entity
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited

Method of mask simulation model for OPC and mask making  
Patent #
US 10,495,967 B2
Filed 11/15/2017

Current Assignee
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited

Sponsoring Entity
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited

Imaging optical unit for a metrology system for examining a lithography mask  
Patent #
US 10,606,048 B2
Filed 01/20/2017

Current Assignee
CARL Zeiss SMT GmbH

Sponsoring Entity
CARL Zeiss SMT GmbH

Method for threedimensionally measuring a 3D aerial image of a lithography mask  
Patent #
US 10,634,886 B2
Filed 07/27/2018

Current Assignee
CARL Zeiss SMT GmbH

Sponsoring Entity
CARL Zeiss SMT GmbH

Method of modeling a mask by taking into account of mask pattern edge interaction  
Patent #
US 10,671,786 B2
Filed 05/10/2017

Current Assignee
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited

Sponsoring Entity
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited

Integrated maskaware lithography modeling to support offaxis illumination and multitone masks  
Patent #
US 10,691,015 B2
Filed 05/31/2016

Current Assignee
Synopsys Incorporated

Sponsoring Entity
Synopsys Incorporated

SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MASK VERIFICATION USING AN INDIVIDUAL MASK ERROR MODEL  
Patent #
US 20070061772A1
Filed 09/08/2006

Current Assignee
ASML Netherlands BV

Sponsoring Entity
Brion Technologies Incorporated

System and method for lithography simulation  
Patent #
US 7,003,758 B2
Filed 04/01/2004

Current Assignee
ASML Netherlands BV

Sponsoring Entity
Brion Technologies Incorporated

23 Claims
 1. A lithography simulation system, comprising:
a threedimensional mask model of a type of photolithography mask, comprising; a correction factor configured to modify the Fourier transform of a thinmask transmission function of a mask; a correction factor configured to modify the Fourier transform of a horizontal maskedge function of the mask; a correction factor configured to modify the Fourier transform of a vertical maskedge function of the mask; and a correction factor configured to modify the Fourier transform of a maskcorner function of the mask, wherein the correction factors collectively represent the effects of the topography of the type of photolithography mask on light passing through a mask of that type; and a software tool adapted to use the model to simulate an image produced by a lithographic tool using the mask.  View Dependent Claims (2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
 7. A lithography simulation system, comprising:
a threedimensional mask model of a type of photolithography mask, comprising; a linear filtering kernel configured to be convolved with a mask layout image; a bilinear filtering kernel configured to be convolved with a square of a derivative of the mask layout image; and a bilinear filtering kernel configured to be convolved with a square of another derivative of the mask layout image, wherein the linear filtering kernel and the bilinear filtering kernels collectively represent the effects of the topography of the type of photolithography mask on light passing through a mask of that type; and a software tool adapted to use the model to simulate an image produced by a lithographic tool using the mask.  View Dependent Claims (8, 9, 10, 11)
 12. A computerimplemented method for creating a threedimensional mask model, comprising:
rigorously simulating the effect of light passing through a mask using threedimensional mask topography information to produce a theoretical image; determining initial filtering kernels for a threedimensional mask model using the theoretical image; and modifying the initial filtering kernels until a total difference between the theoretical image and a simulated image is minimized or below a predetermined threshold to produce final filtering kernels, wherein the final filtering kernels are configured to be convolved with thinmask transmission functions to produce a nearfield image and wherein the simulating, determining and modifying steps are implemented using the computer.  View Dependent Claims (13, 14, 15, 16, 17)
 18. A computerimplemented method for creating a threedimensional mask model, comprising:
rigorously simulating the effect of light passing through a mask using threedimensional mask topography information to produce a theoretical image; determining initial correction factors for a threedimensional mask model using the theoretical image; and modifying the initial correction factors until a total difference between the theoretical image and a simulated image is minimized to produce final correction factors, wherein the final correction factors are configured to be multiplied by a Fourier transform of thinmask transmission functions to produce a nearfield image and wherein the simulating, determining and modifying steps are implemented using the computer.  View Dependent Claims (19, 20, 21)
 22. A computer program product comprising a computer storage medium for storing instructions for performing:
determining initial filtering kernels for a threedimensional mask model using a theoretical image produced by rigorously simulating the effect of light passing through a mask using threedimensional mask topography information; and modifying the initial filtering kernels until a total difference between the theoretical image and a simulated image is minimized or below a predetermined threshold to produce final filtering kernels, wherein the final filtering kernels are configured to be convolved with thinmask transmission functions to produce a nearfield image.
 23. A computer program product comprising a computer storage medium for storing instructions for performing:
determining initial correction factors for a threedimensional mask model using a theoretical image produced by rigorously simulating the effect of light passing through a mask using threedimensional mask topography information; and modifying the initial correction factors until a total difference between the theoretical image and a simulated image is minimized to produce final correction factors, wherein the final correction factors are configured to be multiplied by a Fourier transform of thinmask transmission functions to produce a nearfield image.
1 Specification
This invention relates generally to simulating photolithography processes and relates more particularly to methods for threedimensional mask modeling.
The integrated circuit industry has, since its inception, maintained a remarkable growth rate by driving increased device functionality at lower cost. One of the primary enabling factors of this growth has been the ability of optical lithography to steadily decrease the smallest feature size that can be formed as part of the integrated circuit pattern. The steady decline in feature size and cost and the corresponding increase in the density of features printed per circuit are commonly referred to as “Moore'"'"'s Law” or the lithography “roadmap.”
The lithography process involves creating a master image on a mask or reticle (mask and reticle are used interchangeably herein), then projecting an image from the mask onto a resistcovered substrate in order to create a pattern that matches the design intent of defining functional elements, such as transistor gates, contacts, etc., on the device wafer. The more times a master pattern is successfully replicated within the design specifications, the lower the cost per finished device or “chip” will be. Until recently, the mask pattern has been an almost exact duplicate of the desired pattern at the wafer level, with the exception that the mask level pattern may be several times larger than the wafer level pattern, due to an imaging reduction ratio of the exposure tool. The mask pattern is typically formed by depositing and patterning a lightabsorbing material on quartz or another transparent substrate. The mask is then placed in an exposure tool known as a “stepper” or “scanner” where light of a specific exposure wavelength is directed through the mask onto the wafers. The light is transmitted through clear areas of the mask, but is attenuated by a desired amount, typically between 90 and 100%, in the areas covered by the absorbing layer. The light that passes through some regions of the mask may also be phase shifted by a desired phase angle, typically an integer multiple of 180 degrees. After being collected by the projection optics of the exposure tool, the resulting aerial image pattern is then focused onto the wafers. A lightsensitive material (photoresist or resist) deposited on the wafer surface interacts with the light to form the desired pattern on the wafer, and the pattern is then transferred into the underlying layers on the wafer to form functional electrical circuits according to wellknown processes.
In recent years, the feature sizes being patterned have become significantly smaller than the wavelength of light used to transfer the pattern. This trend towards “subwavelength lithography” has resulted in increasing difficulty in maintaining adequate process margins in the lithography process. The aerial images created by the mask and exposure tool lose contrast and sharpness as the ratio of feature size to wavelength decreases. This ratio is quantified by the k1 factor, defined as the numerical aperture of the exposure tool times the minimum feature size divided by the wavelength. There is limited practical flexibility in choosing the exposure wavelength, while the numerical aperture of exposure tools is approaching physical limits. Consequently, the continuous reduction in device feature sizes requires more and more aggressive reduction of the k1 factor in lithographic processes, i.e. imaging at or below the classical resolution limits of an optical imaging system.
Methods to enable lowk1 lithography have used master patterns on the mask that are no longer exact copies of the final wafer level pattern. The mask pattern is often adjusted in terms of the size and placement of features as a function of pattern density or pitch. Other techniques involve the addition or subtraction of extra corners on the mask features (“serifs,” “hammerheads,” and other patterns) and the addition of other geometries that are not intended to be printed on the wafer at all. These nonprinting “assist features,” the sole purpose of which is to enhance the printability of the “main features,” may include scattering bars, holes, rings, checkerboards or “zebra stripes” to change the background light intensity (“gray scaling”), and other structures that are well documented in the literature. All of these methods are often referred to collectively as “Optical Proximity Correction” or OPC. With decreasing k1, the magnitude of proximity effects increases dramatically. In current highend designs, more and more device layers require OPC, and almost every feature edge requires some amount of adjustment in order to ensure that the printed pattern will reasonably resemble the design intent. The implementation and verification of such extensive OPC application is only made possible by detailed fullchip computational lithography process modeling, and the process is generally referred to as modelbased OPC. (See “FullChip Lithography Simulation and Design Analysis—How OPC Is Changing IC Design,” C. Spence, Proc. SPIE, Vol. 5751, pp. 114 (2005) and “Exploring New High Speed, Mask Aware RET Verification Flows,” P. Martin et al., Proc. SPIE 5853, pp. 114123, (2005)).
The mask may also be altered by the addition of phaseshifting regions which may or may not be replicated on the wafer. A large variety of phaseshifting techniques has been described at length in the literature including alternating aperture shifters, double expose masking processes, multiple phase transitions, and attenuating phase shifting masks. Masks formed by these methods are known as “PhaseShifting Masks,” or PSMs. All of these techniques to increase the normalized image log slope (NILS) at low k1, including OPC, PSM and others, are referred to collectively as “Resolution Enhancement Technologies,” or RET. The result of all of these RETs, which are often applied to the mask in various combinations, is that the final pattern formed at the wafer level is no longer a simple replicate of the mask level pattern. In fact, it is becoming impossible to simply look at the mask pattern and determine what the final wafer pattern is supposed to look like. This greatly increases the difficulty in verifying that the design data is correct before the mask is made and wafers exposed, as well as verifying that the RETs have been applied correctly and the mask meets its target specifications.
The cost of manufacturing advanced mask sets is steadily increasing. Currently, the cost has already exceeded one million dollars per mask set for an advanced device. In addition, the turnaround time is always a critical concern. As a result, computer simulations of the lithography process, which assist in reducing both the cost and turnaround time, have become an integral part of semiconductor manufacturing. A fast and accurate approach has been described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,003,758, entitled “System and Method for Lithography Simulation,” the subject matter of which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety, and is referred to herein as the “lithography simulation system.”
As shown in
As described above, numerous modifications to this design layout are required to create the patterns on the mask or reticle used to print the desired structures. A variety of RET methods are applied to the design layout in order to approximate the design intent in the actually printed patterns. The resulting “postRET” mask layout differs significantly from the “preRET” design layout. Both the pre and postRET layouts may be provided to the simulation system in a polygonbased hierarchical data file in, e.g., the GDS or the OASIS format.
The actual mask will further differ from the geometrical, idealized, and polygonbased mask layout because of fundamental physical limitations as well as imperfections of the mask manufacturing process. These limitations and imperfections include, e.g., corner rounding due to finite spatial resolution of the mask writing tool, possible linewidth biases or offsets, and proximity effects similar to the effects experienced in projection onto the wafer substrate. The true physical properties of the mask may be approximated in a mask model to various degrees of complexity as described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/530,402. Masktype specific properties, such as attenuation, phaseshifting design, etc., need be captured by the mask model. The lithography simulation system described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,003,758 may, e.g., utilize an image/pixelbased grayscale representation to describe the actual mask properties.
One of the most important inputs to any lithography simulation system is the model for the interaction between the illuminating electric field and the mask. The thinmask approximation is widely used in most lithography simulation systems. The thinmask approximation, also called the Kirchhoff boundary condition, assumes that the thickness of the structures on the mask is very small compared with the wavelength and that the widths of the structures on the mask are very large compared with the wavelength. Therefore, the thinmask approximation assumes the electromagnetic field after mask is the multiplication of the incident field with the mask transmission function. That is, the mask transmits light in an ideal way, different regions on the mask transmit the electric field with the ideal transmittance and phase, and the transition region between different types of structures is a step function. The advantages of the thinmask model are simple, fast, and reasonably accurate calculations for feature sizes much larger than the source wavelength.
A central part of lithography simulation is the optical model, which simulates the projection and image forming process in the exposure tool. The optical model needs to incorporate critical parameters of the illumination and projection system: numerical aperture and partial coherence settings, illumination wavelength, illuminator source shape, and possibly imperfections of the system such as aberrations or flare. The projection system and various optical effects, e.g., highNA diffraction, scalar or vector, polarization, and thinfilm multiple reflection, may be modeled by transmission cross coefficients (TCCs). The TCCs may be decomposed into convolution kernels, using an eigenseries expansion. For computation speed, the series is usually truncated based on the ranking of eigenvalues, resulting in a finite set of kernels. The more kernels are kept, the less error is introduced by the truncation. The lithography simulation system described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,003,758 allows for optical simulations using a very large number of convolution kernels without negative impact on computation time and therefore enables highly accurate optical modeling. (See also “Optimized Hardware and Software for Fast, Full Chip Simulation,” Y. Cao et al., Proc. SPIE Vol. 5754, 407 (2005)).
Further, in order to predict shapes and sizes of structures formed on a substrate, a resist model is used to simulate the effect of projected light interacting with the photosensitive resist layer and the subsequent postexposure bake (PEB) and development process. A distinction can be made between firstprinciple simulation approaches that attempt to predict threedimensional resist structures by evaluating the threedimensional light distribution in resist, as well as microscopic, physical, or chemical effects such as molecular diffusion and reaction within that layer. On the other hand, all “fast” simulation approaches that may allow fullchip simulation currently restrict themselves to more empirical resist models that employ as an input a twodimensional aerial image provided by the optical model part of the simulation system. This separation between the optical model and the resist model being coupled by an aerial image is schematically indicated in
Finally, the output of the simulation process will provide information on the predicted shapes and sizes of printed features on the wafer, such as predicted critical dimensions (CDs) and contours. Such predictions allow a quantitative evaluation of the lithographic printing process and on whether the process will produce the intended results.
As lithography processes entered below the 65 nm node, 4× reticles for leadingedge chip designs have minimum feature sizes smaller than the wavelength of light used in advanced exposure tools. The thinmask approximation, however, is very inaccurate at subwavelength dimensions where topographic effects (also called thickmask effects) arising from the vector nature of light become noticeable. These effects include polarization dependence due to the different boundary conditions for the electric and magnetic fields, transmission and phase error in small openings, edge diffraction (or scattering) effects or electromagnetic coupling. (See “Limitation of the Kirchhoff boundary conditions for aerial image simulation in 157 nm optical lithography,” M. S. Yeung and E. Barouch, IEEE Electron Devices Letter, Vol. 21, No. 9, pp. 433435, (2000) and “Mask topography effects in projection printing of phaseshifting masks,” A. K. Wong and A. R. Neureuther, IEEE Trans. On Electron Devices, Vol. 41, No. 6, pp. 895902, (1994)). Consequently, resourceconsuming rigorous 3D electromagnetic field simulation has become necessary in aerial image formation of a thickmask, e.g., a PSM mask. However, software that implements such rigorous 3D electromagnetic field simulation often runs extremely slow and hence is limited to extremely small areas of a chip design layout (on the order of a few square microns). Software tools in this category include “SOLIDE” from SigmaE (Santa Clara, Calif., USA), “Prolith” from KLATencor (San Jose, Calif., USA), and “EMSuite” from Panoramic Technology (San Francisco, Calif., USA). These software tools are not viable for fullchip lithography modeling. Some efforts have been made to address mask 3D effects recently for fullchip lithography modeling. Two major approaches in the literature are the domain decomposition method (DDM) and the boundary layer model (BLM). (See “Simplified Models for EDGE Transitions in Rigorous Mask Modeling,” K. Adam, A. R. Neureuther, Proc. of SPIE, Vol. 4346, pp. 331344, (2001) and “Boundary Layer Model to Account for Thick Mask Effects in PhotoLithography,” J. TirapuAzpiroz, P. Burchard, and E. Yablonovitch, Optical Microlithography XVI, Anthony Yen, Ed., Proc. of SPIE, Vol. 5040, pp. 16111619, (2003)).
The DDM is based on the idea that the near field characteristics of complex masks are equivalent to the superposition of the diffraction of other masks that comprised the original mask. A particular form of DDM, the edgeDDM, includes three steps. First, all types of edge structures that will be encountered in any mask design data are identified and for each edge structure, an electromagnetic spectrum is simulated using one of the existing rigorous 2D algorithms, e.g., FiniteDiscreteTimeDomain (FDTD) or Rigorous CoupledWaveguide Analysis (RCWA), to generated a library. Next, original mask design data are decomposed into a set of edge structures and its corresponding electromagnetic spectrum is selected from the presimulated library. Finally, all selected spectra are combined based on the decomposition information to form a synthesized, approximate near electric field distribution for the original mask design data. The main advantage of edgeDDM is that it provides a simple method to simulate any arbitrary, “Manhattan” structure to an accuracy level equal to rigorous thick mask simulations with a speed that can be extended to full chip mask calculations. There are, however, two major limitations with implementing edgeDDM. First, electromagnetic crosstalk between adjacent and connecting edges will grow as mask dimension continue to shrink. These nonlinear crosstalking effects cannot be taken into account by edgeDDM because the mask structure can no longer be treated as linear combinations of scattering effects from isolated edge components. The other problem is that more high scattered orders will be collected by the imaging system when both high angle offaxis illumination and larger numerical apertures are utilized for mask inspection. (See “Domain decomposition methods for simulation of printing and inspection of phase defects,” M. Lam, K. Adam, and A. Neureuther, Optical Microlithography XVI, Anthony Yen, Ed., Proc. of SPIE, Vol. 5040, pp. 14921501, (2003)).
Alternatively, TirapuAzpiroz et al. proposed the boundary layer model to alternating phaseshifting masks by adding local perturbations (in the form of local rectangular functions with adjustable width, transmission and phase) near the edges of the phase shifting region. Bai has applied the boundary layer model to effectively approximate the 3D mask effect of alternating aperture phaseshifting mask (AAPSM). (See “Approximation of Three Dimensional Mask Effects with Two Dimensional Features,” M. Bai, et al., Emerging Lithographic Technologies IX, R. Scott Mackay, Ed., Proc. SPIE, Vol. 5751, pp. 446454, (2005)). Unlike the models relying simply on the thinmask model, the boundary layer model incorporates topographic effects and polarization dependencies of the field transmitted by the mask and can account for nonlinear interaction effects from nearby edges. It is almost a complete empirical approach, with no firstprinciple components and every parameter of the boundary layer structure is based on calibration of a particular mask structure that the boundary layer is attached to.
While both methods have demonstrated some successes, their disadvantages, such as inability to take into account crosstalking effects or inability to systematically generate a mask 3D model, have limited their use to more general mask features. Furthermore, both methods are either polygonbased or edgebased approaches that are not suitable for implementing into a highspeed parallel image computing system, such as the system described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,003,758. As a result, there exists a strong need for methods to create a very fast and very accurate imagingbased 3D mask model that includes mask polarization and edge scattering effects as well as supports partially polarized illumination. Such an imagingbased 3D mask model should be easily implemented into a fullchip lithography simulation system, such as the one described in U.S. Pat. No. 7,003,758.
A threedimensional mask model of the invention provides a more realistic approximation of the threedimensional effects of a photolithography mask with subwavelength features than a thinmask model. The threedimensional mask model is applied to mask layout data to produce a nearfield image that is then input into a photolithography simulation system. The threedimensional mask model provides better accuracy to predict patterning performance of a lithography process, to verify optical proximity corrections, or any other application of lithography simulation.
In one embodiment, the threedimensional mask model includes a set of filtering kernels in the spatial domain that are configured to be convolved with thinmask transmission functions to produce a nearfield image. The set of filtering kernels are created using rigorous electromagnetic field simulations of light passing through a calibration mask with a known topography. The set of filtering kernels is specific to a type of mask, for example a binary mask or phaseshifting mask, but is independent of any particular mask layout.
In another embodiment, the threedimensional mask model includes a set of correction factors in the frequency domain that are configured to be multiplied by the Fourier transform of thinmask transmission functions to produce a nearfield image. The set of correction factors are created using rigorous electromagnetic field simulations of light passing through a calibration mask with a known topography. The set of correction factors is specific to a type of mask, for example a binary mask or phaseshifting mask, but is independent of any particular mask layout.
In step 216, an optical model of the exposure tool and a resist model are obtained. In step 218, an aerial image is simulated using the nearfield mask image and the optical model. In step 220, the resist patterns on the wafer are simulated using the simulated aerial image and the resist model.
In step 312, the test mask is inspected to obtain mask 3D topography data, including the thickness of films on the mask. A variety of metrology tools can be used to inspect the test mask. These metrology tools include, but are not limited to, conventional optical mask inspection tools, critical dimension scanning electron microscopes (CDSEMs) or imaging SEMs, atomic force microscopes (AFMs) or scatterometry systems, or aerial image measurement system (AIMS) tools. The physical mask 3D topography data can also be obtained from an individual mask error model and postOPC layout data as described in U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/530,402, the subject matter of which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.
In step 314, the effect of light passing through the test mask is rigorously simulated using the mask 3D topography data from the test mask and wellknown equations describing the behavior of light (Maxwell'"'"'s equations) to generate theoretical image data. In one embodiment, the mask 3D topography data are input into a rigorous 3D electromagnetic field (EMF) solver software program and rigorous simulations of the nearfield complex field distribution are obtained. The EMF solver software can use any rigorous electromagnetic field algorithm, for example, a FiniteDiscreteTimeDomain (FDTD) algorithm or a RigorousCoupled Waveguide Analysis (RCWA) algorithm. The simulations typically assume that the light passing through the mask is a single plane wave. Different polarization conditions are applied to the rigorous simulations, for example, xpolarization and ypolarization or TEpolarization and TMpolarization. Any other polarization condition can be represented by a linear combination of x and ypolarizations or TE and TM polarizations.
Returning to
where M3x and M3y are the complex nearfield Ex and Ey field output with mask 3D effects considered (the filtered image), M is the image of the mask design layout,
is to produce a kind of “positive” pulse at feature edges, and Tx, Txx, and Txy are filtering kernels that need to be calibrated. All operations are based on graylevel images. Due to physical symmetry requirements, Tx and Ty are 90 degree rotations of each other, Txx and Tyy are 90 degree rotations of each other, and Txy and Tyx are 90 degree rotations of each other. Therefore, if the filtering kernels for M3x are calibrated, there is no need to calibrate filtering kernels for M3y. In step 320, the mask nearfield images are simulated by convolving the mask layout image and its derivative with the filtering kernels, Tx, Txx, and Txy according to Eqs. 1 and 2 to produce a filtered image.
In step 322, a total difference between the filtered image and the theoretical image is calculated to calibrate the filtering kernels of the 3D mask model, Tx, Txx, and Txy toward the rigorous 3D simulation results. In step 324, if the total difference between the filtered image and the theoretical image is minimized or below a predetermined threshold, the method continues with step 326. If the total difference between the filtered image and the theoretical image is not minimized or below the predetermined threshold, the method continues with step 328. In step 328 the filtering kernels Tx, Txx, and Txy are modified. The method then returns to step 320, and steps 320, 322, 324, and if needed, step 328 are repeated until the total difference between the filtered image and the theoretical image is minimized or below the predetermined threshold. In step 326, the current filtering kernels are chosen as the final filtering kernels for the 3D mask model.
In another embodiment, the spatialdomain form of the 3D mask model is represented by Eqs. 3 and 4, which use the combination of linear and bilinear kernels as in Eqs. 1 and 2 but does not require the calculation of mask image derivatives,
and
to model the mask transform:
M3_{x}=M{circle around (x)}T_{x}+α_{xx}*M{circle around (x)}T_{xx}^{2}+α_{xy}*M{circle around (x)}T_{xy}^{2} (3)
M3_{y}=M{circle around (x)}T_{y}+α_{yx}*M{circle around (x)}T_{yx}^{2}+α_{yy}*M{circle around (x)}T_{yy}^{2} (4)
The symmetry properties for the filtering kernels, Tx, Txx, Txy, are the same as in Eqs. 1 and 2, where square of derivatives are used. All filtering kernels are also x and y flip symmetric.
As shown in Eqs. 3 and 4, M3x computed from rigorous simulation can be decomposed into odd and even components, modeled by linear and bilinear kernels, respectively. The α coefficients are constants that may be complex.
A further optimization of the spatialdomain form of the 3D mask model is to combine Txx and Txy into one bilinear kernel. The benefit of this approach is not so much in speed, but in form and rotational properties. A combined bilinear kernel has enough degrees of freedom to accommodate many calibration patterns.
In step 416, a frequencydomain form of the 3D mask model is selected. The frequencydomain form of the 3D mask model has a compact mathematical representation and is capable of modeling corner scattering effects and featuretofeature interactions. The frequencydomain form of the 3D mask model also takes into account the nonHopkins oblique incidence effects of a mask.
The frequencydomain form of the 3D mask model for a given mask layout represents the Fourier transform of the mask'"'"'s transmitted electromagnetic field:
t_{3D}({right arrow over (f)})=c({right arrow over (f)})t({right arrow over (f)})+c_{H}({right arrow over (f)})t_{H}({right arrow over (f)})+c_{V}({right arrow over (f)})t_{V}({right arrow over (f)})+c_{C}({right arrow over (f)})t_{C}({right arrow over (f)}) (5)
where
t({right arrow over (f)})=Fourier transform of the original thin mask transmission function,
t_{H}({right arrow over (f)})=Fourier transform of the horizontal edge function,
t_{V}({right arrow over (f)})=Fourier transform of the vertical edge function,
t_{C}({right arrow over (f)})=Fourier transform of the corner function, and
{right arrow over (f)}=(f_{x},f_{y})=spatial frequencies.
The coefficients c({right arrow over (f)}), c_{H}({right arrow over (f)}), c_{V}({right arrow over (f)}) and c_{C}({right arrow over (f)}) are correction factors that modify the thinmask transmission function into a thickmask transmission function. The correction factors are also a function of polarization and incident angle, although not explicitly shown in Eq. 5. The correction factors are also dependent on the mask topography determined in step 412.
In step 418, the correction factors are calculated from the theoretical image data obtained from rigorous simulations. In step 420, the nearfield mask image is simulated using the 3D mask model to generate a filtered image. In step 422, a total difference between the filtered image and the theoretical image is calculated to calibrate the correction factors of the 3D mask model toward the rigorous 3D simulation results. In step 424, if the total difference between the filtered image and the theoretical image is minimized or below a predetermined threshold, the method continues with step 426. If the total difference between the filtered image and the theoretical image is not minimized or below the predetermined threshold, the method continues with step 428. In step 428 the correction factors are modified. The method then returns to step 420, and steps 420, 422, 424, and if needed, step 428 are repeated until the total difference between the filtered image and the theoretical image is minimized or below the predetermined threshold. In step 426, the current correction factors are chosen as the final correction factors for the 3D mask model.
Two embodiments of the frequencydomain form of the 3D mask model include oblique incidence effects in 3D masks within the framework of Hopkins'"'"'s TCC method. The first embodiment includes no additional approximations, but using it requires substantial changes to the optical model of the lithography process originally developed using a thin mask model. The second embodiment includes an additional approximation, but using it requires almost no change to the existing lithography simulation process and still offers improved accuracy over Hopkins'"'"'s treatment of oblique incidence.
In the first embodiment, the wafer image can be written in the following general form.
where
pol=polarization (the summation is over orthogonal components),
{right arrow over (f)}_{inc}=incident planewave spatial frequency,
s_{pol}({right arrow over (f)}_{inc})=source intensity,
{right arrow over (P)}_{pol}({right arrow over (f)})=generalized pupil function including all optical effects of the projection system.
It is assumed/approximated that an image produced by an illumination having a degree of polarization less than 100% can be modeled as an incoherent weighted sum of images produced by two orthogonal near fields at the mask.
Substituting Eq. 5 into Eq. 6 produces
where
t_{α}({right arrow over (f)}) or t_{β}({right arrow over (f)})=t({right arrow over (f)}), t_{H}({right arrow over (f)}), t_{V}({right arrow over (f)}) or t_{C}({right arrow over (f)}) (8)
Threedimensional thick mask scattering effects and oblique incidence effects are included in the transmission crosscoefficients (TCCs) of the optical model, and there are two kinds of TCCs in Eq. 9. The first is Hermitian where α=β, and the other is nonHermitian where α≠β. For terms having Hermitian TCC'"'"'s, the method of classical sum of coherent systems can be used to compute their image contributions. For nonHermitian terms, an eigendecomposition can be done on the system but will produce two sets of eigenvectors—left and right eigenvectors, with left eigenvectors orthogonal to right eigenvectors and vice versa. Therefore, each term'"'"'s image contribution can be written as a sum of generalized coherent systems. (Each “generalized coherent system” gives rise to a pseudointensity distribution equal to the product of “left” and “right” amplitudes. These amplitudes are the result of the mask convolved with “left” and “right” complex filters, and are different from each other.) Although each individual term αβ(α≠β) is generally complex, it always has a counter part (obtained by exchanging index α and β) which is its complex conjugate. Therefore the total image is always real.
If t_{H}({right arrow over (f)}), t_{V}({right arrow over (f)}) and t_{C}({right arrow over (f)}) are viewed as perturbations to the thin mask, then for first order approximation their cross terms are kept with the thin mask t({right arrow over (f)}). Keeping the second order terms (cross terms between t_{H}({right arrow over (f)}), t_{V}({right arrow over (f)}) and t_{C}({right arrow over (f)})) allows for capture of featuretofeature interactions due to 3D scattering.
In the second embodiment of the frequencydomain form of the 3D mask model including oblique incidence effects, Eq. 6 is approximated using an effective transmission function {tilde over (t)}_{3D}({right arrow over (f)}):
Once the effective transmission function is obtained, the wafer image can be simulated using existing lithography simulation systems designed for a thin mask model without any changes. Accordingly, Eq. 5 becomes
{tilde over (t)}_{3D}({right arrow over (f)})={tilde over (c)}({right arrow over (f)})t({right arrow over (f)})+{tilde over (c)}_{H}({right arrow over (f)})t_{H}({right arrow over (f)})+{tilde over (c)}_{V}({right arrow over (f)})t_{V}({right arrow over (f)})+{tilde over (c)}_{C}({right arrow over (f)})t_{C}({right arrow over (f)}) (11)
The key to this embodiment is finding the effective transmission function {tilde over (t)}_{3D}({right arrow over (f)}) or equivalently, the effective correction factors {tilde over (c)}({right arrow over (f)}), {tilde over (c)}_{H}({right arrow over (f)}), {tilde over (c)}_{V}({right arrow over (f)}) and {tilde over (c)}_{C}({right arrow over (f)}) in Eq. 11, such that the difference between the approximation, Eq. 10, and the true image, Eq. 6, is minimized. The problem becomes similar to an inverse lithography problem. It is reasonable to assume that the effective transmission function is in the neighborhood of the transmission function of normal incidence otherwise the result may not be physical. Therefore a gradient method combined with a linear programming technique can be used to solve the inverse problem. In this embodiment, effects from a plane wave and oblique waves are included in the rigorous simulations used to determine the initial effective correction factors.
In computational lithography simulation, the output of the simulation process will provide information on the predicted shapes and sizes of printed features on the wafer, such as predicted critical dimensions (CDs) and contours. Such predictions allow a quantitative evaluation of the lithographic printing process and on whether the process will produce the intended results. Therefore, accurate CD predictions highly depend on the accuracy of the models used in the lithography simulation. The imagebased 3D mask model provides more accurate CD prediction that a conventional thinmask model.
The invention has been described above with reference to specific embodiments. It will, however, be evident that various modifications and changes may be made thereto without departing from the broader spirit and scope of the invention as set forth in the appended claims. The foregoing description and drawings are, accordingly, to be regarded in an illustrative rather than a restrictive sense.