Scanner Based Optical Proximity Correction System and Method of Use

• US 20100058263A1
• Filed: 01/16/2008
• Published: 03/04/2010
• Est. Priority Date: 01/18/2007
• Status: Active Grant

• Current Assignee: Nikon Corporation, Nikon Precision Incorporated (Nikon Corporation)
• Original Assignee: Nikon Corporation, Nikon Precision Incorporated (Nikon Corporation)
• Inventors: Tyminski, Jacek, Matsuyama, Tomoyuki, Popescu, Raluca
• Granted Patent: US 8,365,107 B2
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 716/106
• CPC Class Codes: G03F 1/36 Masks having proximity correction features; Preparation thereof, e.g. optical proximity correction [OPC] design processes
• CPC Class Codes: G03F 1/68 Preparation processes not covered by groups G03F1/20 - G03F1/50
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 30/00 Computer-aided design [CAD]
• CPC Class Codes: G06F 30/398 Design verification or optimisation, e.g. using design rule check [DRC], layout versus schematics [LVS] or finite element methods [FEM] optical proximity correction [OPC] design processes G03F1/36

Abstract

A modeling technique is provided. The modeling technique includes inputting tool parameters into a model and inputting basic model parameters into the model. The technique further includes generating a simulated, corrected reticle design using the tool parameters and the basic model parameters. An image of test patterns is compared against the simulated, corrected reticle design. A determination is made as to whether δ₁<ε-₁, wherein δ₁ represents model vs. exposure difference and ε-₁ represents predetermined criteria. The technique further includes completing the model when δ₁<ε-₁.

Claims

1. A modeling method, comprising:

inputting tool parameters into a model;

inputting basic model parameters into the model;

generating a simulated, corrected reticle design using the tool parameters and the basic model parameters;

comparing an image of test patterns against the simulated, corrected reticle design;

determining whether model vs. exposure difference (δ

₁) is less than predetermined criteria (ε

₁); and

completing the model when the model vs. exposure difference is less than the predetermined criteria.

2. The modeling method of claim 1, wherein the predetermined criteria are at least a desired accuracy of the model.

3. The modeling method of claim 1, wherein the simulated, corrected reticle design is representative of a reticle design used to provide a target layout for imaging ground rules of an intended design.

4. The modeling method of claim 1, wherein when δ

_i>

ε

₁, at least one of the basic model parameters and tool parameters are changed and input into the model, which eliminates a number of iterations.

5. The modeling method of claim 1, further comprising inputting reticle design data which represents a design of layouts to be imaged.

6. The modeling method of claim 5, further comprising making a prediction through the model and providing exposure results of a reticle design and comparing the prediction made through the model and the exposure results.

7. The modeling method of claim 6, wherein one of:

δ

₂<

ε

₂, the reticle design is complete; and

δ

₂>

ε

₂, the reticle is redesigned and IC layout patterns are corrected.

8. The modeling method of claim 1, wherein the tool parameters include:

(i) illuminator details;

(ii) lens signature as defined in terms of Jones Matrix Map representing lens signature;

(iii) local and global flare data;

(iv) longitudinal chromatic aberrations;

(v) Illuminator spectrum; and

(iv) transverse and longitudinal synchronization errors.

9. The modeling method of claim 8, wherein the tool parameters further include at least one of (i) NA error;

(ii) Sigma error; and

(iii) thermal aberration.

10. The modeling method of claim 1, further comprising conducting an optical proximity effect (OPE) sensitivity analysis in order to determine which tool parameters are to be used in the model.

11. The modeling method of claim 1, wherein the basic model parameters include at least one of generic test reticle data, illuminator data, numerical aperture data, feature biasing data and non-printable sub-resolution assist features, (SRAF).

12. A system for deploying an application for modeling a design layout, comprising:

a computer infrastructure operable to;

generate a simulated, corrected reticle design using tool parameters and basic model parameters;

compare an image of test patterns against the simulated, corrected reticle design;

compare model vs. exposure difference with predetermined criteria; and

complete the model when the model vs. exposure difference is less than the predetermined criteria.

13. The system of claim 12, wherein the predetermined criteria are at least a desired accuracy of the model.

14. The system of claim 12, wherein the simulated, corrected reticle design is representative of a reticle design used to provide a target layout for imaging ground rules of an intended design.

15. The system of claim 12, wherein, when the model vs. exposure difference is greater than the predetermined criteria, at least one of the basic model parameters and tool parameters are iteratively changed and input into the model.

16. The system of claim 12, wherein the computer infrastructure is further operable to make a prediction through the model and provide exposure results of the reticle design, and compare the prediction made through the model and the exposure results to complete the reticle design.

17. The system of claim 12, wherein:

the tool the parameters include;

(i) illuminator details;

(ii) lens signature as defined in terms of Jones Matrix Map representing lens signature;

(iii) local and global flare data;

(iv) longitudinal chromatic aberrations;

(v) Illuminator spectrum; and

(iv) transverse and longitudinal synchronization errors; and

the basic model parameters include at least one of generic test reticle data, illuminator data, numerical aperture data, feature biasing data and non-printable sub-resolution assist features, (SRAF).

18. The system of claim 17, wherein the tool parameters further include at least one of (i) NA error;

(ii) Sigma error; and

(iii) thermal aberration.

19. The system of claim 12, wherein the computer infrastructure is further operable to conduct an optical proximity effect (OPE) sensitivity analysis in order to determine which tool parameters are to be used in the model.

20. An exposure apparatus, comprising at least one module configured to:

generate a simulated, corrected reticle design using tool parameters and basic model parameters;

compare an image of test patterns against the simulated, corrected reticle design;

compare model vs. exposure difference with predetermined criteria; and

complete the model when the model vs. exposure difference is less than the predetermined criteria.

21. The exposure apparatus of claim 20, wherein, when the model vs. exposure difference is greater than the predetermined criteria, at least one of the basic model parameters and tool parameters are changed and input into the model.

22. The exposure apparatus of claim 20, wherein:

the tool the parameters include a combination of any;

(i) illuminator details;

(ii) lens signature as defined in terms of Jones Matrix Map representing lens signature;

(iii) local and global flare data;

(iv) longitudinal chromatic aberrations;

(v) Illuminator spectrum; and

(iv) transverse and longitudinal synchronization errors;

(v) NA error;

(vi) Sigma error; and

(vii) thermal aberration; and

the basic model parameters include at least one of generic test reticle data, illuminator data, numerical aperture data, feature biasing data and non-printable sub-resolution assist features, (SRAF).

23. The exposure apparatus of claim 21, further comprising a computer infrastructure operable to conduct an optical proximity effect (OPE) sensitivity analysis in order to determine which tool parameters are to be used in the model.

24. A method of providing a model, comprising:

generating a simulated, corrected reticle design using tool parameters and basic model parameters;

comparing an image of test patterns against the simulated, corrected reticle design;

iteratively comparing model vs. exposure difference and predetermined criteria; and

changing at least one of tool parameters and basic model parameters until the model vs. exposure difference is less than the predetermined criteria in the comparing.

25. A computer program product comprising a computer usable medium having readable program code embodied in the medium, the computer program product includes at least one component to:

generate a simulated, corrected reticle design using tool parameters and basic model parameters; and

iteratively changing at least one of the tool parameters and basic model parameters and compare model vs. exposure difference with predetermined criteria until the model vs. exposure difference is less than the predetermined criteria.

26. The computer program product of claim 25, wherein the computer usable medium having readable program code embodied in the medium is encrypted.

27. The computer program product of claim 25, wherein the tool parameters include one or more of the following:

(i) illuminator details;

(ii) lens signature as defined in terms of Jones Matrix Map representing lens signature;

(iii) local and global flare data;

(iv) longitudinal chromatic aberrations;

(v) Illuminator spectrum; and

(iv) transverse and longitudinal synchronization errors.

28. The computer program product of claim 27, wherein the tool parameters further include at least one of (i) NA error;

(ii) Sigma error; and

(iii) thermal aberration.

29. A method, comprising:

modifying a simulated reticle design using basic model parameters and tool parameters of a predetermined projection tool;

creating reticle design data which represents a design of layouts to be imaged for the semiconductor device; and

creating a mask set by comparing the simulated reticle design and the reticle design data.

30. The method of claim 29, further comprising exposing a semiconductor device using the mask set to form an image of a circuit design on the semiconductor device using the predetermined projection tool.

31. The method of claim 29, wherein the tool parameters comprise illuminator details;

lens signature as defined in terms of Jones Matrix Map representing lens signature;

local and global flare data;

longitudinal chromatic aberrations;

Illuminator spectrum; and

transverse and longitudinal synchronization errors.

32. The modeling technique of claim 31, wherein the tool parameters further include at least one of NA error;

Sigma error; and

thermal aberration.

33. An OPC design process, comprising:

providing scanner parameters of a predetermined projection tool to a software provider;

importing the scanner parameters into a software product for making a design of reticles; and

providing the software to a semiconductor device maker for use in the design of the reticles.

34. The process of claim 33, further comprising providing a scanner parameter software file format to the software provider, and providing the scanner parameters directly to a semiconductor device maker.

35. The process of claim 34, further comprising verifying compliance with the scanner parameter file format by generating a scanner model using a set of sample data, simulating a circuit pattern using a scanner model created from the software to generate sample reticle pattern and comparing a set of results known to be accurate with the sample reticle pattern.