Assessing the impact of real world manufacturing lithography variations on post-OPC CD control

This paper investigates variability across multiple lithographic domains, as experienced in typical manufacturing environments, and assesses the impact on achievable post-OPC image fidelity and CD control. Across scanner field and tool-tool effects are considered, and a distinction is made between systematic phenomena, which typically manifest within chip, and random fluctuations, which predominantly impact chip-to-chip mean distributions. The paper will outline which lithographic parameters can effectively be accounted for in OPC models, and over what temporal/spatial extents. The non-correctable phenomena assessed include misalignment, projection optic aberrations, illumination source profile, mask CD, focus and exposure dose variation, and flare. Specific analyses are applied to the case of gate edge placement error (EPE) control as a function of these manufacturing variables. Recommendations are made for "field-aware" metrology sample plans during model creation, such that globally optimized models can be realized. With knowledge of manufacturing input parameter variation, CalibreTM enables a detailed understanding of realistic post-OPC CD control, and can guide judicious product metrology sampling and specifications. It is highlighted that even for the case of a "perfect" OPC model, the post-OPC CD variation within chip can still be substantial, due to manufacturing variability.

[1]  Ralf Ziebold,et al.  Impact of measured pupil illumination fill distribution on lithography simulation and OPC models , 2004, SPIE Advanced Lithography.

[2]  Konstantinos Adam,et al.  Improved modeling performance with an adapted vectorial formulation of the Hopkins imaging equation , 2003, SPIE Advanced Lithography.

[3]  Armin Semmler,et al.  Improved manufacturability by OPC based on defocus data , 2003, SPIE Advanced Lithography.

[4]  John L. Sturtevant,et al.  Implementation of a closed-loop CD and overlay controller for sub-0.25-μm patterning , 1998, Advanced Lithography.

[5]  Bruno M. La Fontaine,et al.  Flare and its impact on low-k1 KrF and ArF lithography , 2002, SPIE Advanced Lithography.

[6]  Bo Su,et al.  193-nm photoresist shrinkage after electron-beam exposure , 2001, SPIE Advanced Lithography.

[7]  Qi-De Qian,et al.  Controlling defocus impact on OPC performance , 2003, Photomask Japan.

[8]  Rolf Seltmann,et al.  ACLV-analysis in production and its impact on product performance , 2003, SPIE Advanced Lithography.

[9]  Stephen P. Renwick,et al.  Illumination pupil fill measurement and analysis and its application in scanner V-H bias characterization for 130-nm node and beyond , 2003, SPIE Advanced Lithography.

[10]  Gary Zhang,et al.  Characterization of optical proximity matching for 130-nm node gate line width , 2003, SPIE Advanced Lithography.

[11]  Y. Granik,et al.  Considerations for the use of defocus models for OPC , 2005, SPIE Advanced Lithography.

[12]  Chris A. Mack.  Measuring and modeling flare in optical lithography , 2003, SPIE Advanced Lithography.

[13]  Andrew J. Watts,et al.  Investigating into mask contribution to device performance and chip functionality , 2002, Photomask Japan.

[14]  L. Depre,et al.  Across field and across wafer flare: from KrF stepper to ArF scanner , 2000, Advanced Lithography.

[15]  Peter De Bisschop,et al.  Evaluation of Litel's in-situ interferometer (ISI) technique for measuring projection-lens aberrations: an initial study , 2003 .

[16]  Yuri Granik,et al.  Full chip model based correction of flare-induced linewidth variation , 2004, SPIE Advanced Lithography.

[17]  Mircea Dusa,et al.  Device manufacturing critical evaluation of focus analysis methods , 2004, SPIE Advanced Lithography.

[18]  Robert Steffen,et al.  Evaluation of Hitachi CAD to CD-SEM metrology package for OPC model tuning and product devices OPC verification , 2005, SPIE Advanced Lithography.