Impact of 14-nm photomask uncertainties on computational lithography solutions

Abstract. Computational lithography solutions rely upon accurate process models to faithfully represent the imaging system output for a defined set of process and design inputs. These models rely upon the accurate representation of multiple parameters associated with the scanner and the photomask. Many input variables for simulation are based upon designed or recipe-requested values or independent measurements. It is known, however, that certain measurement methodologies, while precise, can have significant inaccuracies. Additionally, there are known errors associated with the representation of certain system parameters. With shrinking total critical dimension (CD) control budgets, appropriate accounting for all sources of error becomes more important, and the cumulative consequence of input errors to the computational lithography model can become significant. In this work, we examine via simulation the impact of errors in the representation of photomask properties including CD bias, corner rounding, refractive index, thickness, and sidewall angle. The factors that are most critical to be accurately represented in the model are cataloged. CD bias values are based on state-of-the-art mask manufacturing data, and other variable changes are speculated, highlighting the need for improved metrology and communication between mask and optical proxmity correction model experts. The simulations are done by ignoring the wafer photoresist model and show the sensitivity of predictions to various model inputs associated with the mask. It is shown that the wafer simulations are very dependent upon the one-dimensional/two-dimensional representation of the mask, and for three-dimensional, the mask sidewall angle is a very sensitive factor influencing simulated wafer CD results.

[1]  Konstantinos Adam,et al.  Understanding the impact of rigorous mask effects in the presence of empirical process models used in optical proximity correction (OPC) , 2007, SPIE Advanced Lithography.

[2]  Sunwook Jung,et al.  Application of mask process correction (MPC) to monitor and correct mask process drift , 2011, Advanced Lithography.

[3]  A. Neureuther,et al.  Domain decomposition methods for the rapid electromagnetic simulation of photomask scattering , 2002 .

[4]  John L. Sturtevant,et al.  Roadmap to sub-nanometer OPC model accuracy , 2012, Other Conferences.

[5]  Wenzhan Zhou,et al.  OMOG mask topography effect on lithography modeling of 32nm contact hole patterning , 2010, Advanced Lithography.

[6]  David Fryer,et al.  Accurate 3DEMF mask model for full-chip simulation , 2013, Advanced Lithography.

[7]  John L. Sturtevant,et al.  Theoretical and experimental optimization of numerical aperture and partial coherence for complementary phase-shift processes , 2001, SPIE Advanced Lithography.

[8]  Steffen Schulze,et al.  Model based mask process correction and verification for advanced process nodes , 2009, Advanced Lithography.

[9]  Ming-Chuan Yang Analytical optimization of high-transmission attenuated phase-shifting reticles , 2009 .

[10]  John L. Sturtevant Challenges for patterning process models applied to large scale , 2012 .

[11]  Cesar M. Garza,et al.  Exploring the limits of phase-shift lithography: Part I--the alternating shifter , 1992, Advanced Lithography.

[12]  Scott Halle,et al.  Lithographic qualification of new opaque MoSi binary mask blank for the 32-nm node and beyond , 2010 .