Share Email Print

Proceedings Paper

Dual layer patterning failures in complex RET processes using ORC tools and pre- or post-optical proximity correction strategy
Format Member Price Non-Member Price
PDF $14.40 $18.00
cover GOOD NEWS! Your organization subscribes to the SPIE Digital Library. You may be able to download this paper for free. Check Access

Paper Abstract

The 65nm and 45nm device generations will be used to manufacture large designs using complex patterning processes in combination with exotic model-based or rule-based RETs’ scenarios. The lithography for these generations will operate in the low k1 regime value resulting in small process window and tight overlay requirements. Therefore, the potential for having yield limiting errors due to RET-process-design interactions is significantly higher than with the 130nm generation. Additionally, the high cost of reticles and the large number of process layers make it quite important to catch these costly errors. Optical Rule Checking (ORC) is an effective way to predict failure on wafer shapes. Used in addition to Optical Proximity Correction, it can help to reduce failures affecting yield in manufacturing. Thus, due to the inter-layer complexity of processes and RET, the necessity to check accurately particular areas which could generate costly errors is growing: Here are some examples: 1) Low metal-contact or metal-via overlaps, 2) Small poly extension past active area, 3) Low overlap between poly and contact layers, and 4) Dual exposure techniques for single layer patterning. The main difficulty in current implementation of multiple layer RET verification is the trade off between accuracy vs. runtime vs. fault coverage. In this paper we will demonstrate how based on this trade off we can enhance our final printed results by accurately targeting the most likely failure mechanism on multiple layer processes check in a production environment (90nm node product layout). Finally we will show how ORC in a multiple layer check is going to help detect faults and overlay sensitive areas so as to secure process weakness areas. We will compare several softwares where such a methodology is applied and attend to propose a post OPC verification strategy to obtain a more robust manufacturing process.

Paper Details

Date Published: 28 June 2005
PDF: 11 pages
Proc. SPIE 5853, Photomask and Next-Generation Lithography Mask Technology XII, (28 June 2005); doi: 10.1117/12.617412
Show Author Affiliations
Christophe Couderc, Philips Semiconductors (France)
Jerome Belledent, Philips Semiconductors (France)
Amandine Borjon, Philips Semiconductors (France)
Yorick Trouiller, CEA-LETI (France)
Frank Sundermann, STMicroelectronics (France)
Kevin Lucas, Freescale Semiconductors (France)
Jean-Christophe Urbani, STMicroelectronics (France)
Franck Foussadier, STMicroelectronics (France)
Yves Rody, Philips Semiconductors (France)
Kyle Patterson, Freescale Semiconductors (France)
Stanislas Baron, STMicroelectronics (France)

Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 5853:
Photomask and Next-Generation Lithography Mask Technology XII
Masanori Komuro, Editor(s)

© SPIE. Terms of Use
Back to Top