Assuming that all exposure tools on which a certain production reticle is being used are from same type and configuration it can be expected that the performance of the reticle should be independent from the exposing machines. When planning or performing arrangements for process transfer between different production sites or capacity expansion within one site performing a proximity matching between different exposure tools is a common activity. One of the objectives of a robust optical proximity correction (OPC) model is to simulate the process variation. Normally, the wafer critical dimension (CD) calibration of an OPC model is applied for one specific scanner first. In order to enhance the tolerance of the OPC model so called fingerprints of different scanners should be matched as closely as possible. Some examples of features for fingerprint test patterns are “critical dimension through pitch” (CDTP), “inverse CDTP”, “tipto-tip” and “linearity patterns”, and CD difference of disposition structures. All of them should also be matched as tightly as possible in order to reduce the process variation and to strengthen the tolerance of an OPC model. However, the focus difference between nested and isolated features which is directly influenced by different exposure tools and reticle layers will have an effect on the proximity matching of some patterns such as inverse CDTP and uniformly distributed disposition structures. In this manuscript the effects of focus differences between nested and isolated features for scanner proximity matching will be demonstrated. Moreover, the results for several scanners and different mask layers using advanced binary mask blank material will also be investigated. Even if some parts of the proximity features are closely enough to each other different parity proximity patterns will be affected by the focus difference between dense and isolated features. Because the focus difference between isolated and dense features is dependent on the illumination conditions, different mask layers applied for a proximity correction will lead to different results. The effects of source variations causing isolated and dense feature focus differences between scanners for 28 nm poly, 1X metal and contact layers will be illustrated.

Date Published: 12 April 2013
PDF: 9 pages
Proc. SPIE 8683, Optical Microlithography XXVI, 86831R (12 April 2013); doi: 10.1117/12.2011504

Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 8683:
Optical Microlithography XXVI
Will Conley, Editor(s)