A discussion of the regression of physical parameters for photolithographic process models

Lawrence S. Melvin III; Kevin D. Lucas

doi:10.1117/12.712646

26 March 2007 A discussion of the regression of physical parameters for photolithographic process models

Proceedings Volume 6520, Optical Microlithography XX; 65201V (2007) https://doi.org/10.1117/12.712646
Event: SPIE Advanced Lithography, 2007, San Jose, California, United States

Abstract

All models currently used for Optical Proximity Correction and related Resolution Enhancement techniques are comprised of an analytical description of the modeled system with coefficients determined by data collected from the physical process. The analytical model is normally based on the Hopkin's approximation of the system because this approximation allows the reticle to be a variable in the exposure system. The analytical component of the model contains terms such as numerical aperture, partial coherence, and wavelength, all of which are physical parameters that can be directly read from the equipment used to generate the empirical process data. Therefore, these physical parameters can be directly used in the process model and do not need to be modified. One case example of a physical parameter is the illuminator shape. In an annular exposure system, the center of the exposure system is blocked to allow illumination by high order illumination components. The annular shape can be achieved in different manners. The scanner manufacturer can use a shape cut in a metal form to achieve an annular illumination condition or the scanner manufacturer can use a lens system to achieve the same illumination condition. Both of these systems have the same inner and outer diameters, resulting in the same annulus and therefore the same illumination technique. However, experimental data show that for the exact same setting values, the annular illumination shape is detectably different. This is a first order system difference that is the result of different implementation methods. Further differences can be found due to scanner to scanner variations in either lens shape or aperture shape. These differences create a need for physical parameters to be regressed during fitting of empirical data to the analytical model. This paper will discuss the need to regress what initially appear to be constant physical parameters during the model fitting process. The study will use equipment variability information to demonstrate the range of physical constant impact upon the accuracy of a process model.

Citation Download Citation

Lawrence S. Melvin III and Kevin D. Lucas "A discussion of the regression of physical parameters for photolithographic process models", Proc. SPIE 6520, Optical Microlithography XX, 65201V (26 March 2007); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.712646

ACCESS THE FULL ARTICLE

INSTITUTIONAL
Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.

SELECT YOUR INSTITUTION

PERSONAL
Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.

PERSONAL SIGN IN

No SPIE Account? Create one

PURCHASE THIS CONTENT

SUBSCRIBE TO DIGITAL LIBRARY

50 downloads per 1-year subscription

Members: $195

Non-members: $335 ADD TO CART

25 downloads per 1 - year subscription

Members: $145

Non-members: $250 ADD TO CART

PURCHASE SINGLE ARTICLE

Includes PDF, HTML & Video, when available