Author Affiliations
1Laboratory of Information Optics and Opto-Electronic Technology, Shanghai Institute of Optics and Fine Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai 201800, China2Center of Materials Science and Optoelectronics Engineering, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China3Integrated Circuit Advanced Process R & D Center, Institute of Microelectronics of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100029, China;4Dongfang Jingyuan Electron Limited, Beijing 100176, Chinashow less
Fig. 1. Extraction principle of critical frequency of pattern. (a) Non-array pattern; (b) array pattern
Fig. 2. Schematic diagram of critical frequency. (a) Critical frequency's contour on the frequency plane; (b) description method for critical frequency of our method; (c) description method for critical frequency of ASML Tachyon method
Fig. 3. Schematic diagram of the coverage relationship between critical frequencies
Fig. 4. Flow chart of the critical frequency grouping method
Fig. 5. Flow chart of the critical pattern selection method
Fig. 6. Critical pattern selection result of our method (pattern set A, repeating case)
Fig. 7. Critical pattern selection result of ASML Tachyon method (pattern set A, repeating case)
Fig. 8. Optimized sources obtained after SMO is performed on two methods' critical pattern selection results. (a) Our method; (b) ASML Tachyon method (pattern set A, repeating case)
Fig. 9. Process windows obtained after MO is performed on all patterns by using the two sources. (a) Common process windows; (b) EL versus DOF curves (pattern set A, repeating case)
Fig. 10. Critical pattern selection result of our method (pattern set A, unrepeating case)
Fig. 11. Critical pattern selection result of ASML Tachyon method (pattern set A, unrepeating case)
Fig. 12. Optimized sources obtained after SMO is performed on critical pattern selection results. (a) Our method; (b) ASML Tachyon method (pattern set A, unrepeating case)
Fig. 13. Process windows obtained after MO is performed on all patterns by using the two sources. (a) Common process windows; (b) EL versus DOF curves (pattern set A, unrepeating case)
Fig. 14. Critical patterns obtained by two methods (pattern set B)
Fig. 15. Simulation results (pattern set B)
Parameter | Specification |
---|
Lithography tool | NXT:1950i | Source | freeform | Polarization | XY polarization | Mask | binary/dark field |
|
Table 1. Simulation setting
Method | DOF /nm | Maximum MEEF(H/V) | Worst ILS |
---|
Our method | 71.02 | 3.70/3.68 | 15.46 | ASML Tachyon | 71.32 | 4.37/4.39 | 15.08 |
|
Table 2. DOF, maximum MEEF and worst ILS obtained by the two methods (pattern set A, repeating case)
Method | DOF /nm | Maximum MEEF(H/V) | Worst ILS |
---|
Our method | 72.72 | 4.52/3.82 | 15.23 | ASML Tachyon | 63.32 | 4.22/3.66 | 15.16 |
|
Table 3. DOF, maximum MEEF and worst ILS obtained by the two methods (pattern set A, unrepeating case)