TY - GEN
T1 - Intensive optimization of masks and sources for 22nm lithography
AU - Rosenbluth, Alan E.
AU - Melville, David O.
AU - Tian, Kehan
AU - Bagheri, Saeed
AU - Azpiroz, Jaione Tirapu
AU - Lai, Kafai
AU - Waechter, Andreas
AU - Inoue, Tadanobu
AU - Ladanyi, Laszlo
AU - Barahona, Francisco
AU - Scheinberg, Katya
AU - Sakamoto, Masaharu
AU - Muta, Hidemasa
AU - Gallagher, Emily
AU - Faure, Tom
AU - Hibbs, Michael
AU - Tritchkov, Alexander
AU - Granik, Yuri
PY - 2009
Y1 - 2009
N2 - Traditional OPC is essentially an iterated feedback process, in which the position of each target edge is corrected by adjusting a controlling mask edge. However, true optimization adjusts the mask variables collectively, and in so-called SMO approaches (for Source Mask Optimization) the source variables are adjusted as well. Optimized masks often have high edge density if synthesis methods are used in an effort to obtain a more global solution, and the correspondence between individual mask edges and printed target edges becomes less clearcut than in traditionally OPCd masks. Restrictions on phase shift and MEEF tend to reduce this departure from traditional solutions, but they trade off the theoretical performance advantage in dose and focus latitude that phase shift provides for a reduced sensitivity to thick mask topography and to manufacturing error. Mask variables couple across long distances only in the indirect sense of stitched connection across chains of neighbor-to-neighbor interactions, but source variables interact directly across entire masks. Source+mask optimization of large areas therefore involves long-range communication across the parts of the calculation, though the number of source variables involved is small. Tradeoffs between source structure and pattern diversity are illustrated, taking into account the limited (but unknown) number of binding features in a large layout. SMO's exploitation of complex source designs is shown to provide superior solutions to those obtained by mask optimization alone. Moreover, m development work the ability to adjust the source opens up new options in process engineering, and these will become particularly valuable when future exposure tools provide greater flexibility in programmable source control. Such capabilities can be explored in a preliminary way by using programmed multi-scans to compose optimized compound sources with e.g. multiple poles or annular elements.
AB - Traditional OPC is essentially an iterated feedback process, in which the position of each target edge is corrected by adjusting a controlling mask edge. However, true optimization adjusts the mask variables collectively, and in so-called SMO approaches (for Source Mask Optimization) the source variables are adjusted as well. Optimized masks often have high edge density if synthesis methods are used in an effort to obtain a more global solution, and the correspondence between individual mask edges and printed target edges becomes less clearcut than in traditionally OPCd masks. Restrictions on phase shift and MEEF tend to reduce this departure from traditional solutions, but they trade off the theoretical performance advantage in dose and focus latitude that phase shift provides for a reduced sensitivity to thick mask topography and to manufacturing error. Mask variables couple across long distances only in the indirect sense of stitched connection across chains of neighbor-to-neighbor interactions, but source variables interact directly across entire masks. Source+mask optimization of large areas therefore involves long-range communication across the parts of the calculation, though the number of source variables involved is small. Tradeoffs between source structure and pattern diversity are illustrated, taking into account the limited (but unknown) number of binding features in a large layout. SMO's exploitation of complex source designs is shown to provide superior solutions to those obtained by mask optimization alone. Moreover, m development work the ability to adjust the source opens up new options in process engineering, and these will become particularly valuable when future exposure tools provide greater flexibility in programmable source control. Such capabilities can be explored in a preliminary way by using programmed multi-scans to compose optimized compound sources with e.g. multiple poles or annular elements.
KW - DOE
KW - Pixelated source
KW - Programmable illuminator
KW - SMO
KW - Source mask optimization
KW - Wavefront engineering
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=65849129717&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=65849129717&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1117/12.814844
DO - 10.1117/12.814844
M3 - Conference contribution
AN - SCOPUS:65849129717
SN - 9780819475275
T3 - Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering
BT - Optical Microlithography XXII
T2 - Optical Microlithography XXII
Y2 - 24 February 2009 through 27 February 2009
ER -