OPTICAL METROLOGY MODEL OPTIMIZATION FOR REPETITIVE STRUCTURES
An optical metrology model for a repetitive structure is optimized by selecting one or more profile parameters using one or more selection criteria. One or more termination criteria are set, the one or more termination criteria comprising measures of stability of the optical metrology model. The profile shape features of the repetitive structure are characterized using the one or more selected profile parameters. The optical metrology model is optimized using a set of values for the one or more selected profile parameters. One or more profile parameters of the profile of the repetitive structure are determined using the optimized optical metrology model and one or more measured diffraction signals. Values of the one or more termination criteria are calculated using the one or more determined profile parameters. When the calculated values of the one or more termination criteria do not match the one or more set termination criteria, the selection of the one or more profile parameters and/or the characterization of the profile shape features of the repetitive structure are revised.
Latest Timbre Technologies, Inc. Patents:
- Radiation detector including field effect transistor in resonant cavity nanostructure
- Radiation detector including field effect transistor in resonant cavity nanostructure
- OPTICAL METROLOGY OF STRUCTURES FORMED ON SEMICONDUCTOR WAFERS USING MACHINE LEARNING SYSTEMS
- TRANSFORMING METROLOGY DATA FROM A SEMICONDUCTOR TREATMENT SYSTEM USING MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS
- Modeling and measuring structures with spatially varying properties in optical metrology
The present application is a Continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 11/155,406, filed Jun. 16, 2005, issued as U.S. Pat. No. 7,355,728, on Apr. 8, 2008, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety for all purposes.
BACKGROUND1. Field
The present application relates to optical metrology, and more particularly to optical metrology model optimization for repetitive structures.
2. Related Art
Optical metrology involves directing an incident beam at a structure, measuring the resulting diffracted beam, and analyzing the diffracted beam to determine various characteristics, such as the profile of the structure. In semiconductor manufacturing, optical metrology is typically used for quality assurance. For example, after fabricating a periodic grating structure in proximity to a semiconductor chip on a semiconductor wafer, an optical metrology system is used to determine the profile of the periodic grating. By determining the profile of the periodic grating structure, the quality of the fabrication process utilized to form the periodic grating structure, and by extension the semiconductor chip proximate the periodic grating structure, can be evaluated.
In optical metrology, an optical metrology model is typically developed to measure a structure. The optical metrology model can be expressed using optical metrology variables. In general, the greater the number of optical metrology variables that are allowed to float in developing the optical metrology model, the better the fitting of the measurements signal obtained to the simulated signal using the optical metrology model. However, increasing the number of optical metrology variables allowed to float also increases the amount of time needed to develop the optical metrology model. Additionally, in some cases, allowing too many optical metrology variables can produce erroneous measurements, due to correlation between the optical metrology variables. In some cases, floating correlated or insensitive optical metrology variables may also result in unstable and erroneous measurements.
SUMMARYIn one exemplary embodiment, an optical metrology model for a repetitive structure is optimized by selecting one or more profile parameters using one or more selection criteria. One or more termination criteria are set, the one or more termination criteria comprising measures of stability of the optical metrology model. The profile shape features of the repetitive structure are characterized using the one or more selected profile parameters. The optical metrology model is optimized using a set of values for the one or more selected profile parameters. One or more profile parameters of the profile of the repetitive structure are determined using the optimized optical metrology model and one or more measured diffraction signals. Values of the one or more termination criteria are calculated using the one or more determined profile parameters. When the calculated values of the one or more termination criteria do not match the one or more set termination criteria, the selection of the one or more profile parameters and/or the characterization of the profile shape features of the repetitive structure are revised.
The present application can be best understood by reference to the following description taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawing figures, in which like parts may be referred to by like numerals:
The following description sets forth numerous specific configurations, parameters, and the like. It should be recognized, however, that such description is not intended as a limitation on the scope of the present invention, but is instead provided as a description of exemplary embodiments.
1. Optical MetrologyWith reference to
As depicted in
To determine the profile of periodic grating 102, optical metrology system 100 includes a processing module 114 configured to receive the measured diffraction signal and analyze the measured diffraction signal. As described below, the profile of periodic grating 102 can then be determined using a library-based process or a regression-based process. Additionally, other linear or non-linear profile extraction techniques are contemplated.
2. Library-Based Process of Determining Profile of StructureIn a library-based process of determining the profile of a structure, the measured diffraction signal is compared to a library of simulated diffraction signals. More specifically, each simulated diffraction signal in the library is associated with a hypothetical profile of the structure. When a match is made between the measured diffraction signal and one of the simulated diffraction signals in the library or when the difference of the measured diffraction signal and one of the simulated diffraction signals is within a preset or matching criterion, the hypothetical profile associated with the matching simulated diffraction signal is presumed to represent the actual profile of the structure. The matching simulated diffraction signal and/or hypothetical profile can then be utilized to determine whether the structure has been fabricated according to specifications.
Thus, with reference again to
The set of hypothetical profiles stored in library 116 can be generated by characterizing a hypothetical profile using a set of profile parameters, then varying the set of profile parameters to generate hypothetical profiles of varying shapes and dimensions. The process of characterizing a profile using a set of profile parameters can be referred to as parameterizing.
For example, as depicted in
As described above, the set of hypothetical profiles stored in library 116 (
With reference again to
For a more detailed description of a library-based process, see U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/907,488, titled GENERATION OF A LIBRARY OF PERIODIC GRATING DIFFRACTION SIGNALS, filed on Jul. 16, 2001, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
3. Regression-Based Process of Determining Profile of StructureIn a regression-based process of determining the profile of a structure, the measured diffraction signal is compared to a simulated diffraction signal (i.e., a trial diffraction signal). The simulated diffraction signal is generated prior to the comparison using a set of profile parameters (i.e., trial parameters) for a hypothetical profile (i.e., a hypothetical profile). If the measured diffraction signal and the simulated diffraction signal do not match or when the difference of the measured diffraction signal and one of the simulated diffraction signals is not within a preset or matching criterion, another simulated diffraction signal is generated using another set of profile parameters for another hypothetical profile, then the measured diffraction signal and the newly generated simulated diffraction signal are compared. When the measured diffraction signal and the simulated diffraction signal match or when the difference of the measured diffraction signal and one of the simulated diffraction signals is within a preset or matching criterion, the hypothetical profile associated with the matching simulated diffraction signal is presumed to represent the actual profile of the structure. The matching simulated diffraction signal and/or hypothetical profile can then be utilized to determine whether the structure has been fabricated according to specifications.
Thus, with reference again to
In one exemplary embodiment, the simulated diffraction signals and hypothetical profiles can be stored in a library 116 (i.e., a dynamic library). The simulated diffraction signals and hypothetical profiles stored in library 116 can then be subsequently used in matching the measured diffraction signal.
For a more detailed description of a regression-based process, see U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/923,578, titled METHOD AND SYSTEM OF DYNAMIC LEARNING THROUGH A REGRESSION-BASED LIBRARY GENERATION PROCESS, filed on Aug. 6, 2001, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,785,638, issued Aug. 31, 2004, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
4. Algorithm for Determining Simulated Diffraction SignalAs described above, simulated diffraction signals are generated to be compared to measured diffraction signals. As will be described below, in one exemplary embodiment, simulated diffraction signals can be generated by applying Maxwell's equations and using a numerical analysis technique to solve Maxwell's equations. More particularly, in the exemplary embodiment described below, rigorous coupled-wave analysis (RCWA) is used. It should be noted, however, that various numerical analysis techniques, including variations of RCWA, modal analysis, integral method, Green's functions, Fresnel method, finite element and the like can be used.
In general, RCWA involves dividing a profile into a number of sections, slices, or slabs (hereafter simply referred to as sections). For each section of the profile, a system of coupled differential equations generated using a Fourier expansion of Maxwell's equations (i.e., the features of the electromagnetic field and permittivity (E)). The system of differential equations is then solved using a diagonalization procedure that involves eigenvalue and eigenvector decomposition (i.e., Eigen-decomposition) of the characteristic matrix of the related differential equation system. Finally, the solutions for each section of the profile are coupled using a recursive-coupling schema, such as a scattering matrix approach. For a description of a scattering matrix approach, see Lifeng Li, “Formulation and comparison of two recursive matrix algorithms for modeling layered diffraction gratings,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A13, pp 1024-1035 (1996), which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. Specifically for a more detail description of RCWA, see U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/770,997, titled CACHING OF INTRA-LAYER CALCULATIONS FOR RAPID RIGOROUS COUPLED-WAVE ANALYSES, filed on Jan. 25, 2001, now U.S. Pat. No. 6,891,626, issued May 10, 2005, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
5. Machine Learning SystemsIn one exemplary embodiment, simulated diffraction signals can be generated using a machine learning system (MLS) employing a machine learning algorithm, such as back-propagation, radial basis function, support vector, kernel regression, and the like. For a more detailed description of machine learning systems and algorithms, see “Neural Networks” by Simon Haykin, Prentice Hall, 1999, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety. See also U.S. patent application Ser. No. 10/608,300, titled OPTICAL METROLOGY OF STRUCTURES FORMED ON SEMICONDUCTOR WAFERS USING MACHINE LEARNING SYSTEMS, filed on Jun. 27, 2003, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
6. Repeating StructureOptical metrology traditionally was applied to lines and spaces of gratings. In one exemplary embodiment, profile parameters of repeating structures can be extracted, where the features of an area designated as a unit cell may comprise a variety of shapes and configurations.
With reference to
With reference to
Other profile parameters associated with repeating structures is the position of the feature in the unit cell. For example, a feature, instead of being positioned in the center of unit cell, may be situated a distance above or below the center and to the right or to the left of the center of the unit cell. In addition to the parameters for repeating structures discussed above, other parameters included in the characterization of the repeating structures are width ratio and rectangularity of the features in a unit cell. The width ratio parameter defines the amount of sharpness of the corners of the hole or island in the unit cell.
Another method of characterizing a feature of a unit cell is by utilizing a mathematical model of the feature. For example, the outer boundaries of a feature in a unit cell of a repeating structure, such as a contact hole or a post, can be described using one or more equations. In this modeling construct, a hole is a structure made of air, with a specific N and K much like an island is a structure with a different N and K. Therefore, a characterization of the boundaries of the features in a unit cell, such a hole, includes description of the shape and slope of the feature. For a detailed description of profile parameters for repeating structures, integration of top-view and cross-sectional view parameters, refer to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 11/061303, titled OPTICAL METROLOGY OPTIMIZATION FOR REPETITIVE STRUCTURES, filed on Feb. 18, 2005, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
The optical metrology variables for repeating structures comprise metrology device variables, materials variables, and profile parameters. Metrology device variables include the type of incident beam, whether it is polarized or unpolarized, the type diffraction signal, whether intensity change or polarization state change are being measured, and the like. Material variables include refractive indices N and K for the layers of the structure. Profile parameters include top-view and cross-sectional view parameters. As mentioned above, top-view parameters include rectangularity, width ratio, pitch on the X axis, pitch on the Y axis, and the like. Cross-sectional view parameters can include sidewall angle, height of structure, thicknesses of underlying film layers, critical dimension at the top, middle, and bottom of the structure, shape features, and the like. Shape features include top rounding, footing, undercutting, T-topping, hemisphere, and the like.
As mentioned above, there is flexibility in how many profile parameters are used to characterize profile shape features in an optical metrology model. More profile parameters used to characterize a profile shape feature typically allows more variations and combinations of shapes. However, more profile parameters may also result in less stable or erroneous values obtained with the library or MLS approach of determining the profile parameters from measured diffraction signals. A stable optical metrology model for a repeating structure provides extracted profile parameters that are physically possible and are within the range of dimensions for a given semiconductor application. The range of dimensions of a profile parameter is typically determined using a reference device, such as a scanning electron microscope (SEM) or the like. Several causes of lack of stability of an optical metrology model include use of too many parameters to characterize a profile shape feature, inclusion of profile parameters that do not produce measurable changes to the diffraction signal, and high correlation of profile parameters to one or more of the other profile parameters in the model. Stability of an optical metrology model is greatly enhanced by use of a lower number of profile parameters required to represent a shape, with well known range of a profile parameter to one that is physically possible, substituting a fixed value to a variable profile parameter, and optimization of profile parameters by considering sensitivity and correlation of a parameter compared to the rest of the other parameters.
Application of the principles and concepts mentioned above is described in detail for exemplary common shape features of structures.
DISTANCE RATIOTR=(XT)/(TCD/2) 1.01.00
where XT is the distance from the point, where the adjacent sidewall edge 406 to the point, and where the circular arc 402 touches the TCD 404. The DISTANCE RATIOTR parameter characterizes the amount of top-rounding, varying from the default value of 0.0 for no top-rounding to 1.0 for fully-rounded edge. The distance XT can vary from a value of 0.0 and TCD/2.
DISTANCE RATIOTT=(XT)/[(pitch-TCD/2)] 1.02.00
DISTANCE RATIOF=(XT)/[½(Pitch−BCD)] 1.03.00
DISTANCE RATIOUC=(XT)/[BCD/2] 1.04.00
where Distance D is the height of the center for a circle, Pitch is the pitch 472 of the repeating structure 460, and TCD is the top CD or TCD 468 of the structure 470. The single parameter Distance Ratio H has a range of values of 0.0 if the hemisphere is perfect circle on top of structure 470 to minus infinity when the hemisphere is a flat line, i.e., TCD is equal to the pitch 472, and 1 with the maximum allowed value where the adjacent structure contact each other.
With reference to
With reference to
Referring to
In step 640, the profile shape feature of the repetitive structure is characterized using one or more of the selected profile parameters in order to enhance model stability. Characterization includes deciding on the number of variables to express a shape feature or the number of basic polygons, ellipses or other primitive shapes to represent a shape. For example, top-view shape may be characterized with one large polygon or several polygons in order to better approximate the shape. In another example, a cross-sectional T-topping shape feature may be characterized as a combination of a structure width and two arcs or a distance ratio as shown in Equation 1.02.00. In step 670, the optical metrology model is optimized by iteratively simulating the diffraction signal associated with a set of values of the optical metrology model variables using a global and/or local optimization algorithm. This optimization step is configured to optimize the model based on the measures of model stability selected as termination criteria in step 630. For a more detailed explanation, refer to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 09/907,488, titled GENERATION OF A LIBRARY OF PERIODIC GRATING DIFFRACTION SIGNALS, filed on Jul. 16, 2001, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
Still referring to
With reference to
Referring still to
Although exemplary embodiments have been described, various modifications can be made without departing from the spirit and/or scope of the present invention. For example, a first iteration may be run with a high number of profile parameters and other metrology variables allowed to float. After the first iteration, variables that do not produce significant changes to the diffraction response may be set to fixed values. Alternatively, variables initially considered constant due to previous empirical data may be allowed to float after further analyses. For example, the X-offset and Y-offset or the pitch angle may be initially held constant but may be allowed to float in successive iterations due to additional profile data obtained. Furthermore, instead of ellipses and polygons, other shapes may be utilized or the roughness of the shapes may be taken into account to provide a better or faster termination of the optimization process. Therefore, the present invention should not be construed as being limited to the specific forms shown in the drawings and described above but based on the claims below.
Claims
1. A method of optimizing an optical metrology model for a repetitive structure, the optical metrology model having profile parameters, the method comprising:
- a) selecting a set of profile parameters using one or more selection criteria, wherein the optical metrology model is defined by the set of profile parameters to characterize the profile of the repetitive structure;
- b) setting one or more termination criteria, the one or more termination criteria comprising a measure of stability of the optical metrology model;
- c) extracting values of profile parameters of the profile of the repetitive structure using the optical metrology model and one or more measured diffraction signals, wherein the one or more measured diffraction signals were obtained by measuring diffraction signals from an actual repetitive structure using an optical metrology device;
- d) calculating the measure of stability using the extracted values to test the stability of the optical metrology model; and
- e) when the calculated measure of stability does not match the one or more set termination criteria, revising the selection of one or more profile parameters in the set and/or the characterization of the profile shape features of the repetitive structure, and iterating c), d), and e).
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the set of selected profile parameters includes a first pitch parameter in a first dimension and a second pitch parameter in a second dimension, wherein the first and second dimensions are orthogonal.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein the first pitch parameter and the second pitch parameter are set to constants during an initial iteration of steps c)-e), and wherein the first pitch parameter and the second pitch parameter are allowed to float during subsequent iterations of steps c)-e).
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more selection criteria include sensitivity of simulated diffraction signals to changes of the selected profile parameters and/or correlation of a selected profile parameter to other profile parameters.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the one or more selection criteria include low sensitivity of diffraction signals resulting from changes of the selected profile parameter.
6. The method of claim 4, wherein the one or more selection criteria include high correlation of a selected profile parameter to other profile parameters.
7. The method of claim 4, wherein the one or more selection criteria include low sensitivity of diffraction signals and high correlation of a selected profile parameter to other profile parameters.
8. The method of claim 4, wherein the sensitivity of diffraction signals include cost function of two diffraction signals per unit change of the selected profile parameter or sum-squared error between two diffraction signals per unit change of the selected profile parameter.
9. The method of claim 4, wherein the correlation of diffraction signals includes correlation coefficients of a selected profile parameter compared to all other profile parameters.
10. The method of claim 4, wherein sensitivity of simulated diffraction signals to changes of the selected profile parameters and/or correlation of selected profile parameters to other profile parameters are determined by:
- a) calculations using data obtained using the optical metrology model;
- b) calculations using data obtained using process simulation; and/or
- c) calculations using historical data from a similar application.
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more termination criteria include checking that profile parameters falling within established ranges, that variance targets of determined profile parameters compared to reference values, target ratios of maximum to minimum eigenvalues, and/or singularity measures are met.
12. The method of claim 1, wherein the profile shape of the repetitive structure is characterized by:
- utilizing mathematical algorithms that integrate physical dimension limits of the selected profile parameters.
13. The method of claim 12, wherein the selected profile parameters include cross-sectional view parameters for shape features.
14. The method of claim 13, wherein cross-sectional view parameters for shape features include top rounding, footing, undercutting, T-topping, and/or a hemisphere.
15. The method of claim 14, wherein the mathematical algorithm for cross-sectional view parameters for shape features includes distance ratio.
16. The method of claim 15, wherein the distance ratio is calculated using a length attribute of the shape feature and a proximate cross-sectional view profile parameter.
17. The method of claim 16, wherein the proximate cross-sectional view parameter includes one or more of a top critical dimension, a middle critical dimension, a bottom critical dimension, and/or radius of a hemisphere.
18. The method of claim 17, wherein:
- if one shape feature includes top-rounding, the distance ratio is calculated using the horizontal length of the top-rounded feature on one side and the top critical dimension;
- if one shape feature includes T-topping, the distance ratio is calculated using the horizontal length of the T-top feature on one side and the top critical dimension;
- if one shape feature includes footing, the distance ratio is calculated using the horizontal length of the footing feature on one side and the bottom critical dimension;
- if one shape feature includes undercutting, the distance ratio is calculated using the horizontal length of the undercut feature on one side and the top critical dimension, the middle critical dimension or the bottom critical dimension, and
- if one shape feature includes a hemisphere, the distance ratio is calculated using the horizontal length of the radius of the hemisphere feature and the top critical dimension.
19. The method of claim 1, wherein the repetitive structure is a two-dimensional grating.
20. The method of claim 1, wherein the repetitive structure comprises contact holes, posts, vias, and/or trenches.
21. The method of claim 1, wherein the repetitive structure comprises two or more features in a unit cell.
22. A system for optimizing an optical metrology model for use in modeling repetitive structures in a wafer, the system comprising:
- an optical metrology model optimizer configured to: select a set of profile parameters using one or more selection criteria, wherein the optical metrology model I defined by the set of profile parameters to characterize the profile of the repetitive structure; set one or more termination criteria, the one or more termination criteria comprising a measure of stability of the optical metrology model; extract values of profile parameters of the profile of the repetitive structure using the optical metrology model and one or more measured diffraction signals, wherein the one or more measured diffraction signals were obtained by measuring diffraction signals from an actual repetitive structure using an optical metrology device; and calculate the measure of stability using the extracted values to test the stability of the optical metrology model;
- a comparator configured to determine if one or more termination criteria are met by the calculated measure of stability; and
- a model adjuster configured to revise the selection the set of one or more profile parameters in the set and/or the characterization of the profile shape features of the repetitive structure.
23. The system of claim 22, wherein the set of selected profile parameters includes a first pitch parameter in a first dimension and a second pitch parameter in a second dimension, wherein the first and second dimensions are orthogonal.
24. The system of claim 23, wherein the first pitch parameter and the second pitch parameter are set to constants during an initial iteration of optimizing the optical metrology model, and wherein the first pitch parameter and the second pitch parameter are allowed to float during subsequent iterations of optimizing the optical metrology model.
25. The system of claim 22, wherein the one or more selection criteria include sensitivity of simulated diffraction signals to changes of the selected profile parameters and/or correlation of a selected profile parameter to other profile parameters.
26. The system of claim 22, wherein the profile shape of the repetitive structure is characterized by:
- utilizing mathematical algorithms that integrate physical dimension limits of the selected profile parameters.
27. The system of claim 26, wherein the selected profile parameters include cross-sectional view parameters for shape features.
28. The system of claim 27, wherein cross-sectional view parameters for shape features include top rounding, footing, undercutting, T-topping, and/or a hemisphere.
29. The system of claim 28, wherein the mathematical algorithm for cross-sectional view parameters for shape features includes distance ratio.
30. The system of claim 29, wherein the distance ratio is calculated using a length attribute of the shape feature and a proximate cross-sectional view profile parameter.
31. The system of claim 30, wherein the proximate cross-sectional view parameter includes one or more of a top critical dimension, a middle critical dimension, a bottom critical dimension, and/or radius of a hemisphere.
32. The system of claim 31, wherein:
- if one shape feature includes top-rounding, the distance ratio is calculated using the horizontal length of the top-rounded feature on one side and the top critical dimension;
- if one shape feature includes T-topping, the distance ratio is calculated using the horizontal length of the T-top feature on one side and the top critical dimension;
- if one shape feature includes footing, the distance ratio is calculated using the horizontal length of the footing feature on one side and the bottom critical dimension;
- if one shape feature includes undercutting, the distance ratio is calculated using the horizontal length of the undercut feature on one side and the top critical dimension, the middle critical dimension or the bottom critical dimension, and
- if one shape feature includes a hemisphere, the distance ratio is calculated using the horizontal length of the radius of the hemisphere feature and the top critical dimension.
33. The system of claim 22, wherein the repetitive structure is a two-dimensional grating.
34. The system of claim 22, wherein the repetitive structure comprises contact holes, posts, vias, and/or trenches.
35. The system of claim 22, wherein the repetitive structure comprises two or more features in a unit cell.
36. A computer-readable storage medium containing computer executable instructions for causing a computer to optimize selection of profile parameters of an optical metrology model for use in modeling repetitive structures in a wafer, comprising instructions for:
- a) selecting a set of profile parameters using one or more selection criteria, wherein the optical metrology model is defined by the set of profile parameters to characterize the profile of the repetitive structure;
- b) setting one or more termination criteria, the one or more termination criteria comprising a measure of stability of the optical metrology model;
- c) extracting values of profile parameters of the profile of the repetitive structure using the optical metrology model and one or more measured diffraction signals, wherein the one or more measured diffraction signals were obtained by measuring diffraction signals from an actual repetitive structure using an optical metrology device;
- d) calculating the measure of stability using the extracted values to test the stability of the optical metrology model; and
- e) when the calculated measure of stability does not match the one or more set termination criteria, revising the selection of one or more profile parameters in the set and/or the characterization of the profile shape features of the repetitive structure, and iterating c), d), and e).
37. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 36, wherein the set of selected profile parameters includes a first pitch parameter in a first dimension and a second pitch parameter in a second dimension, wherein the first and second dimensions are orthogonal.
38. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 37, wherein the first pitch parameter and the second pitch parameter are set to constants during an initial iteration of steps c)-e), and wherein the first pitch parameter and the second pitch parameter are allowed to float during subsequent iterations of steps c)-e).
39. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 36, wherein the one or more selection criteria include sensitivity of simulated diffraction signals to changes of the selected profile parameters and/or correlation of a selected profile parameter to other profile parameters.
40. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 36, wherein the profile shape of the repetitive structure is characterized by:
- utilizing mathematical algorithms that integrate physical dimension limits of the selected profile parameters.
41. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 40, wherein the selected profile parameters include cross-sectional view parameters for shape features.
42. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 41, wherein cross-sectional view parameters for shape features include top rounding, footing, undercutting, T-topping, and/or a hemisphere.
43. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 42, wherein the mathematical algorithm for cross-sectional view parameters for shape features includes distance ratio.
44. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 43, wherein the distance ratio is calculated using a length attribute of the shape feature and a proximate cross-sectional view profile parameter.
45. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 44, wherein the proximate cross-sectional view parameter includes one or more of a top critical dimension, a middle critical dimension, a bottom critical dimension, and/or radius of a hemisphere.
46. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 45, wherein:
- if one shape feature includes top-rounding, the distance ratio is calculated using the horizontal length of the top-rounded feature on one side and the top critical dimension;
- if one shape feature includes T-topping, the distance ratio is calculated using the horizontal length of the T-top feature on one side and the top critical dimension;
- if one shape feature includes footing, the distance ratio is calculated using the horizontal length of the footing feature on one side and the bottom critical dimension;
- if one shape feature includes undercutting, the distance ratio is calculated using the horizontal length of the undercut feature on one side and the top critical dimension, the middle critical dimension or the bottom critical dimension, and
- if one shape feature includes a hemisphere, the distance ratio is calculated using the horizontal length of the radius of the hemisphere feature and the top critical dimension.
47. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 36, wherein the repetitive structure is a two-dimensional grating.
48. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 36, wherein the repetitive structure comprises contact holes, posts, vias, and/or trenches.
49. The computer-readable storage medium of claim 36, wherein the repetitive structure comprises two or more features in a unit cell.
Type: Application
Filed: Apr 8, 2008
Publication Date: Aug 14, 2008
Applicant: Timbre Technologies, Inc. (Santa Clara, CA)
Inventors: Shifang LI (Pleasanton, CA), Junwei Bao (Palo Alto, CA), Hong Qui (Union City, CA), Victor Liu (Sunnyvale, CA)
Application Number: 12/099,735
International Classification: G06F 19/00 (20060101);