US6269472B1
Expired / Lapsed
US
⏱️ 0.0 years remaining
Optical proximity correction method and apparatus
Assignee: Bell Semiconductor LLC
•
Filing: 1997-12-12
•
Granted: 2001-07-31
•
Expires: 2017-12-12
Abstract
Abstract Disclosed is a method for correcting a layout design using a design rule checker. The method includes providing a layout design file having the layout design that is to be corrected for optical proximity by the design rule checker. Providing a run set to the design rule checker. The run set includes a plurality of correction values that are used to correct a plurality of features of the layout design that have a selected space dimension. Identifying each of the plurality of features that have the selected space dimension. The method further includes correcting each of the plurality of features that have the selected space dimension with one correction value of the plurality of correction values of the run set. Preferably, the run set is generated from a correction table that has the plurality of correction values.
Inventors
- 👤 Mario Garza
- 👤 John V. Jensen
- 👤 Nicholas K. Eib
- 👤 Keith K. Chao
Bibliographic Details
Application Number
—
Jurisdiction
US
Data Source
google_patents
Last Synchronized
2026-11-07 09:54
CPC Classifications
G; G03; G03F; G03F7/00; G03F7/70; G03F7/70425; G03F7/70433; G03F7/70441; G03F1/00; G03F1/36; H; H01; H01J; H01J37/00; H01J37/30; H01J37/302; H01J37/3023; H01J2237/00; H01J2237/30; H01J2237/317; H01J2237/3175; H01J2237/31769
Claims Analysis
Total Claims: 25
Claim 1
Independent Claim
124 words
A method for correcting a layout design using a design rule checker, comprising: providing a layout design file having the layout design that is to be corrected for optical proximity by the design rule checker; providing a run set to the design rule checker, the run set includes a plurality of correction values that are used to correct, based on a correction value derived from a non-linear correction curve, a plurality of features of the layout design that have a selected space dimension; identifying each of the plurality of features that have the selected space dimension; and correcting each of the plurality of features that have the selected space dimension with one correction value of the plurality of correction values of the run set.
Claim 2
Independent Claim
124 words
A method for correcting a layout design using a design rule checker, comprising: providing a layout design file having the layout design that is to be corrected for optical proximity by the design rule checker; providing a run set to the design rule checker, the run set includes a plurality of correction values that are used to correct, based on a correction value derived from a non-linear correction curve, a plurality of features of the layout design that have a selected space dimension; identifying each of the plurality of features that have the selected space dimension; and correcting each of the plurality of features that have the selected space dimension with one correction value of the plurality of correction values of the run set.
Claim 3
Dependent Claim
35 words
A method for correcting a layout design using a design rule checker as recited in claim 1 , wherein the run set is generated from a correction table that has the plurality of correction values.
Claim 4
Dependent Claim
60 words
A method for correcting a layout design using a design rule checker as recited in claim 2 , wherein the correcting of each of the plurality of features that have the selected space dimension is performed on edges of the plurality of features, and the edges of at least two of the plurality of features define the selected space dimension.
Claim 5
Dependent Claim
99 words
A method for correcting a layout design using a design rule checker as recited in claim 1 , wherein the correcting of each of the plurality of features further includes: perform an oversize operation on each of the plurality of features that have the selected space dimension, the oversize operation being configured to define an oversize perimeter that extends a size of each of the plurality of features by a correction value that corresponds to the selected space dimension, and an oversized area is defined between an outline of each of the plurality of features and the oversize perimeter.
Claim 6
Dependent Claim
67 words
A method for correcting a layout design using a design rule checker as recited in claim 4 , wherein the correcting of each of the plurality of features further includes: performing a boolean AND operation between the oversized area and a space area that lies between each of the plurality of features that have the selected space dimension, the boolean AND operation thereby producing an AND result.
Claim 7
Dependent Claim
52 words
A method for correcting a layout design using a design rule checker as recited in claim 5 , wherein the correcting of each of the plurality of features further includes: performing a boolean OR operation for each of the plurality of features that have the selected space dimension and the AND result.
Claim 8
Dependent Claim
49 words
A method for correcting a layout design using a design rule checker as recited in claim 6 , wherein the boolean OR operation produces a plurality of corrected features, and the plurality of corrected features are the plurality of features that were identified to have the selected space dimension.
Claim 9
Dependent Claim
41 words
A method for correcting a layout design using a design rule checker as recited in claim 1 , wherein the identifying of each of the plurality of features that have the selected space dimension is repeated for other selected space dimensions.
Claim 10
Independent Claim
90 words
An apparatus for correcting a layout design for optical proximity correction errors, comprising: a design layout file containing the layout design; and a design rule checker configured to iteratively correct the layout design, such that a set of features having a selected inter-feature spacing are corrected, based on a correction value derived from a non-linear correction curve, before a next set of features having another selected inter-feature spacing; wherein the design rule checker continues to iteratively correct the layout design until a predetermined number of sets of features are corrected.
Claim 11
Independent Claim
90 words
An apparatus for correcting a layout design for optical proximity correction errors, comprising: a design layout file containing the layout design; and a design rule checker configured to iteratively correct the layout design, such that a set of features having a selected inter-feature spacing are corrected, based on a correction value derived from a non-linear correction curve, before a next set of features having another selected inter-feature spacing; wherein the design rule checker continues to iteratively correct the layout design until a predetermined number of sets of features are corrected.
Claim 12
Dependent Claim
35 words
An apparatus for correcting a layout design for optical proximity correction errors as recited in claim 9 , wherein each of the predetermined number of sets of features are associated with a particular correction value.
Claim 13
Dependent Claim
45 words
An apparatus for correcting a layout design for optical proximity correction errors as recited in claim 10 , wherein the particular correction value is derived from a non-linear curve, and the particular correction value is adjusted to a closest grid increment of the layout design.
Claim 14
Dependent Claim
46 words
An apparatus for correcting a layout design for optical proximity correction errors as recited in claim 11 , wherein the design rule checker implements the particular correction value to perform a series of boolean operations to complete one of the iterative corrections of the layout design.
Claim 15
Dependent Claim
60 words
An apparatus for correcting a layout design for optical proximity correction errors as recited in claim 12 , wherein the one of the iterative corrections are configured to correct a pair of edges of the set of features and the next set of features, and the pair of edges bound the selected inter-feature spacing and the another selected inter-feature spacing.
Claim 16
Dependent Claim
34 words
An apparatus for correcting a layout design for optical proximity correction errors as recited in claim 13 , wherein the pair of edges are corrected by an amount equal to the particular correction value.
Claim 17
Dependent Claim
88 words
In a system for performing optical proximity correction on a layout design file, a process comprising: (a) identifying features having a particular width from the layout design file; (b) selecting a set of features from the identified features having a predetermined inter-feature spacing, the inter-feature spacing being defined by edges of the selected set of features; and (c) correcting the selected set of features based on a correction value derived from a non-linear correction curve, the correcting being performed on the edges of the selected set of features.
Claim 18
Dependent Claim
88 words
In a system for performing optical proximity correction on a layout design file, a process comprising: (a) identifying features having a particular width from the layout design file; (b) selecting a set of features from the identified features having a predetermined inter-feature spacing, the inter-feature spacing being defined by edges of the selected set of features; and (c) correcting the selected set of features based on a correction value derived from a non-linear correction curve, the correcting being performed on the edges of the selected set of features.
Claim 19
Dependent Claim
27 words
A process as recited in claim 15 , wherein operations (b) and (c) are repeated for one or more selected sets of features having different inter-feature spacings.
Claim 20
Dependent Claim
38 words
A process as recited in claim 16 , wherein the correction value that is derived from the non-linear curve is part of a correction value table, and a particular correction value is associated with the different inter-feature spacings.
Claim 21
Dependent Claim
23 words
A process as recited in claim 15 , wherein the correcting the selected set of features includes performing a set of logical operations.
Claim 22
Dependent Claim
24 words
A process as recited in claim 18 , further comprising: performing the set of logical operations with the aid of a design rule checker.
Claim 23
Dependent Claim
64 words
A process as recited in claim 19 , wherein the set of logical operations include: performing an oversize operation on the selected set of features to produce an oversize outline, the oversize operation being configured to increase the size of the selected set of features by an amount that is equivalent to the correction that is the value derived from the non-linear correction curve.
Claim 24
Dependent Claim
59 words
A process as recited in claim 20 , wherein the set of logical operations include: performing a boolean AND operation between an area defined between the selected set of features and the oversize outline, and a area that lies between the edges of the selected set of features, the boolean AND operation thereby producing a set of correction areas.
Claim 25
Dependent Claim
37 words
A process as recited in claim 21 , wherein the set of logical operations include: producing a set of corrected features that include an area of the selected set of features and the set of correction areas.
References Cited (Backward Citations)
US4812962A
Cited
JPH02139426A
Cited
JPH04232103A
Cited
JPH04273199A
Cited
US5475766A
Cited
JPH05150734A
Cited
JPH07198770A
Cited
JPH07301155A
Cited
GB2291219A
Cited
EP0698916A2
Cited
JPH08100471A
Cited
US5681674A
Cited
US5682323A
Cited
US5553274A
Cited
US5553273A
Cited
US5663893A
Cited
US5705301A
Cited
EP0822452A2
Cited
US5723233A
Cited
US5900338A
Cited
US5795682A
Cited
US5877045A
Cited
US6078738A
Cited
USPTO Annuity & Maintenance Windows
| Annuity Stage | Window Opens | Payment Deadline | Surcharge Period Until | Estimated Fee | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.5 Years (Year 4) | 2004-07-30 | 2005-01-29 | 2005-07-31 | $2000.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |
| 7.5 Years (Year 8) | 2008-07-30 | 2009-01-29 | 2009-07-31 | $3760.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |
| 11.5 Years (Year 12) | 2012-07-30 | 2013-01-29 | 2013-07-31 | $7700.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |