US6839125B2
Expired / Lapsed
US
⏱️ 0.0 years remaining
Method for optimizing an illumination source using full resist simulation and process window response metric
Assignee: ASML Netherlands BV
•
Filing: 2003-02-11
•
Granted: 2005-01-04
•
Expires: 2023-02-11
Abstract
Abstract A method for optimizing the illumination conditions of a lithographic apparatus by computer simulation using full resist calculation, the lithographic apparatus comprising an illuminator, a projection system, and a mask having a pattern to be printed in a layer of photoresist material formed on a substrate. This method includes defining a lithographic 0problem, which may include a lithographic pattern to be printed on a wafer; choosing a resist model of a resist process to be used to print a pattern in the layer of photoresist material; selecting a grid of source points in a pupil plane of the illuminator; calculating separate responses for individual source points, each of the responses representing a result of a single or series of simulations using the resist model; and adjusting an illumination arrangement based on analysis of accumulated results of the separate calculations.
Inventors
- 👤 Steven George Hansen
Bibliographic Details
Application Number
—
Jurisdiction
US
Data Source
google_patents
Last Synchronized
2026-11-08 11:13
CPC Classifications
G; G03; G03F; G03F7/00; G03F7/70; G03F7/70483; G03F7/70491; G03F7/705; G03F7/70058; G03F7/70091; G03F7/701; G03F7/70108
Claims Analysis
Total Claims: 14
Claim 1
Independent Claim
133 words
A method for optimizing the illumination conditions of a lithographic apparatus by computer simulation using full resist calculation, the lithographic apparatus comprising an illuminator, a projection system, and a mask having a pattern to be printed in a layer of photoresist material formed on a substrate, the method comprising: defining a lithographic pattern to be printed on a wafer; choosing a resist model of a resist process to be used to print the pattern in the layer of photoresist material; selecting a grid of source points in a pupil plane of the illuminator; calculating separate responses for individual source points, each of the responses representing a result of a single or series of simulations using the resist model; and adjusting an illumination arrangement based on analysis of accumulated results of the separate calculations.
Claim 2
Independent Claim
133 words
A method for optimizing the illumination conditions of a lithographic apparatus by computer simulation using full resist calculation, the lithographic apparatus comprising an illuminator, a projection system, and a mask having a pattern to be printed in a layer of photoresist material formed on a substrate, the method comprising: defining a lithographic pattern to be printed on a wafer; choosing a resist model of a resist process to be used to print the pattern in the layer of photoresist material; selecting a grid of source points in a pupil plane of the illuminator; calculating separate responses for individual source points, each of the responses representing a result of a single or series of simulations using the resist model; and adjusting an illumination arrangement based on analysis of accumulated results of the separate calculations.
Claim 3
Dependent Claim
30 words
A method according to claim 1 , wherein the response is a focus exposure matrix and results in a process window that includes dose latitude and depth of focus information.
Claim 4
Dependent Claim
30 words
A method according to claim 1 , further comprising calculating of response of trial illumination schemes by averaging separate responses for the individual source points contained within the illumination arrangement.
Claim 5
Dependent Claim
36 words
A method according to claim 1 , wherein the response is E1:1, dense to isolated feature bias, arbitrary feature size biases, sidelobe printing, film loss, sidewall angle, mask error enhancement factor, linear resolution, or absolute resolution.
Claim 6
Dependent Claim
20 words
A method according to claim 1 , further comprising mapping the responses as a function of individual source points positions.
Claim 7
Dependent Claim
17 words
A method according to claim 3 , further comprising applying a dose weighted averaging of the responses.
Claim 8
Dependent Claim
24 words
A method according to claim 1 , wherein the simulated grid results are interpolated to increase the grid point density to aid in averaging.
Claim 9
Dependent Claim
50 words
A method according to claim 1 , wherein adjusting the illumination arrangement includes adjusting the illumination arrangement by varying a position of an axicon/zoom module relative to a pyramidal prism, a position of a diffractive optical element, a position of an aperture blade, or by adjusting a programmable mirror array.
Claim 10
Dependent Claim
19 words
A method according to claim 8 , wherein the grid spacing is within a range from 0.01 to 0.2.
Claim 11
Dependent Claim
18 words
A method according to claim 1 , wherein defining the illumination arrangement includes selecting a multipole illuminator arrangement.
Claim 12
Dependent Claim
22 words
A method according to claim 1 , wherein defining the illumination arrangement includes defining an illumination arrangement with a multipole generating clement.
Claim 13
Dependent Claim
21 words
A method according to claim 1 , wherein the resist model is a calibrated model capable of adequately predicting experimental results.
Claim 14
Dependent Claim
35 words
A method according to claim 1 , wherein defining the resist model includes defining a resist model taking into account at least one of vector effects, non-zero diffusion of active species, and finite dissolution contrast.
References Cited (Backward Citations)
US5523193A
Cited
US5305054A
Cited
US5680588A
Cited
US6049660A
Cited
US20020035461A1
Cited
US6463403B1
Cited
US20020167653A1
Cited
US6452662B2
Cited
US6466304B1
Cited
US20020045106A1
Cited
US20020062206A1
Cited
US20020152452A1
Cited
US20030082463A1
Cited
US20030093251A1
Cited
USPTO Annuity & Maintenance Windows
| Annuity Stage | Window Opens | Payment Deadline | Surcharge Period Until | Estimated Fee | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.5 Years (Year 4) | 2008-01-04 | 2008-07-05 | 2009-01-04 | $2000.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |
| 7.5 Years (Year 8) | 2012-01-04 | 2012-07-05 | 2013-01-04 | $3760.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |
| 11.5 Years (Year 12) | 2016-01-04 | 2016-07-05 | 2017-01-04 | $7700.00 | Window Closed / Lapsed |