Trade-off between inverse lithography mask complexity and lithographic performance

Improvements in resolution of exposure systems have not kept pace with increasing density of semiconductor products. In order to keep shrinking circuits using equipment with the same basic resolution, lithographers have turned to options such as double-patterning, and have moved beyond model- based OPC in the search for op timal mask patterns. Inverse Lithography Technology (ILT) is becoming one of the strong candidates in 32nm & below single patterning, low-k1 lithography regime. It enables computation of optimum mask patterns to minimize deviations of images from their targets not only at nominal but also over a range of process variations, such as dose, defocus, and mask CD errors. When optimizing for a factor, such as process window, more complex mask patterns are often necessary to achieve the desired depth of focus. Complex mask patterns require more shots when written with VSB systems, increasing the component of mask cost associated with writing time. It can also be more difficult to inspect or repair certain types of complex patterns. Insp ection and repair may take more time, or require more expensive equipment compared to the case with simpler masks. For these reasons, we desire to determine the simplest mask patterns that meet necessary lithographic manufacturing objectives. Lu minescent ILT provides means to constrain complexity of mask solutions, each of which is optimized to meet lithographic objectives within the bounds of the constraints. Results presented here show trade-offs to process window performance with vary ing degrees of mask complexity. The paper details ILT mask simplification schemes on contact arrays and random logic, comparing process window trade-offs in each case. Ultimately this method enables litho and mask engineers balance lithographic requirements with mask manufacturing complexity and related cost. Keywords : Inverse Lithography Technology, 32 nm & below, low-k1, depth of focus, lithographic performance, mask cost, OPC, RET, MEEF, SRAF