Abstract:
A method for transferring a fractured pattern decomposed into elementary shapes, onto a substrate by direct writing by a particle or photon beam, comprises a step of identifying at least one elementary shape of the fractured pattern, called removable elementary shape, whose removal induces modifications of the transferred pattern within a preset tolerance envelope; a step of removing the removable shape or shapes from the fractured pattern to obtain a modified fractured pattern; and an exposure step, comprising exposing the substrate to a plurality of shots of a shaped particle or photon beam, each shot corresponding to an elementary shape of the modified fractured pattern. A computer program product for carrying out such a method is provided.

Description:
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS 
       [0001]    This application claims priority to foreign European patent application No. EP 15306576.8, filed on Oct. 6, 2015, the disclosure of which is incorporated by reference in its entirety. 
       FIELD OF THE INVENTION 
       [0002]    The invention relates to the field of micro- and nano-manufacturing, and in particular to that of direct-writing (or “maskless”) lithography, such as electron beam lithography (EBL). More precisely, the invention relates to a method for transferring a pattern onto a substrate by direct writing by means of a shaped particle or photon beam, and also to a computer program product for carrying out such a method. 
       BACKGROUND 
       [0003]    Electron beam lithography is the most commonly used technique for performing direct writing—or maskless—lithography. It allows achieving a spatial resolution of a few tens of nanometers or less, and is particularly well suited for manufacturing photolithography masks. 
         [0004]      FIG. 1  is a schematic illustration of an electron-beam lithography apparatus known from prior art. On this figure, reference  11  corresponds to a substrate—e.g. a silicon wafer or a glass or silica plate—onto which a pattern has to be transferred by direct writing lithography, reference  12  to a resist layer deposed on a surface of said substrate (the term “substrate” will be used indifferently to designate the bare substrate  11  or the ensemble  10  including the resist layer), reference  20  to an electron beam source, reference  21  to an electron beam generated by said source and impinging onto the resist layer  11 , reference  30  to an actuation stage for translating the substrate  10  with respect to the electron beam  20 , reference  40  to a computer or processor driving the electron beam source  20  and the actuation stage  30 , and reference  41  to a computer memory device storing a program executed by said computer or processor  40 . The electron beam source  20  and the actuation stage  30  cooperate for selectively exposing to the electron beam specific regions of the substrate, according to a predetermined pattern. Actually the spatial distribution of the energy deposed onto the substrate (the “dose”) does not accurately match the predetermined pattern; this is mainly due to the finite width of the electron beam and to the forward- and back-scattering resulting from the interactions of the electrons with the resist and the substrate (“proximity effects”). 
         [0005]    Then, during a so-called development step, the exposed area (for positive resist) or the unexposed area (for negative resist) is selectively eliminated, so that the remaining resist approximately reproduces the predetermined pattern or its complement on the surface of the substrate. Afterwards, the portion of the surface of the substrate which is not covered by resist can be etched, and then the remaining resist eliminated. In different embodiments, the etching may be replaced by the implantation of a dopant, a deposition of matter etc. 
         [0006]    Electron beam  21  may be a narrow circular beam, in which case the pattern is projected onto the resist point by point, using raster or vector scanning. In industrial applications, however, it is often preferred to use “shaped beams”, which are larger and typically have a rectangular or triangular section. In this case, before being transferred, the pattern is “fractured”—i.e. is decomposed into a plurality of elementary shapes which can be transferred by a single shot with a significant acceleration of the process. 
         [0007]    When shaped beams are used, the number of shots—and therefore the number of elementary shapes which define the pattern—is the main factor determining the writing time, and therefore the cost of the process. Unfortunately, fractured patterns often comprise a significant number of elementary shapes, leading to long and expensive writing operations. Moreover, some of these elementary shapes may be smaller than the resolution of the direct writing process, and therefore impossible to reproduce accurately. This is particularly true for the writing of advanced photolithography masks, involving OPC (Optical Proximity Correction) treatments that may result in highly fragmented patterns. Several techniques have been developed in order to reduce the number of shots in direct writing using shaped particle or photon beams; a review is provided by the paper “Assessment and comparison of different approaches for mask write time reduction,” A. Elayat, T. Lin, S. F. Schulze, Proc. of SPIE, Vol. 8166, 816634-1-816634-13. 
         [0008]    A first possibility consists in optimizing the fracturing step without modifying the pattern, but this only leads to a limited reduction of the shot count. 
         [0009]    Better results may be obtained, but at a much greater computational cost, by allowing overlapping and non-abutting shots—i.e. by allowing that the fractured pattern does not correspond exactly to the non-fractured one (Model-Based Mask Data Preparation, or MB-MDP, see in particular G. S. Chua et al. “Optimization of mask shot count using MB-MDP and lithography simulation”, Proc. of SPIE, Vol. 8166, 816632-1-816632-11). This approach is complex to implement, and therefore slow and expensive. 
         [0010]    “Jog alignment” is another shot-count reduction technique which consists in modifying the pattern before fracturing to remove misaligned jogs. A jog is a small (few nanometers) protruding or receding part in the edge of a pattern, usually created by the OPC. Misaligned jogs are jogs appearing on opposite edges of a feature but not directly facing each other. Said misaligned jogs would lead to the appearance, during fracturing, of small, sub-resolution elementary shapes, uselessly increasing the number of shots—see e.g. US 2009/0070732. This may result in a rather significant count reduction; however only a fraction of the sub-resolution features which could be removed harmlessly can be suppressed this way. 
         [0011]    Use of L-shaped shots and multi-resolution writing (see the above-referenced paper by A. Elayat et al.) are also effective in reducing the shot count. However, the first requires a modification of the direct writing hardware, and the second of the writing process. 
         [0012]    US 2014/245240 discloses a method wherein a first fracturing is performed and, if the fractured pattern is dimension-critical, a second fracturing is also performed. 
         [0013]    US 2012/084740 discloses a fracturing method wherein the number of elementary shapes is reduced by using variable dose, different beam shape and by allowing overlapping of shots. 
         [0014]    US 2012/329289 discloses, too, a method wherein the number of elementary shapes is reduced by allowing overlapping of shots. 
       SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION 
       [0015]    The invention aims at providing a new shot-count reduction technique, more precise and relevant and/or simpler to implement than the known ones. Such a technique may replace or, preferably, complement, the shot-count reduction techniques of the prior art. According to the invention this result is obtained by introducing a step of suppressing some elementary shapes, chosen in such a way that the changes in the transferred pattern which result from the suppression remain within a given tolerance envelope. 
         [0016]    An object of the present invention allowing achieving this aim is a method for transferring a fractured pattern, decomposed into elementary shapes, onto a substrate by direct writing by means of a particle or photon beam, including an exposure step, comprising exposing the substrate to a plurality of shots of a shaped particle or photon beam, each shot corresponding to an elementary shape, to obtain a transferred pattern on the surface of said substrate; characterized in that it comprises, before said exposure step: 
         [0017]    a step of identifying at least one elementary shape of the fractured pattern, called removable elementary shape, whose removal induces modifications of the transferred pattern within a preset tolerance; and 
         [0018]    a step of removing said removable shape or shapes from the fractured pattern, to obtain a modified fractured pattern; 
         [0019]    and in that, during said exposure step, each shot corresponds to an elementary shape of said modified fractured pattern. 
         [0020]    According to different embodiments of the invention:
       The method may further comprise a preliminary step of generating said fractured pattern by decomposing a pattern into elementary shapes.   The method may further comprise a step of modifying at least one elementary shape of the fractured pattern, adjacent to said or one said removable shape, in order to compensate for an effect of the removal of said removable shape on the pattern transferred onto the substrate.   Said step of modifying at least one elementary shape of the fractured pattern may include repositioning at least one of its edges to make said elementary shape to partially or totally overlap a void left by removal of said removable shape.   A particle or photon exposure dose m associated to each elementary shape of the fractured pattern, the method further comprising a step of modifying the exposure dose of at least one elementary shape adjacent to said or one said removable shape in order to compensate for an effect of the removal of said removable shape on the transferred pattern.   Said step of identifying at least one removable elementary shape may comprise applying a set of rules to a list of elementary shapes of the fractured pattern.   Said step of identifying at least one removable elementary shape may comprise:       
 
         [0027]    identifying a set of candidate elementary shapes; and for each candidate elementary shape, performing a local numerical simulation of said exposure step by considering the candidate elementary shape removed from the fractured pattern, performing a local comparison between a result of said simulation and a reference pattern; and labeling the candidate elementary shape as removable or not depending on a result of said comparison.
       Said local numerical simulation may be performed by modifying at least one elementary shape adjacent to said candidate shape in order to compensate for an effect of the removal of said candidate shape on the pattern transferred onto the substrate.   The method may further comprise obtaining said reference pattern for each candidate elementary shape by performing a local numerical simulation of said exposure step without removing the candidate elementary shape from the fractured pattern.   Said comparison between a result of said simulation and a reference pattern may comprise checking that a contour of a simulated transferred pattern obtained by removing the candidate elementary shape from the fractured pattern lie within a tolerance envelope defined around a corresponding contour of a simulated transferred pattern obtained without removing the candidate elementary shape not from the fractured pattern.   Said comparison between a result of said simulation and a reference pattern may comprise checking that a dose distribution within a simulated transferred pattern obtained by removing the candidate elementary shape from the fractured pattern does not fall below a preset threshold.   Said identifying a set of candidate elementary shapes may comprise applying a set of rules to a list of elementary shapes of the fractured pattern.   Said beam may be an electron beam.   The method according may further comprise: before said exposure step, a step of depositing a resist layer on the substrate; and after said exposure step, a step of developing the resist layer.       
 
         [0035]    Another object of the invention is a computer program product comprising computer-executable code, possibly stored on a computer-readable non-transitory medium, for causing a computer to carry out at least the step of identifying at least one removable elementary shape and the step of removing said removable shape or shapes of such a method. 
         [0036]    The computer program may further comprise computer-executable code, also possibly stored on a computer-readable non-transitory medium, for causing a computer to drive a source of a particle or photon beam in order to carry out the exposure step of a method according to the invention. 
     
    
     
       BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS 
         [0037]    Additional features and advantages of the present invention will become apparent from the subsequent description, taken in conjunction with the accompanying drawings, wherein: 
           [0038]      FIG. 1 , described above, is a schematic illustration of an electron-beam lithography method and apparatus known from prior art; 
           [0039]      FIG. 2  illustrates a method according to a first embodiment of the invention; 
           [0040]      FIG. 3  illustrates an identification step of the method of  FIG. 2 ; 
           [0041]      FIG. 4  illustrates a method according to a second embodiment of the invention; and 
           [0042]      FIGS. 5 a , 5 b , 6 a  and 6 b    illustrate methods of performing the local comparison (or “consistency check”) step of the method of  FIG. 4 . 
       
    
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION 
       [0043]    According to a first embodiment of the invention, illustrated on  FIG. 2 , a pattern  200  to be transferred onto a substrate  10  is provided, typically in the form of a computer file in a suitable format, and fractured using fracturing algorithms known from the prior art. A rule-based selection, using suitable rule parameters, is then applied to the fractured pattern  210  (also in the form of a computer file) to identify removable elementary shapes. Otherwise stated, each elementary shape  2000  of the fractured pattern  200  is tested to check whether it complies with at least one of a set of predetermined rules, in which case it is removed; otherwise the elementary shape is kept (it is also possible to take removal as the default choice and use a complementary set of rules for identifying elementary shapes to be kept). Reference  220  identifies a fractured pattern modified by the removal of elementary shape  2000 , which leaves a “void”  2100 . Then, optionally, at least one elementary shape  2001 , adjacent to the removed shape  2000 , is modified in order to compensate for the removal of  2000  by filling, in whole or in part, the void  2100 . In the example of  FIG. 2 , this is obtained by repositioning the right edge of shape  2001 , shifting it toward the right; this way, the slightly enlarged shape  2001 ′ partially overlaps with void  2100  (and, incidentally, with other elementary shapes of the fractured pattern). Removal compensation could also be performed by increasing the dose of shape  2001 , which results in its broadening due to proximity effects. 
         [0044]    It is important to note that the inventive method simplifies the already-fractured pattern, while the shot-count reduction methods known from the prior art are implemented before the fracturing step. This distinctive feature leads to a greater relevance and precision. Moreover the invention does not only consider the pattern contour, as e.g. the jog realignment method, but the shot themselves; therefore it is more closely related to the physics of direct writing, which further increases its relevance. Also, it is easy to combine the inventive method with the prior art: indeed, a known technique such as jog realignment can be applied before the fracturing step, and the inventive one after it. 
         [0045]      FIG. 3  illustrates some possible rules which can be used to identify a removable shape: 
         [0046]    1. Maximal height “a” lower (or lower or equal) than a preset value a 0 , e.g. 5 nm. 
         [0047]    2. Maximal jog length “b” lower (or lower or equal) than a preset value “b 0 ”, e.g. 1000 nm. 
         [0048]    3. Distance “c” from the pattern edge higher (or higher or equal) than a preset value “c 0 ”, e.g. 2α, where α is the short-range point-spread function (PSF) of the particle or photon beam, i.e. the contribution of forward-scattering to its PSF. For electron-beam lithography, a is usually of the order of 30 nm, therefore c 0  may have a value of about 60 nm. In the example of  FIG. 3 , c 0 =0, which allows removing shapes on the pattern edge. In the example, moreover, c=c 0 =0 and parameter “c” is not represented. 
         [0049]    4. Fraction “p” of the perimeter of the shape belonging to the edge of the pattern lower (or lower or equal) than a preset value “p 0 ”, e.g. 20%. 
         [0050]    5. Distance “h” of a peripheral elementary shape from the nearest neighboring pattern higher (or higher or equal) than a preset value “h 0 ”, e.g. of the order of the critical dimension, which is typically 200 nm. 
         [0051]    6. Minimal width “d” of the region of the pattern where the elementary shape is situated larger (or larger or equal) than a preset value “d 0 ”, e.g. 200 nm. Narrower regions, which are usually generated by the OPC algorithm, should not be modified. 
         [0052]    7. Surface “f” of the elementary shape lower, or lower or equal, than a preset value “f 0 ”, e.g. 1000 nm 2 . 
         [0053]    8. Maximal length “g” of the translation of an edge of an adjacent elementary shape necessary to compensate for the removal, lower, or lower or equal, than a preset value “g 0 ”, e.g. a 0 /1.5. 
         [0054]    9. Distance “e” of the closed elementary shape already recognized as “removable”, smaller (or smaller or equal) than a preset value “e 0 ”, e.g. 3α (typically about 90 nm). If two shapes, whose distance is lower than “e 0 ”, are identified as being removable by applying the other rules, only one of them will be removed. The choice is preferably performed by identifying, on the basis of parameters a, b, etc., the shape whose removal is likely to have the least impact on the transferred pattern. 
         [0055]    10. Elementary shape not belonging or to a critical region of the pattern. If an elementary shape belongs to a region which has been defined as critical, it cannot be removed even if it meets the requirements of all the other applicable rules. 
         [0056]    Rules 1, 2, 6, 9 and 10 are particularly important. For instance, according to an embodiment of the invention, an elementary shape may be identified as being removable if rules 1 and 2 are satisfied. According to another, preferred, embodiment, the elementary shape is identified as being removable if rules 1, 2, 6 and 9 are satisfied. In an even more preferred embodiment, the elementary shape is only identified as being removable if rules 1, 2, 6, 9 and 10 are satisfied. 
         [0057]    Other rules may involve the orientation of the elementary shape, a “criticality” of the pattern region, etc. Most of these rules involve geometrical parameters, but not necessarily all of them (cf. the case of the “criticality”). 
         [0058]    The simple rules above may be used in isolation or combined into more complex one using logical operators such as “AND”, “OR”, “EXCLUSIVE OR”, “NOT”. An exemplary complex rule, combining elementary rules 1, 2, 7 and the exclusion of critical regions, might be: “Remove all the elementary shapes with [(a&lt;a 0  OR b&gt;b 0 ) AND (f&lt;f 0 ) AND NOT (shape belongs to a critical region of the pattern)]”. 
         [0059]    The optimal set of rules and the numerical values or the rules parameter a 0 , b 0  . . . depend on the direct writing technology and may be determined empirically, based on experience and/or numerical simulations. 
         [0060]    It will be understood that many removable shapes will be “slivers”, i.e. elementary shapes having at least one dimension comparable with the critical dimension (or resolution limit) of the direct writing technology; however, some elementary shapes may be removable even if they do not qualify as “slivers”. Therefore, the inventive method may induce a greater shot-count reduction than e.g. jog alignment, which only prevents the formation of a particular subset of slivers. 
         [0061]      FIG. 4  illustrates an alternative embodiment of the invention, based on numerical modeling of the direct writing process. As in the preceding embodiment, a pattern  300  is fractured, and then the elementary shapes  3000  of the resulting fractured pattern  310  are examined one by one. For each “candidate” elementary shape  3000 , a modified pattern  320  is obtained by removing it from the fractured pattern  310 , and optionally by compensating for the removal, as discussed above (the void left when the candidate elementary shape is removed is identified by reference  3100 ; no compensation is shown on the figure). Then, suitable numerical models of the electron beam propagation, of the electrons-substrate interaction, of the resist response, etc. are used to perform a “local” numerical simulation of the direct writing process, i.e. of the transfer of the modified pattern  320  onto the substrate. The simulation is qualified as “local” because it does not necessarily involve the whole fractured pattern, but may only concern a region centered on the candidate shape  3000  and extending over an area depending on the range of proximity effects (at least theoretically, a single global simulation could replace the multiple local simulations, but such an approach would require a huge computing power). The simulation result is a numerical representation  330  of a transferred pattern, from which a contour  360  can be extracted using conventional image processing algorithms. 
         [0062]    A similar local simulation is performed, using the original fractured pattern and the same numerical models, to obtain a “reference” pattern from which a “target” contour  340  is extracted. User defined tolerances allow tracing a “tolerance envelope”  350  around said target contour. Then, it is checked whether the contour  360  corresponding to the modified fractured pattern is comprised within this tolerance envelope  350  (“consistency check”); the candidate shape  3000  is labeled as removable only in the affirmative. 
         [0063]    Advantageously, the width of the tolerance envelope is not predetermined and uniform over the whole pattern, but is computed locally as a function of parameters such as: 
         [0064]    the Edge Placement Error (EPE), i.e. the displacement of the edge pattern once transferred onto the resist; 
         [0065]    the Energy Latitude (EL), expressing the sensitivity of the pattern to variations of the dose; 
         [0066]    the Line Edge Roughness (LER), i.e. the deviation on an edge from an ideal line after the exposure step. One simple measure of the LER is the RMS (root mean square) deviation of an edge from the best fit straight line. It can be simulated using a “LER model” taking for example the dose and the EL as inputs. 
         [0067]    The left panel of  FIG. 5A  shows a portion of a fractured pattern  300  comprising a candidate shape  3000 , the contour  340  of the corresponding transferred pattern and the associated tolerance envelope  350 . The right panel of the figure shows the modified fractured pattern  320  obtained by removing candidate shape  3000 , and the contour  360  of the corresponding transferred pattern. It can be seen that the modified contour  360  remains within the tolerance envelope  350 : candidate shape  3000  is then considered removable. 
         [0068]    The left panel of  FIG. 5B  shows a portion of a slightly different fractured pattern  301 , comprising a candidate shape  3001  which is larger than the candidate shape  3000  of  FIG. 5A , the contour  341  of the corresponding transferred pattern and the associated tolerance envelope  351 . The right panel of the figure shows the modified fractured pattern  321  obtained by removing candidate shape  3001 , and the contour  361  of the corresponding transferred pattern. It can be seen that the modified contour  361  is not fully within the tolerance envelope  351 : candidate shape  3001  is then considered non-removable. 
         [0069]    Considering contours alone may not be sufficient to assess the removability of elementary shape, especially of those which are situated deep inside the pattern. A more satisfactory local comparison between the modified and reference transferred patterns also takes into account the spatial distribution of the dose, which may be computed using the numerical models, in particular to verify that it exceeds the resist threshold across the whole modified pattern. This is illustrated on  FIGS. 6A and 6B . The left panel of  FIG. 6A  shows a portion of a fractured pattern comprising 10 slivers and 8 larger elementary shapes; the right panel shows the dose distribution across line AA′: the dose is almost constant, well above the resist threshold TH. The left panel of  FIG. 6B  shows the corresponding portion of the modified fractured pattern obtained by removing the 10 slivers; the right panel shows the associated distribution: it is less uniform than in the case of  FIG. 6A , but still well above the threshold, suggesting that the slivers are indeed removable. 
         [0070]    In the rule-based embodiment ( FIGS. 2 and 3 ) there is no consistency check. Instead the rules are chosen such that, in the vast majority of case, the removal of selected elementary shapes will induce modifications of the transferred pattern within a preset tolerance. 
         [0071]    The embodiments of  FIGS. 2-3 and 4  are not mutually exclusive and can advantageously be combined. For instance, a rule-based approach (cf.  FIG. 2 ) may be used to pre-select candidate shapes whose removability is checked using a more accurate—but much more computationally intensive—model-based approach (cf.  FIG. 4 ). In a simpler implementation, the pre-selection step only excludes elementary shapes belonging to particularly sensible zones of the pattern. 
         [0072]    The inventive method is typically implemented by executing a suitable program on a computer. Said computer may directly drive the EBL apparatus (cf. computer or processor  40  on  FIG. 1 ) or simply produce data to be provided to the EBL apparatus. The program comprises instruction code for fracturing an input pattern (or receiving as its input an already-fractured pattern), for identifying removable elementary shapes using one of the methods described above and for outputting a modified fractured pattern obtained by removing the elementary shapes identified as being removable. It may also comprise instruction code for driving the EBL apparatus accordingly. 
         [0073]    The program itself, the file(s) representing the pattern(s), the rule parameters (for the embodiment of  FIGS. 2 and 3 ), the model and tolerance data (for embodiment of  FIG. 4 ) may be stored on the same or on different, and possibly remote, computer-readable storage media. For example, the program and the files mentioned above may be stored in the memory device  41  of the processor of  FIG. 1 .