WO2009026358A1 - Computer-implemented methods for determining if actual defects are potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects - Google Patents
Computer-implemented methods for determining if actual defects are potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- WO2009026358A1 WO2009026358A1 PCT/US2008/073706 US2008073706W WO2009026358A1 WO 2009026358 A1 WO2009026358 A1 WO 2009026358A1 US 2008073706 W US2008073706 W US 2008073706W WO 2009026358 A1 WO2009026358 A1 WO 2009026358A1
- Authority
- WO
- WIPO (PCT)
- Prior art keywords
- defects
- actual
- randomly generated
- group
- groups
- Prior art date
Links
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06F—ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING
- G06F30/00—Computer-aided design [CAD]
- G06F30/30—Circuit design
- G06F30/39—Circuit design at the physical level
- G06F30/398—Design verification or optimisation, e.g. using design rule check [DRC], layout versus schematics [LVS] or finite element methods [FEM]
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G01—MEASURING; TESTING
- G01R—MEASURING ELECTRIC VARIABLES; MEASURING MAGNETIC VARIABLES
- G01R31/00—Arrangements for testing electric properties; Arrangements for locating electric faults; Arrangements for electrical testing characterised by what is being tested not provided for elsewhere
- G01R31/28—Testing of electronic circuits, e.g. by signal tracer
- G01R31/317—Testing of digital circuits
- G01R31/3181—Functional testing
- G01R31/3183—Generation of test inputs, e.g. test vectors, patterns or sequences
- G01R31/318314—Tools, e.g. program interfaces, test suite, test bench, simulation hardware, test compiler, test program languages
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G01—MEASURING; TESTING
- G01R—MEASURING ELECTRIC VARIABLES; MEASURING MAGNETIC VARIABLES
- G01R31/00—Arrangements for testing electric properties; Arrangements for locating electric faults; Arrangements for electrical testing characterised by what is being tested not provided for elsewhere
- G01R31/28—Testing of electronic circuits, e.g. by signal tracer
- G01R31/317—Testing of digital circuits
- G01R31/3181—Functional testing
- G01R31/3183—Generation of test inputs, e.g. test vectors, patterns or sequences
- G01R31/318371—Methodologies therefor, e.g. algorithms, procedures
Definitions
- TITLE COMPUTER-IMPLEMENTED METHODS FOR DETERMINING IF ACTUAL DEFECTS ARE POTENTIALLY SYSTEMATIC DEFECTS OR POTENTIALLY RANDOM DEFECTS
- the present invention generally relates to computer- implemented methods for determining if actual defects are potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects. Certain embodiments relate to determining if actual defects are potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects by comparing actual defects grouped by design to randomly generated defects grouped by design
- An integrated circuit (IC) design may be developed using a method or system such as electronic design automation (EDA), computer aided design (CAD), and other IC design software. Such methods and systems may also be used to generate a circuit pattern database from the IC design.
- the circuit pattern database includes data representing a plurality of layouts for various layers of the IC. Data in the circuit pattern database may, therefore, be used to determine layouts for a plurality of reticles.
- a layout of a reticle generally includes polygons that define features in a pattern on the reticle. Each reticle is used to fabricate one of the various layers of the IC.
- the layers of the IC may include, for example, a junction pattern in a semiconductor substrate, a gate dielectric pattern, a gate electrode pattern, a contact pattern in an interlevel dielectric, and an interconnect pattern on a metallization layer.
- Fabricating semiconductor devices such as logic and memory devices typically includes processing a substrate such as a semiconductor wafer using a large number of
- lithography is a semiconductor fabrication process that involves transferring a pattern from a reticle to a resist arranged on a semiconductor wafer. Additional examples of semiconductor fabrication processes include, but are not limited to, chemical-mechanical polishing (CMP), etch, deposition, and ion implantation. Multiple semiconductor devices may be fabricated in an arrangement on a single semiconductor wafer and then separated into individual semiconductor devices.
- CMP chemical-mechanical polishing
- etch etch
- deposition deposition
- ion implantation ion implantation
- Inspection processes are used at various steps during a semiconductor manufacturing process to detect defects on wafers to promote higher yield in the manufacturing process and thus higher profits. Inspection has always been an important part of fabricating semiconductor devices such as ICs, However, as the dimensions of semiconductor devices decrease, inspection becomes even more important to the successful manufacture of acceptable semiconductor devices because smaller defects can cause the devices to fail. For instance, as the dimensions of semiconductor devices decrease, detection of defects of decreasing size has become necessary since even relatively small defects may cause unwanted aberrations in the semiconductor devices.
- process induced failures may, in some cases, tend to be systematic. That is, process induced failures tend to fail at predetermined design patterns often repeated many times within the design.
- process induced failures are defects that are created from the artifacts
- Systematic defects are structurally repeating defects that still may be distributed at random locations spatially. Elimination of systematic, electrically relevant defects is important because eliminating such defects can have a significant overall impact on yield,
- One currently used method for separating systematic and random defects uses repeater analysis. Another method for separating systematic and random defects relies upon a user-defined horizontal cut-line (or threshold) applied to a Pareto chart illustrating defects grouped by similarity between design clips. Groups that include a number of defects higher than this cut-line are defined to be potential systematic defects although, in general, systematic defects are not identified based on defect count alone. In particular, review of potential systematic defects is generally performed. However, such methods have a number of disadvantages.
- One embodiment relates to a computer-implemented method for determining if actual defects are potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects.
- the method includes comparing a number of actual defects in a group to a number of randomly generated defects in a group. The actual defects are detected on a wafer. A portion of a design on the wafer proximate a location of each of the actual defects in the group and each of the randomly generated defects in the group is substantially the same.
- the method also includes determining if the actual defects in the group are potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects based on results of the comparing step.
- the comparing step includes comparing a Pareto chart generated for the actual defects to a Pareto chart generated for the randomly generated defects. In another embodiment, the comparing step includes determining a ratio of the number of the actual defects in the group to the number of the randomly generated defects in the group.
- the portion of the design corresponds to a design clip.
- the method is performed separately for different groups of actual defects detected on the wafer.
- a portion of the design on the wafer proximate a location of each of the actual defects in each of the different groups is substantially the same.
- the method is performed separately for all groups of actual defects detected on the wafer.
- a portion of the design on the wafer proximate a location of each of the actual defects in each of all of the groups is substantially the same.
- the method is performed without user intervention.
- the actual defects are detected by inspection of a layer on the wafer, and the randomly generated defects are generated once for an inspection recipe for the layer on the wafer and used for performing the method for defects detected on the layer of multiple wafers using the inspection recipe.
- the determining step includes determining that the actual defects in the group are potentially systematic defects if the number of the actual defects in the group is greater than the number of the randomly generated defects in the group and determining that the actual defects in the group are potentially random defects if the number of the actual defects in the group is not greater than the number of the randomly generated defects in the group.
- the determining step includes determining that the actual defects in the group are potentially systematic defects if the number of the actual defects in the group is statistically greater than the number of the randomly generated defects in the group and determining that the actual defects in the group are potentially random defects if the number of the actual defects in the group is not statistically greater than the number of the randomly generated defects in the group.
- the method includes normalizing the number of the randomly generated defects in the group to the number of the actual defects in the group based on total number of the actual defects detected on the wafer and total number of the randomly generated defects.
- the method includes comparing the number of the actual defects in the group to a number of different randomly generated defects in a different group. A portion of the design proximate the location of each of the actual defects in the group and a location of each of the different randomly generated defects in the different group is substantially the same. The randomly generated defects and the different randomly generated defects are separately generated.
- the determining step includes determining if the actual defects in the group are potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects based on the results of comparing the number of the actual defects in the group to the number of the randomly generated defects in the group and the number of the different randomly generated defects in the group.
- each of the steps of the method described above may be further performed as described herein.
- each of the embodiments of the method described above may include any other step(s) of any other method(s) described herein.
- each of the embodiments of the method described above may include any other step(s) of any other method(s) described herein.
- NYCDMS/! 097436 1 of the embodiments of the method described above may be performed by any of the systems described herein.
- Another embodiment relates to a computer-implemented method for creating a set of groups of randomly generated defects for use in determining if groups of actual defects are potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects.
- the method includes randomly generating a set of defects at different locations across an area corresponding to an inspected area of at least a portion of a wafer.
- the method also includes binning the set of randomly generated defects into groups such that a portion of a design on the wafer proximate locations of the randomly generated defects in each of the groups is substantially the same.
- the method includes determining a number of the randomly generated defects in each of the groups.
- the numbers of the randomly generated defects in the groups can be compared to numbers of actual defects in corresponding groups to determine if the actual defects in the corresponding groups are potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects.
- the method is performed more than once to determine additional numbers for a different set of randomly generated defects.
- the numbers and the additional numbers can be compared to the numbers of the actual defects in the corresponding groups to determine if the actual defects in the corresponding groups are potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects.
- the method includes using the additional numbers to validate the randomly generating step.
- randomly generating the set of defects includes randomly generating the set of defects using stochastic simulation. In another embodiment, randomly generating the set of defects includes randomly generating the defects at locations arranged in a grid across the area. In an additional embodiment, randomly generating the set of defects includes randomly generating the defects at locations having a substantially uniform distribution across the area. In a further embodiment, randomly generating the set of defects is performed such that a frequency of the randomly generated defects in each of the groups is approximately equal to a frequency of the portion of the
- NYCDMS/1097436 1 design proximate the locations of the randomly generated defects in each of the groups across the area.
- the inspected area of at least the portion of the wafer is approximately equal to an inspected area of a die on the wafer.
- the method includes generating a Pareto chart for the set of randomly generated defects.
- the numbers of the randomly generated defects can be compared to the numbers of the actual defects in the corresponding groups by comparing the Pareto chart for the set of the randomly generated defects to a Pareto chart for the actual defects.
- An additional embodiment relates to a computer-implemented method for creating a normalized set of groups of randomly generated defects for use in determining if corresponding groups of actual defects are potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects.
- the method includes determining a total number of all actual defects detected on a layer of a wafer.
- the method also includes normalizing numbers of randomly generated defects in groups to numbers of the actual defects in corresponding groups based on the total number of all of the actual defects detected on the wafer. A portion of a design on the wafer proximate locations of the randomly generated defects in each of the groups is substantially the same.
- the normalized numbers of the randomly generated defects in the groups can be compared to numbers of the actual defects in the corresponding groups to determine if the corresponding groups of the actual defects are potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects.
- NYCDMS/1097436 1 embodiment of the method described above may be performed by any of the systems described herein.
- Fig. 1 is a die map illustrating one example of die stacking results showing actual defects detected on a wafer
- Fig. 2 is a die map illustrating one example of results of one embodiment of randomly generating a set of defects at different locations across an area corresponding to an inspected area of at least a portion of a wafer;
- Fig. 3 is a Pareto chart, configured and generated according to embodiments described herein, for a set of randomly generated defects;
- Fig. 4 is a Pareto chart, configured and generated according to embodiments described herein, for actual defects detected on a wafer;
- Fig. 5 is a Pareto chart, configured and generated according to embodiments described herein, showing results of comparing a Pareto chart generated for actual defects to a Pareto chart generated for randomly generated defects;
- Fig. 6 is a Pareto chart, configured and generated according to embodiments described herein, showing results of comparing a Pareto chart generated for actual defects to two Pareto charts generated for two different sets of randomly generated defects;
- Fig. 7 is a schematic diagram illustrating a side view of one embodiment of a computer-readable medium that includes program instructions executable on a computer system for performing one or more embodiments of one or more computer-implemented methods described herein and one embodiment of a system configured to perform one or more computer-implemented methods described herein.
- actual defects refers to actual defects detected on a wafer. Therefore, the term “actual defects” does not refer to actual defects that may be present on a wafer but have not been detected on the wafer,
- wafer generally refers to substrates formed of a semiconductor or non-semiconductor material.
- a semiconductor or non-semiconductor material include, but are not limited to, monocrystalline silicon, gallium arsenide, and indium phosphide. Such substrates may be commonly found and/or processed in semiconductor fabrication facilities.
- a wafer may include one or more layers formed upon a substrate.
- such layers may include, but are not limited to, a resist, a dielectric material, a conductive material, and a semiconductive material.
- a resist a resist
- a dielectric material a dielectric material
- a conductive material a conductive material
- a semiconductive material a material that is used in the art.
- wafer as used herein is intended to encompass a wafer including all types of such layers.
- One or more layers formed on a wafer may be patterned or unpatterned.
- a wafer may include a plurality of dies, each having repeatable patterned features. Formation and processing of such layers of material may ultimately result in completed devices.
- Many different types of devices such as integrated circuits (ICs) may be formed on a wafer, and the term wafer as used herein is intended to encompass a wafer on which any type of device known in the art is being fabricated.
- N YCDMS/ 1097436.1 of reticles are known in the art, and the terras "reticle,” '"mask.” and “photomask” as used herein are intended to encompass all types of reticles known in the art.
- the embodiments described herein relate to differentiating between potentially systematic defects and potentially random defects.
- "Potentially systematic defects” are defined herein as actual defects in a group of defects (or a bin) that is likely to contain systematic defects as opposed to random defects (although whether or not the group contains systematic defects may be confirmed or determined more definitely using one or more other methods (e.g., defect review)).
- "Potentially random defects” are defined herein as actual defects in a group (or a bin) that is likely to contain random defects as opposed to systematic defects (although whether or not the group contains random defects may be confirmed or determined in a more definite manner using one or more other methods (e.g., defect review)).
- One embodiment relates to a computer-implemented method for creating a set of groups of randomly generated defects for use in determining if groups of actual defects are potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects.
- the actual defects are defects detected on a wafer.
- the actual defects may be detected on a patterned wafer such that the defects can be grouped based on design as described further herein.
- the set of groups of randomly generated defects may be used to determine if groups of actual defects are potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects as described further herein.
- the set of groups of randomly generated defects may be used in embodiments of methods for determining if actual defects are potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects described further herein.
- the method includes randomly generating a set of defects at different locations across an area corresponding to an inspected area of at least a portion of a wafer.
- the set of defects may be randomly generated on the design representing the
- randomly generated defects may be generated with substantially the same defect density as the detected defects.
- randomly generating the set of defects includes randomly generating the set of defects using stochastic simulation (e.g., simulation that is nondeterministic in some manner, as opposed to being deterministic).
- the randomly generated defects may be simulated using any appropriate stochastic simulation method, system, algorithm, technique, etc. (e.g., Monte Carlo simulation).
- the set of randomly generated defects may include truly randomly generated defects.
- randomly generating the set of defects includes randomly generating the defects at locations arranged in a grid across the area.
- the defects may be oriented in a regular grid across the area.
- randomly generating the set of defects includes randomly generating the defects at locations having a substantially uniform distribution across the area. (Randomly generated defects oriented in a regular grid may also have a substantially uniform distribution across the area.)
- randomly generating the set of defects may include removing actual defects detected by inspection of a layer on a wafer from inspection results and replacing the actual defects with randomly generated defects so that the randomly generated defects are substantially uniformly distributed across the area.
- the inspection results may include any appropriate inspection results such as a
- Fig. 1 shows die map 10 of die stacking results generated by inspecting a 65 nm polysilicon layer of a wafer.
- die map 10 shows locations of actual defects 12 detected in multiple dies on the polysilicon layer overlaid with one another by die stacking. Die stacking results may be generated in any suitable manner.
- NYCDMS/1097436 1 die map 10 includes 10,000 defects.
- the KLARF for die map 10 was used to generate another KLARF for randomly generated defects by removing the actual defects detected by the inspection from die map 10 and replacing the actual defects with randomly generated defects so that the randomly generated defects are substantially uniformly distributed across the area.
- die map 10 was used to generate die map 14 shown in Fig. 2 that shows locations of randomly generated defects 16 across the area.
- Randomly generated defects 16 include 10,000 defects arranged in a 100 defect x 100 defect grid (or two-dimensional array) across the area of the die on the layer of the wafer.
- the defects in both KLARFs can be binned based on design as described further herein, and the numbers of actual and randomly generated defects in corresponding groups can be compared as described further herein to determine if each group of actual defects includes potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects. In this manner, the results of design based grouping for actual defects and randomly generated defects may be compared on a group by group basis to determine if groups of actual defects include potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects.
- randomly generating the set of defects is performed such that a frequency of the randomly generated defects in each of the groups is approximately equal to a frequency of the portion of the design proximate the locations of the randomly generated defects in each of the groups across the area.
- the defects may be randomly generated such that the randomly generated defects have a frequency that is approximately equal to the expected frequency of random defects for certain structures within the design.
- random defectivity can vary widely from wafer to wafer, the more frequently certain structures appear in the design the more random defects will in general be detected in the structures. In this manner, for portions of the design that appear across the wafer at a higher frequency, more defects may be randomly generated thereby better approximating the number of random defects that may be detected on a wafer in different portions of the design.
- randomly generated defects may exhibit substantially the same distribution across a wafer as the distribution of design clips across the wafer thereby better approximating the distribution of random defects that may actually be detected on the wafer.
- the inspected area of at least the portion of the wafer is approximately equal to an inspected area of a die on the wafer.
- the randomly generated defects do not have to be generated at different locations across an area corresponding to the inspected area of the entire wafer. Instead, the randomly generated defects may be generated for only a portion of the entire inspected area of the wafer (e.g., an inspected area of a die on the wafer), and the numbers of the randomly generated defects in each of the groups may be normalized as described further herein based on the total number of actual defects detected across the entire inspected area of the wafer, the portion of the entire inspected area for which the randomly generated defects were generated, and the entire inspected area of the wafer.
- the set of defects may be randomly generated across an inspected area of a die (which is equivalent to simulating across the wafer and then stacking the defects).
- the randomly generated defect counts can be normalized to match the detected defect count as described further herein,
- the method also includes binning the set of randomly generated defects into groups such that a portion of a design on the wafer proximate locations of the randomly generated defects in each of the groups is substantially the same.
- each of the groups of the randomly generated defects corresponds to a different portion of the design, and the randomly generated defects in each of the groups are located proximate substantially the same portion of the design,
- the randomly generated defects may be separated into groups based on design (e.g., design clip). Binning the set of randomly generated defects into the groups based on design may be performed as described in commonly owned U.S. Patent Application Serial Nos. 1 1/561 ,735 by Kulkarni et al. published as U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0156379 on July 5, 2007 and 1 1/561 ,659 Zafar et al. published as U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0288219 on December 13, 2007, both of which were filed on November 20, 2006, and both of which are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
- the embodiments described herein may include any step(s) of any method(s) described in these patent applications.
- the method further includes determining a number of the randomly generated defects in each of the groups.
- the numbers of the randomly generated defects in the groups can be compared to numbers of actual defects in corresponding groups to determine if the actual defects in the corresponding groups are potentially systematic 5 defects or potentially random defects.
- the numbers (e.g., the defect counts) of the randomly generated defects in the groups can be determined in any suitable manner.
- the numbers of the randomly generated defects in the groups can be compared to the numbers of the actual defects in the corresponding groups according to any of the embodiments described herein.
- determining if the actual defects in the groups are l o potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects may be performed based on results of the comparison according to any of the embodiments described herein.
- the method includes generating a Pareto chart for the set of randomly generated defects.
- This "random Pareto chart” can be constructed using any of the randomly generated defects described herein (e.g., truly randomly generated defects or
- the set of randomly generated defects may be binned into different groups based on design (e.g., design clip) as described further herein, and a Pareto chart may be generated for the set of randomly generated defects using results of the binning.
- design e.g., design clip
- Pareto chart may be generated for the set of randomly generated defects using results of the binning.
- all of the defects in any one of the groups will be located proximate to the same (or substantially the same) 0 portion of the design. Therefore, the Pareto chart for the randomly generated defects will show the numbers of defects binned into different groups, each of which corresponds to a different portion of the design.
- a Pareto chart generated for a set of randomly generated defects shows the GDS5 pattern group ID along the x axis and the defect count along the y axis.
- Pareto chart graphically illustrates the number of defects binned into each of the different groups, each of which corresponds to a different portion of the GDS pattern. In this manner, the numbers of the randomly generated defects and the numbers of the actual defects in corresponding groups can be compared as described further herein by 0 comparing the Pareto chart for the set of the randomly generated defects to a Pareto chart
- NYCDMS/1097436 1 for the actual defects.
- numbers of randomly generated defects and actual defects in groups that have the same GDS pattern group ID, and therefore are corresponding groups may be compared.
- Multiple runs of randomly generating the set of defects may be performed to provide for a more statistically significant approximation of the total random distribution from a limited sample.
- the method is performed more than once to determine additional numbers for a different set of randomly generated defects.
- the method may be performed more than once such that different sets of randomly generated defects may be separately randomly generated.
- Each of the different sets of the randomly generated defects may be randomly generated in the same or different manners (e.g., according to any of the embodiments described herein).
- the additional numbers for the different set of the randomly generated defects may be determined according to any of the embodiments described herein.
- the numbers and the additional numbers can be compared to the numbers of the actual defects in the corresponding groups to determine if the actual defects in the corresponding groups are potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects.
- the numbers for the different sets of the randomly generated defects in the groups can be compared to the numbers of the actual defects in the corresponding groups according to any of the embodiments described herein.
- determining if the actual defects in the corresponding groups are potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects may be performed based on the comparison to the numbers for the different sets of randomly generated defects according to any of the embodiments described herein.
- the method may include statistically combining results from multiple sets of randomly generated defects to determine the confidence interval for the count of each bin.
- This confidence interval can be used to assign a probability that a given bin is potentially systematic or could be used to set a threshold (e.g., bin as potentially systematic if count is greater than 90% confidence interval would indicate). In this manner, the randomly generating step may be statistically repeated to improve the confidence that the randomly generated population represents the actual population.
- the method is performed more than once to determine additional numbers for a different set of randomly generated defects, and the method includes using the additional numbers to validate the randomly generating step (in which the first set of randomly generated defects was generated).
- the set of randomly generated defects (and the random Pareto chart) can be generated multiple times to validate the stability of the randomization process.
- the method may be performed more than once such that different sets of randomly generated defects are separately randomly generated.
- each of the different sets of the randomly generated defects is preferably randomly generated in the same manner (e.g., according to any of the embodiments described herein).
- the additional numbers for the different set of the randomly generated defects may be determined according to any of the embodiments described herein.
- Validating the randomly generating step may include comparing the numbers for the different sets of randomly generated defects.
- the numbers for the different sets of the randomly generated defects in the groups can be compared on a group by group basis according to any of the embodiments described herein,
- validating the randomly generating step may include determining if the numbers for the different sets of randomly generated defects are similar enough to be considered statistically the same. Determining if the numbers are similar enough to be considered statistically the same may be performed in any appropriate manner.
- the embodiments of the method described above may include any other ste ⁇ (s) of any other method(s) described herein.
- the embodiments of the method described above may be performed by any of the systems described herein.
- Another embodiment relates to a computer-implemented method for creating a normalized set of groups of randomly generated defects for use in determining if corresponding groups of actual defects are potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects.
- the method includes determining a total number of all actual defects detected on a layer of a wafer.
- the actual defects included in the total number preferably do not include nuisance defects.
- nuisance defects are preferably removed from inspection results in any suitable manner prior to determining the total number.
- the actual defects may include defects detected on a layer of a patterned wafer.
- the method may or may not include detecting the actual defects on the layer of the wafer as described further herein. Furthermore, the method may or may not include removing the nuisance defects from the inspection results (e.g., if the wafer is inspected by another method, that method may include removing the nuisance defects from the inspection results and therefore the nuisance defects would not have to be removed from the inspection results by the methods described herein). Determining the total number of all of the actual defects detected on the layer may be performed in any suitable manner,
- the method also includes normalizing numbers of randomly generated defects in groups to numbers of the actual defects in corresponding groups based on the total number of all of the actual defects detected on the wafer. A portion of a design on the wafer proximate locations of the randomly generated defects in each of the groups is substantially the same.
- the randomly generated defects are grouped by design (e.g., by design clip), and the number of the randomly generated defects in each of the groups may be normalized based on total number of actual defects detected on the wafer, Normalizing the number of the randomly generated defects in each of the groups may be performed in any suitable manner (e.g., multiplying the number of randomly generated defects in each group by some factor so that the total number of randomly generated defects in all of the groups is approximately equal to the total number of actual defects detected on the wafer).
- the total number of actual defects detected on the wafer may vary across wafers dramatically (e.g., due to variations in one or more processes used to fabricate the wafers and/or due to variations in the wafers themselves).
- normalizing the number of the randomly generated defects in each of the groups may increase the accuracy with which potentially systematic defects can be differentiated from potentially random defects as described further herein.
- normalizing the number of the randomly generated defects in each of the groups based on the total number of actual defects detected on any given wafer increases the utility of the set of randomly generated defects (e.g., one set of randomly generated defects can be used for multiple wafers with relatively high accuracy regardless of the actual defectivity of different wafers),
- normalizing the number of randomly generated defects in each of the groups to
- N YCDMS/ 1097436 1 defect density allows data to be compared from inspection recipe to inspection recipe for the same device. Such normalizing may be particularly advantageous for monitoring.
- the normalized numbers of the randomly generated defects in the groups can be compared to numbers of the actual defects in the corresponding groups to determine if the corresponding groups of the actual defects are potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects.
- the normalized numbers of the randomly generated defects in the groups can be compared to the numbers of the actual defects in the corresponding groups according to any embodiments described herein. The results of such comparisons may be used to determine if the corresponding groups of the actual defects are potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects according to any embodiments described herein.
- the embodiment of the method described above may include any other step(s) of any other method(s) described herein, In addition, the embodiment of the method described above may be performed by any of the systems described herein.
- An additional embodiment relates to a computer-implemented method for determining if actual defects are potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects.
- the actual defects are detected on a wafer.
- the actual defects may be detected on a patterned wafer such that the actual defects may be grouped based on design as described further herein.
- the methods described herein may or may not include detecting the actual defects on the wafer.
- the methods described herein may include inspecting the wafer using any suitable inspection method, system, and/or technique (e.g., by scanning the wafer with light, detecting light scattered from the wafer during the scanning, and detecting defects on the wafer using output responsive to the detected light).
- the methods described herein may include acquiring inspection results from another system (e.g., an inspection system), another method (e.g., a method performed to detect defects on the wafer), a storage medium (e.g., a fab database), etc.
- a portion of a design on the wafer proximate a location of each of the actual defects in a group and each of the randomly generated defects in a corresponding group is substantially the same.
- NYCDMS/1097436 1 defects may be binned into groups as described further herein based on a portion of a design proximate to the location of each of the defects. In this manner, the portion of the design proximate the locations of defects in a group may be substantially the same, In addition, different groups of actual defects correspond to different portions of the design, and different groups of randomly generated defects correspond to different portions of the design.
- the portion of the design corresponds to a design clip.
- 'clip refers to a relatively small portion of the design layout.
- clip can be generally defined as the area in a design around a defect and can be thought of as the neighborhood of the defect.
- polygons define the pattern within the clip, but the polygons can partially extend beyond the clip. Therefore, each of the groups may correspond to a different portion of the design, and the different portions of the design may include different structures in the design. As such, the actual defects may be separated into groups based on design clip, and the randomly generated defects may be separated into groups based on design clip.
- the numbers of the actual and randomly generated defects separated into groups corresponding to the same design clip may be compared as described further herein.
- the actual and randomly generated defects may be separated into groups based on design using patch images of the defects.
- the patch images may be acquired in any suitable manner and may include any suitable such images.
- the actual and randomly generated defects may be separated into groups based on design (and design clip and/or patch images) as described in the above-referenced patent applications by Kulkarni et al. and Zafar et al., which are incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein,
- the method includes normalizing the number of the randomly generated defects in the group to the number of the actual defects in the group based on total number of the actual defects detected on the wafer and total number of the randomly generated defects.
- the comparisons described further herein may be performed after a random Pareto chart has been normalized to a Pareto chart generated for the actual defects to account for differences in total defect count between the randomly generated defects and
- NYCDMS/1097436 1 the actual defects.
- the number of the randomly generated defects in the group may be normalized to the number of the actual defects in a corresponding group according to any of the embodiments described herein.
- the method includes comparing a number of actual defects in a group to a number of randomly generated defects in a group.
- the method may include comparing an actual defect sample to a random defect sample.
- the number of actual defects in one group is compared to the number of randomly generated defects in a corresponding group.
- groups of actual defects and randomly generated defects that correspond to one another may include groups that include defects located proximate to the same (or substantially the same) portion of the design. In this manner, the number of actual defects located proximate to one portion of the design can be compared to the number of randomly generated defects located proximate to the same (or substantially the same) portion of the design.
- the numbers of actual defects and randomly generated defects may be compared on a group basis and therefore a design basis. Comparing the numbers of the actual defects and the randomly generated defects in corresponding groups may be performed on a group basis according to any of the embodiments described herein.
- the comparing step includes comparing a Pareto chart generated for the actual defects to a Pareto chart generated for the randomly generated defects.
- the comparing step may include comparing a distribution of randomly generated defects across pattern group to a distribution of actual defects across pattern group.
- the method may include comparing the design clip Pareto chart generated for the actual detected defects (actual Pareto chart) to a design clip Pareto chart generated for randomly generated defects (random Pareto chart).
- Fig. 4 One example of a Pareto chart generated according to embodiments described herein for actual defects is shown in Fig. 4, In particular, as shown in Fig.
- the Pareto chart generated for the actual defects shows the GDS pattern group ID along the x axis and the defect count along the y axis.
- the Pareto chart graphically illustrates the number of actual defects binned into each of the different groups, each of which corresponds to a different portion of the GDS pattern. Therefore, the Pareto chart
- N YCDMS/ 1097436 1 illustrates the results of design based grouping performed for actual defects detected on a wafer.
- the numbers of the actual defects in groups can be compared to the numbers of the randomly generated defects in corresponding groups as described further herein by comparing the Pareto chart for the actual defects to a Pareto chart for the randomly generated defects.
- corresponding groups of actual defects and randomly generated defects may be groups that have the same GDS pattern group ID, Therefore, groups of actual defects and randomly generated defects having the same GDS pattern group ID may be compared to each other to determine if any of the groups of actual defects are potentially systematic defects.
- Fig. 5 illustrates one embodiment of results of comparison of a Pareto chart generated for actual defects to a Pareto chart generated for randomly generated defects.
- the Pareto chart generated for a comparison of numbers of actual defects and randomly generated defects in corresponding groups shows the GDS pattern group ID along the x axis and the defect count for both the actual defects and the randomly generated defects along the y axis.
- the Pareto chart shown in Fig. 5 graphically illustrates the numbers of actual defects and randomly generated defects binned into the different groups, each of which corresponds to a different portion of the GDS pattern. In this manner, the Pareto chart shown in Fig.
- the results of the comparison illustrated by the Pareto chart shown in Fig. 5 can be used to determine if groups of actual defects are potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects as described further herein.
- the actual defects binned into groups 2, 3, 4, and 10 may be determined to be potentially systematic defects based on the comparison results shown in the Pareto chart of Fig. 5 while the actual defects binned into groups 0, 5, 7, and 9 may be determined to be potentially random defects based on the comparison results shown in the Pareto chart of Fig. 5.
- the comparing step includes determining a ratio of the number of the actual defects in the group to the number of the randomly generated defects in the group.
- the ratio of the number of the actual defects in the group to the number of the randomly generated defects in the group may be determined in any suitable manner.
- the ratio may be a relative ratio, which may also be determined in any suitable manner. In this manner, the ratio of the number of actual defects to the number of randomly generated defects in groups corresponding to the same (or substantially the same) portion of the design may be determined, which provides a measure of the differences between the numbers of actual defects and randomly generated defects corresponding to the same (or substantially the same) portion of the design. Therefore, the ratio can be used to determine if groups of actual defects are potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects as described further herein.
- the method also includes determining if the actual defects in the group are potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects based on results of the comparing step. For example, if there is a significant difference between the number of actual defects in a group and the number of randomly generated defects in a corresponding group, the actual defects in the group may be determined to be potentially systematic defects.
- a significant difference may be defined statistically (e.g., a significant difference may be a statistically significant difference).
- almost all corresponding groups of actual and randomly generated defects may include different numbers of actual defects and randomly generated defects (e.g., due to natural variability in the processes performed on the wafers and/or due to natural variations in the wafers themselves). Therefore, the method may include determining if differences between numbers of actual defects and randomly generated defects in corresponding groups are statistically significant differences, which may be performed in any suitable manner.
- the ratio of the number of the actual defects in the group to the number of the randomly generated defects in the group may be used to determine if the actual defects in the group are likely to be systematic defects. For example, if the ratio of the number of the actual defects in the group to the number of the randomly generated defects in the group is 1 or statistically
- the actual defects in the group may be determined to be potentially random defects. However, if the ratio of the number of the actual defects in the group to the number of the randomly generated defects in the group is statistically greater than 1 , the actual defects in the group may be determined to be potentially systematic defects since systematic defect groups may be defect groups that have a relatively high ratio of actual defect count to randomly generated defect count. Determining if the ratio is statistically greater than 1 may be performed in any suitable manner.
- the number of the randomly generated defects in the group that is used to determine the ratio may be the normalized number of randomly generated defects in the group since the randomly generated defects may be generated on a die basis while the number of the actual defects in the group will be wafer-based (e.g., based on the number of the actual defects detected across the wafer) or inspection plan-based (e.g., based on the area inspected on the wafer). Therefore, normalization may account for the different areas across which the randomly generated defects are generated and the actual defects are detected thereby increasing the accuracy of the determination of whether the actual defects are likely to be systematic defects.
- Normalization may be performed as described further herein. Obviously, if the number of randomly generated defects in the group that is used to determine the ratio is the normalized number, such normalization would be performed before determining the ratio. Such normalization may also be performed before any other comparisons described herein. As described further herein, normalization may be performed because the total number of defects may be different. For example, a ratio of 1 (or any fixed number from run to run) may be used to identify potentially systematic defects unless the randomly generated defects and the actual defects have roughly the same number. In one such example, a population of randomly generated defects may be generated to have substantially the same count as a population of actual defects or a predetermined population of randomly generated defects may be normalized to the actual defects. Another way of looking at this is that the bins are normalized based on the total population counts for each of the populations so that we can compare them to each other.
- the determining step includes determining that the actual defects in the group are potentially systematic defects if the number of the actual defects in the group is greater than the number of the randomly generated defects in the group and determining that the actual defects in the group are potentially random defects if the number of the actual defects in the group is not greater than the number of the randomly generated defects in the group. For example, if the occurrence of a design clip group in an actual Pareto chart is significantly higher than the corresponding design clip group in the random Pareto chart, the design clip group of actual defects may be binned as potentially systematic. The numbers that are compared in such a determination may include absolute defect count or relative defect count.
- Such embodiments may include matching (or normalizing) the defects densities in both groups, which may be performed as described further herein. Such matching or normalizing may be advantageous since if there are two groups, group a and group b, and the number of defects in group b is low (e.g., due to lower capture rate), then the number of defects in group a will always be high enough to make it potentially systematic even though it may be potentially random.
- the determining step includes determining that the actual defects in the group are potentially systematic defects if the number of the actual defects in the group is statistically greater than the number of the randomly generated defects in the group and determining that the actual defects in the group are potentially random defects if the number of the actual defects in the group is not statistically greater than the number of the randomly generated defects in the group.
- the method may include statistically differentiating between potentially random and potentially systematic defects.
- the methods may include statistically identifying marginalities in patterns in a design on a wafer.
- the method may include using statistical
- the method may include performing a statistical test of the results of the comparison to determine if there is a significant difference between the actual defects in a group and the randomly generated defects in a corresponding group. If there is a significant difference, then the actual defects in the group may be determined to be potentially systematic defects.
- the numbers that are compared in such a determination may include absolute defect count or relative defect count.
- the method is performed separately for different groups of actual defects detected on the wafer, and a portion of the design on the wafer proximate a location of each of the actual defects in each of the different groups is substantially the same.
- the actual and random Pareto charts may be compared as described further herein, and since the actual and random Pareto charts include defects separated into design based groups (e.g., design clip groups), the actual defects in each of the groups can be separately binned as likely including systematic defects or random defects by comparing the Pareto charts.
- the likely systematic design clip groups may be identified using results of comparison of the Pareto charts as described further herein.
- the method is performed separately for all groups of actual defects delected on the wafer, and a portion of the design on the wafer proximate a location of each of the actual defects in each of all of the groups is substantially the same.
- the method can determine if potentially systematic defects occur anywhere on the Pareto chart generated for the actual defects,
- the method can substantially accurately identify potentially systematic defects that occur anywhere on the actual Pareto chart.
- a Pareto chart may include thousands of different groups of defects binned based on design, but the embodiments described herein can easily, quickly, and substantially accurately determine if each of the thousands of different groups likely includes systematic or random defects. In this manner, the method does not need to know where in the Pareto chart (or which groups in the Pareto chart) to look for potentially systematic defects since all groups can be tested.
- the method may also be performed separately for different regions on the wafer.
- the method includes comparing the number of the actual defects in the group to a number of different randomly generated defects in a different group. A portion of the design proximate the location of each of the actual defects in the group and a location of each of the different randomly generated defects in the different group is substantially the same. The randomly generated defects and the different randomly generated defects are separately generated.
- the determining step includes determining if the actual defects in the group are potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects based on the results of comparing the number of the actual defects in the group to the number of the randomly generated defects in the group and the number of the different randomly generated defects in the group.
- the method may include comparing one group of actual defects to multiple groups of separately randomly generated defects to determine if the group of actual defects includes potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects.
- Such comparisons may be performed according to any of the embodiments described herein. For example, such comparisons may be performed using Pareto charts.
- One embodiment of a Pareto chart that shows results of comparing a Pareto chart generated for actual defects to two Pareto charts generated for two different sets of randomly generated defects is shown in Fig. 6. In particular, as shown in Fig.
- the Pareto chart generated for a comparison of numbers of actual defects and two different sets of separately randomly generated defects shows the GDS pattern group ID along the x axis and the defect count for the actual defects and the different sets of the randomly generated defects along the y axis.
- the Pareto chart graphically illustrates the number of actual defects and separately randomly generated defects binned into the different groups, each of which corresponds to a different portion of the GDS pattern.
- the Pareto chart shown in Fig, 6 shows how the numbers of the actual defects in different groups compare to the numbers of the separately randomly generated defects in the corresponding groups.
- the results of the comparison illustrated by the Pareto chart shown in Fig. 6 can, therefore, be used to determine if groups of actual defects are potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects as described further herein.
- the actual defects binned into groups 2, 3, 4, and 10 may be determined to be potentially systematic
- NYCDMS/1097436 1 defects based on the comparison results shown in the Pareto chart of Fig. 6 while the actual defects binned into groups 0, 5, 7, and 9 may be determined to be potentially random defects based on the comparison results shown in the Pareto chart of Fig, 6.
- Groups in the Pareto charts of Figs, 5 and 6 that have the same ID correspond to the same portion of the design. Therefore, the results shown in Fig. 6 confirm the results shown in Fig.
- the numbers of the actual defects in different groups may be compared to numbers of different sets of randomly generated defects in corresponding groups as described above, the data for the different sets of randomly generated defects may be combined and then compared to the numbers of the actual defects in the different groups to improve the statistics.
- the actual defects are detected by inspection of a layer on the wafer, and the randomly generated defects are generated (and grouped) once for an inspection recipe for the layer on the wafer (since different inspection recipes may inspect different areas on the wafer) and used for performing the method for defects detected on the layer of multiple wafers using the inspection recipe.
- a random Pareto chart can be generated once for a recipe and stored and used for a comparison each time that an inspection is performed for the layer of any wafer using the inspection recipe.
- the comparison that is performed each time that an inspection is performed for the layer of any wafer may be performed according to any embodiments described herein (e.g., including steps such as normalization of the randomly generated defects).
- the method may be implemented each time a wafer is inspected using the inspection recipe and an actual defect design clip Pareto chart is generated.
- the random Pareto chart may be generated as described herein and used as described herein,
- the method is performed without user intervention. Since no user intervention is required, the method may be automated. In this manner, the method may be performed automatically. As such, the method provides an automated method for determining whether a given collection of defects grouped by design (e.g., design clip) is potentially systematic or potentially random in nature.
- design e.g., design clip
- NYCDMS'l 097436 I The embodiments described herein may be used in a number of different manners. For example, systematic discovery and monitoring using design based binning is not very good at distinguishing between bins that are potentially systematic and bins that are potentially random when defect count is used.
- One proposed method includes using simulated random defect design based grouping (DBG) bin distribution to determine which bins are potentially systematic. This method assumes constant capture rates between bins, which may be a substantially limiting assumption. Therefore, better ways to prioritize bins and determine cut-lines are desirable. Ideally, such methods are not sensitive to capture rate differences across bins.
- DBG simulated random defect design based grouping
- the bins determined to include potentially systematic defects may be prioritized from most likely to be systematic to least likely to be systematic.
- the DBG groups can be prioritized by the ratio described further herein.
- the Pareto chart can be re-charted based on ratio v. count. The higher the ratio, the more likely a group could be potentially systematic. The bins may then be reviewed in order of priority (from most likely to include systematic defects to least likely to include systematic defects).
- the embodiments described herein may be used for monitoring.
- the embodiments described herein may be used for monitoring potentially systematic defects separately from potentially random defects. If the systematic count overall or within at least one bin gets too high, results can be used to hold the lot for engineering analysis (e.g., systematic discovery use case).
- DBC design based classification
- the defect density bin may be determined and compared with this random defect density.
- the DBC bin count can then be corrected based on random distribution,
- the defects detected in the POI or set of POI can be used as a surrogate or proxy to measure the random defect density.
- the random density may then be subtracted from the DBC bins and used to prioritize the DBG bins.
- Setup may also include selecting a DBC bin for monitoring random defects. For example, a pattern or patterns of interest unlikely to have any systematic defects (e.g., blank clip or simple patterns) may be selected. These DBC bins can be used to monitor random defects.
- the effective area of the pattern may be determined from simulated data. For example, the area of the pattern plus a border to cover extending bounding box (EBB) may be determined, A design example may be marked for random monitoring, and the effective area (EA r ) may be stored with DBC design examples.
- EBB border to cover extending bounding box
- Separating potentially systematic defect bins from potentially random defect bins may also include using DBC to estimate the random defect density during WPP.
- EBB EBB
- One significant advantage of such methods is that by using the DBC monitor, the capture rate of the random defect distribution can also be monitored and assuming it is truly random on the monitor, we can accurately subtract out these random defects.
- random defect correction is based on the measured random defect capture rate. It is much better to assume that the random defect capture rate is constant than the capture rate is constant between groups. The capture rate may still vary by pattern density. Since groups have different pattern densities on average, there still may be some inherent error. It might be possible to compensate if DBC bins spanning various pattern densities were monitored and bins were corrected with an interpolated DD r .
- auto- systematic threshold is advantageously dynamic based on the random monitor count
- the results of the method may be used for analysis.
- the analysis may include any suitable analysis (e.g., analysis of the process and/or wafer).
- NYCDMS/1097436 1 All of the methods described herein may include storing results of one or more steps of the method embodiments in a storage medium.
- the results may include any of the results described herein and may be stored in any manner known in the art.
- the storage medium may include any storage medium described herein or any other suitable storage medium known in the art.
- the results can be accessed in the storage medium and used by any of the method or system embodiments described herein, formatted for display to a user, used by another software module, method, or system, etc.
- the method may include storing information about the set of the groups of the randomly generated defects in a storage medium.
- results or output of the embodiments described herein may be stored and accessed by an inspection system such that the inspection system can use the results (e.g., a Pareto chart for a set of randomly generated defects) to discriminate between potentially systematic and potentially random defects detected on a layer of a wafer.
- the results may be stored "permanently.” “semi-permanently,” temporarily, or for some period of time.
- the storage medium may be random access memory (RAM), and the results may not necessarily persist indefinitely in the storage medium.
- each of the embodiments of the method described above may include any other step(s) of any other method(s) described herein.
- each of the embodiments of the method described above may be performed by any of the systems described herein.
- the embodiments described herein provide a number of advantages over other methods for determining if defects are potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects. For example, identifying potentially systematic and potentially random defects using the embodiments described herein can be performed without user intervention and judgment. In particular, no user intervention is required so the entire process can advantageously be automated (although the user may review the defects identified as potentially systematic and potentially random to determine which defects are actually systematic and/or random defects).
- the embodiments described herein have higher accuracy than currently used methods for differentiating between potentially systematic defects and potentially random defects. Furthermore, the methods
- NYCDMS/1097436 1 can more accurately determine if potentially systematic defects occur anywhere on an actual defect Pareto chart. Therefore, the embodiments described herein can provide accuracy and automation for the identification of potentially systematic defects.
- FIG. 7 Another embodiment relates to a computer-readable medium that includes program instructions executable on a computer system for performing one or more computer-implemented methods described herein.
- a computer-readable medium is shown in Fig. 7,
- computer-readable medium 18 includes program instructions 20 executable on computer system 22 for performing one or more of the computer-implemented methods described herein.
- the computer-implemented method executable on the computer system by the program instructions may include any ste ⁇ (s) of any method(s) described herein.
- Program instructions 20 implementing methods such as those described herein may be transmitted over or stored on computer-readable medium 18.
- the computer- readable medium may be a transmission medium such as a wire, cable, or wireless transmission link.
- the computer-readable medium may also be a storage medium such as a read-only memory, a random access memory, a magnetic or optical disk, or a magnetic tape.
- Computer system 22 may take various forms, including a personal computer system, mainframe computer system, workstation, image computer, parallel processor, or any other device known in the art.
- computer system' * may be broadly defined to encompass any device having one or more processors, which executes instructions from a memory medium.
- An additional embodiment relates to a system configured to perform one or more of the embodiments described herein.
- the system may include an inspection system configured to detect actual defects on a wafer.
- One embodiment of such a system is shown in Fig. 7.
- the system includes inspection system 24.
- Inspection system 24 is configured to detect actual defects on wafer 26.
- inspection system 24 includes light source 28.
- Light source 28 may include any appropriate light source known in the art.
- Light source 28 may be configured to direct light to beam splitter 30.
- Beam splitter 30 may be configured to
- N YCDMS/1097436 1 direct light from light source 28 to wafer 26 at a substantially normal angle of incidence.
- Beam splitter 30 may include any appropriate optical component known in the art.
- Detector 32 may include any appropriate detector known in the art. Output generated by detector 32 may be used to detect actual defects on wafer 26.
- computer system 34 may be configured to detect actual defects on wafer 26 using output generated by the detector.
- the computer system may use any method and/or algorithm known in the art to detect actual defects on the wafer.
- the computer system may be coupled to the detector in any suitable manner (e.g., by one or more transmission media indicated by the dotted line shown in Fig. 7, which may include any suitable transmission media known in the art) such that the computer system can receive the output generated by the detector.
- the inspection system includes more than one detector (not shown), the computer system may be coupled to each detector as described above.
- Computer system 34 may be further configured as described herein.
- wafer 26 may be disposed on stage 36.
- Stage 36 may include any appropriate mechanical and/or robotic assembly known in the art.
- the inspection system shown in Fig. 7 may also include any other suitable components (not shown) known in the art.
- the inspection system is configured to detect light specularly reflected from the wafer.
- the inspection system shown in Fig. 7 is configured as a BF inspection system.
- the inspection system may be replaced by an inspection system configured as a dark field (DF) inspection system, an edge contrast (EC) inspection system, an aperture mode inspection system, or any other optical inspection system known in the art.
- the inspection system may be configured to perform one or more inspection modes.
- the inspection system shown in Fig. 7 may be configured to perform DF inspection by altering an angle of incidence at which the light is directed to the wafer and/or an angle at which light is collected from the wafer.
- the inspection system shown in Fig, 7 may be configured such that one or more optical components (not shown) such as apertures may be positioned in the illumination path and the collection path such that the inspection system can perform EC mode inspection and/or an aperture mode of inspection.
- Fig. 7 is provided herein to generally illustrate one configuration of an inspection system that may be included in the system embodiments described herein. Obviously, the inspection system configuration described herein may be altered to optimize the performance of the inspection system as is normally performed when designing a commercial inspection system. In addition, the systems described herein may ⁇ be implemented using an existing inspection system (e.g., by adding functionality- described herein to an existing inspection system) such as the Puma 9000 and 9100 series of tools that are commercially available from KLA-Tencor, San Jose, California. For some such systems, the methods described herein may be provided as optional functionality of the system (e.g., in addition to other functionality of the system).
- system described herein may be designed "from scratch' * to provide a completely new system.
- the optical inspection system shown in Fig. 7 may be replaced by an electron beam inspection system.
- Examples of commercially available electron beam inspection systems that may be included in the system of Fig.7 include the eS25, eS30, and eS31 systems from KLA-Tencor.
- Computer system 22 and/or computer system 34 may be configured to perform one or more of the computer-implemented method embodiments described herein (e.g., using inspection results generated by computer system 34).
- computer system 22 may be coupled to the inspection system in any manner known in the art.
- computer system 22 may be coupled to computer system 34 of inspection system 24 such that the computer system can receive results of inspection generated by computer system 34.
- computer system 22 may receive any other output of the detector or computer system 34 such as image data and signals.
- Computer system 22 described above may be configured as a stand-alone system that does not form part of a process, inspection, metrology, review, or other tool.
- computer system 22 may be configured to receive and/or acquire data or information from other systems (e.g., inspection results from an inspection system) by a transmission medium that may include "wired" and/or “wireless” portions, ⁇ n this
- the transmission medium may serve as a data link between the computer system and the other system.
- computer system 22 may send data to another system via the transmission medium.
- data may include, for example, one or more parameters of the inspection system to be used for inspection of the layer of additional wafers determined by the computer system.
- computer system 22 may form part of the inspection system.
- the system may include only one of the computer systems shown in Fig. 7, which is configured to perform defect detection and one or more of the embodiments described herein.
- Fig. 7 may be further configured as described herein.
- the system may be configured to perform any step(s) of any of the method embodiment(s) described herein.
Abstract
Description
Claims
Priority Applications (3)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
JP2010521995A JP5425779B2 (en) | 2007-08-20 | 2008-08-20 | A computer-implemented method for determining whether an actual defect is a potential systematic defect or a potentially random defect |
CN2008801035763A CN101785009B (en) | 2007-08-20 | 2008-08-20 | Computer-implemented methods for determining if actual defects are potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects |
KR1020107006100A KR101448971B1 (en) | 2007-08-20 | 2008-08-20 | Computer-implemented methods for determining if actual defects are potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects |
Applications Claiming Priority (2)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US95682307P | 2007-08-20 | 2007-08-20 | |
US60/956,823 | 2007-08-20 |
Publications (1)
Publication Number | Publication Date |
---|---|
WO2009026358A1 true WO2009026358A1 (en) | 2009-02-26 |
Family
ID=40378614
Family Applications (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
PCT/US2008/073706 WO2009026358A1 (en) | 2007-08-20 | 2008-08-20 | Computer-implemented methods for determining if actual defects are potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects |
Country Status (6)
Country | Link |
---|---|
US (1) | US7975245B2 (en) |
JP (1) | JP5425779B2 (en) |
KR (1) | KR101448971B1 (en) |
CN (1) | CN101785009B (en) |
TW (1) | TWI469235B (en) |
WO (1) | WO2009026358A1 (en) |
Cited By (1)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US10460434B2 (en) | 2017-08-22 | 2019-10-29 | Applied Materials Israel Ltd. | Method of defect detection and system thereof |
Families Citing this family (52)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US7676077B2 (en) | 2005-11-18 | 2010-03-09 | Kla-Tencor Technologies Corp. | Methods and systems for utilizing design data in combination with inspection data |
US8041103B2 (en) * | 2005-11-18 | 2011-10-18 | Kla-Tencor Technologies Corp. | Methods and systems for determining a position of inspection data in design data space |
US7570796B2 (en) | 2005-11-18 | 2009-08-04 | Kla-Tencor Technologies Corp. | Methods and systems for utilizing design data in combination with inspection data |
WO2008077100A2 (en) | 2006-12-19 | 2008-06-26 | Kla-Tencor Corporation | Systems and methods for creating inspection recipes |
WO2008086282A2 (en) * | 2007-01-05 | 2008-07-17 | Kla-Tencor Corporation | Methods and systems for using electrical information for a device being fabricated on a wafer to perform one or more defect-related functions |
US7796804B2 (en) | 2007-07-20 | 2010-09-14 | Kla-Tencor Corp. | Methods for generating a standard reference die for use in a die to standard reference die inspection and methods for inspecting a wafer |
US10198548B2 (en) * | 2008-02-21 | 2019-02-05 | Mentor Graphics Corporation | Identifying the defective layer of a yield excursion through the statistical analysis of scan diagnosis results |
US8139844B2 (en) * | 2008-04-14 | 2012-03-20 | Kla-Tencor Corp. | Methods and systems for determining a defect criticality index for defects on wafers |
US9659670B2 (en) | 2008-07-28 | 2017-05-23 | Kla-Tencor Corp. | Computer-implemented methods, computer-readable media, and systems for classifying defects detected in a memory device area on a wafer |
JP2010133929A (en) * | 2008-10-28 | 2010-06-17 | Toshiba Corp | Device and method for analyzing defect |
US8775101B2 (en) | 2009-02-13 | 2014-07-08 | Kla-Tencor Corp. | Detecting defects on a wafer |
US8204297B1 (en) | 2009-02-27 | 2012-06-19 | Kla-Tencor Corp. | Methods and systems for classifying defects detected on a reticle |
US8112241B2 (en) * | 2009-03-13 | 2012-02-07 | Kla-Tencor Corp. | Methods and systems for generating an inspection process for a wafer |
TWI400652B (en) * | 2009-06-11 | 2013-07-01 | Insyde Software Corp | Dual operating system parallel processing methods, recording media and computer program products |
US8781781B2 (en) | 2010-07-30 | 2014-07-15 | Kla-Tencor Corp. | Dynamic care areas |
US8594963B2 (en) * | 2010-09-01 | 2013-11-26 | Macronix International Co., Ltd. | In-line inspection yield prediction system |
JP2012155179A (en) * | 2011-01-27 | 2012-08-16 | Toshiba Corp | Defect inspection support device and defect inspection support method |
US8656323B2 (en) | 2011-02-22 | 2014-02-18 | Kla-Tencor Corporation | Based device risk assessment |
US9170211B2 (en) | 2011-03-25 | 2015-10-27 | Kla-Tencor Corp. | Design-based inspection using repeating structures |
US8930782B2 (en) * | 2011-05-16 | 2015-01-06 | Mentor Graphics Corporation | Root cause distribution determination based on layout aware scan diagnosis results |
US8669523B2 (en) * | 2011-05-25 | 2014-03-11 | Kla-Tencor Corporation | Contour-based defect detection using an inspection apparatus |
US20120316855A1 (en) * | 2011-06-08 | 2012-12-13 | Kla-Tencor Corporation | Using Three-Dimensional Representations for Defect-Related Applications |
US9087367B2 (en) | 2011-09-13 | 2015-07-21 | Kla-Tencor Corp. | Determining design coordinates for wafer defects |
CN104114999B (en) * | 2011-09-27 | 2017-06-09 | 科磊股份有限公司 | High-throughput film characteristics and defects detection |
US9277186B2 (en) * | 2012-01-18 | 2016-03-01 | Kla-Tencor Corp. | Generating a wafer inspection process using bit failures and virtual inspection |
US8831334B2 (en) | 2012-01-20 | 2014-09-09 | Kla-Tencor Corp. | Segmentation for wafer inspection |
US8718353B2 (en) * | 2012-03-08 | 2014-05-06 | Kla-Tencor Corporation | Reticle defect inspection with systematic defect filter |
US8826200B2 (en) | 2012-05-25 | 2014-09-02 | Kla-Tencor Corp. | Alteration for wafer inspection |
US9189844B2 (en) | 2012-10-15 | 2015-11-17 | Kla-Tencor Corp. | Detecting defects on a wafer using defect-specific information |
US9057965B2 (en) * | 2012-12-03 | 2015-06-16 | Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. | Method of generating a set of defect candidates for wafer |
US9053527B2 (en) | 2013-01-02 | 2015-06-09 | Kla-Tencor Corp. | Detecting defects on a wafer |
US9134254B2 (en) | 2013-01-07 | 2015-09-15 | Kla-Tencor Corp. | Determining a position of inspection system output in design data space |
US9311698B2 (en) | 2013-01-09 | 2016-04-12 | Kla-Tencor Corp. | Detecting defects on a wafer using template image matching |
US9202763B2 (en) | 2013-01-16 | 2015-12-01 | Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba | Defect pattern evaluation method, defect pattern evaluation apparatus, and recording media |
WO2014149197A1 (en) | 2013-02-01 | 2014-09-25 | Kla-Tencor Corporation | Detecting defects on a wafer using defect-specific and multi-channel information |
US9865512B2 (en) * | 2013-04-08 | 2018-01-09 | Kla-Tencor Corp. | Dynamic design attributes for wafer inspection |
US9310320B2 (en) | 2013-04-15 | 2016-04-12 | Kla-Tencor Corp. | Based sampling and binning for yield critical defects |
US9142014B2 (en) * | 2013-05-30 | 2015-09-22 | Dmo Systems Limited | System and method for identifying systematic defects in wafer inspection using hierarchical grouping and filtering |
CN103279409A (en) * | 2013-06-03 | 2013-09-04 | 上海华力微电子有限公司 | Statistical method and device of bit failure modes |
US9292652B2 (en) * | 2014-05-06 | 2016-03-22 | International Business Machines Corporation | Generic design rule checking (DRC) test case extraction |
US9400865B2 (en) * | 2014-06-13 | 2016-07-26 | Kla-Tencor Corp. | Extracting comprehensive design guidance for in-line process control tools and methods |
US9767548B2 (en) * | 2015-04-24 | 2017-09-19 | Kla-Tencor Corp. | Outlier detection on pattern of interest image populations |
US10346740B2 (en) * | 2016-06-01 | 2019-07-09 | Kla-Tencor Corp. | Systems and methods incorporating a neural network and a forward physical model for semiconductor applications |
CN107688527B (en) * | 2016-08-05 | 2020-08-07 | 华为技术有限公司 | Defect display method and device |
KR102599657B1 (en) * | 2016-08-17 | 2023-11-08 | 삼성전자주식회사 | Method and system for inspecing semicondutor wafer, and method of forming semiconductor device using the same |
US10190991B2 (en) * | 2016-11-03 | 2019-01-29 | Applied Materials Israel Ltd. | Method for adaptive sampling in examining an object and system thereof |
US10133838B2 (en) * | 2017-01-30 | 2018-11-20 | Dongfang Jingyuan Electron Limited | Guided defect detection of integrated circuits |
US10262408B2 (en) * | 2017-04-12 | 2019-04-16 | Kla-Tencor Corporation | System, method and computer program product for systematic and stochastic characterization of pattern defects identified from a semiconductor wafer |
US10620135B2 (en) | 2017-07-19 | 2020-04-14 | Kla-Tencor Corp. | Identifying a source of nuisance defects on a wafer |
US10818001B2 (en) | 2018-09-07 | 2020-10-27 | Kla-Tencor Corporation | Using stochastic failure metrics in semiconductor manufacturing |
US11600505B2 (en) * | 2018-10-31 | 2023-03-07 | Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. | Systems and methods for systematic physical failure analysis (PFA) fault localization |
US11475556B2 (en) * | 2019-05-30 | 2022-10-18 | Bruker Nano, Inc. | Method and apparatus for rapidly classifying defects in subcomponents of manufactured component |
Citations (3)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
JP2002071575A (en) * | 2000-09-04 | 2002-03-08 | Matsushita Electric Ind Co Ltd | Defect inspecting and analyzing method and system therefor |
JP2002365235A (en) * | 2001-06-08 | 2002-12-18 | Sumitomo Mitsubishi Silicon Corp | Defect inspection method and apparatus |
JP2004045066A (en) * | 2002-07-09 | 2004-02-12 | Fujitsu Ltd | Inspection apparatus and inspection method |
Family Cites Families (308)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US3495269A (en) * | 1966-12-19 | 1970-02-10 | Xerox Corp | Electrographic recording method and apparatus with inert gaseous discharge ionization and acceleration gaps |
US3496352A (en) * | 1967-06-05 | 1970-02-17 | Xerox Corp | Self-cleaning corona generating apparatus |
US3909602A (en) | 1973-09-27 | 1975-09-30 | California Inst Of Techn | Automatic visual inspection system for microelectronics |
US4015203A (en) * | 1975-12-31 | 1977-03-29 | International Business Machines Corporation | Contactless LSI junction leakage testing method |
US4347001A (en) | 1978-04-03 | 1982-08-31 | Kla Instruments Corporation | Automatic photomask inspection system and apparatus |
US4247203A (en) * | 1978-04-03 | 1981-01-27 | Kla Instrument Corporation | Automatic photomask inspection system and apparatus |
FR2473789A1 (en) | 1980-01-09 | 1981-07-17 | Ibm France | TEST METHODS AND STRUCTURES FOR SEMICONDUCTOR INTEGRATED CIRCUITS FOR ELECTRICALLY DETERMINING CERTAIN TOLERANCES DURING PHOTOLITHOGRAPHIC STAGES |
US4378159A (en) * | 1981-03-30 | 1983-03-29 | Tencor Instruments | Scanning contaminant and defect detector |
US4448532A (en) | 1981-03-31 | 1984-05-15 | Kla Instruments Corporation | Automatic photomask inspection method and system |
US4926489A (en) | 1983-03-11 | 1990-05-15 | Kla Instruments Corporation | Reticle inspection system |
US4579455A (en) * | 1983-05-09 | 1986-04-01 | Kla Instruments Corporation | Photomask inspection apparatus and method with improved defect detection |
US4532650A (en) | 1983-05-12 | 1985-07-30 | Kla Instruments Corporation | Photomask inspection apparatus and method using corner comparator defect detection algorithm |
US4555798A (en) | 1983-06-20 | 1985-11-26 | Kla Instruments Corporation | Automatic system and method for inspecting hole quality |
US4578810A (en) * | 1983-08-08 | 1986-03-25 | Itek Corporation | System for printed circuit board defect detection |
JPS6062122A (en) * | 1983-09-16 | 1985-04-10 | Fujitsu Ltd | Inspection of mask pattern |
US4599558A (en) | 1983-12-14 | 1986-07-08 | Ibm | Photovoltaic imaging for large area semiconductors |
US4595289A (en) | 1984-01-25 | 1986-06-17 | At&T Bell Laboratories | Inspection system utilizing dark-field illumination |
JPS60263807A (en) * | 1984-06-12 | 1985-12-27 | Dainippon Screen Mfg Co Ltd | Instument for inspecting pattern defect of printed wiring board |
US4633504A (en) | 1984-06-28 | 1986-12-30 | Kla Instruments Corporation | Automatic photomask inspection system having image enhancement means |
US4817123A (en) * | 1984-09-21 | 1989-03-28 | Picker International | Digital radiography detector resolution improvement |
US4734721A (en) * | 1985-10-04 | 1988-03-29 | Markem Corporation | Electrostatic printer utilizing dehumidified air |
US4641967A (en) * | 1985-10-11 | 1987-02-10 | Tencor Instruments | Particle position correlator and correlation method for a surface scanner |
US4928313A (en) | 1985-10-25 | 1990-05-22 | Synthetic Vision Systems, Inc. | Method and system for automatically visually inspecting an article |
US5046109A (en) | 1986-03-12 | 1991-09-03 | Nikon Corporation | Pattern inspection apparatus |
US4814829A (en) * | 1986-06-12 | 1989-03-21 | Canon Kabushiki Kaisha | Projection exposure apparatus |
US4805123B1 (en) * | 1986-07-14 | 1998-10-13 | Kla Instr Corp | Automatic photomask and reticle inspection method and apparatus including improved defect detector and alignment sub-systems |
US4758094A (en) | 1987-05-15 | 1988-07-19 | Kla Instruments Corp. | Process and apparatus for in-situ qualification of master patterns used in patterning systems |
US4766324A (en) | 1987-08-07 | 1988-08-23 | Tencor Instruments | Particle detection method including comparison between sequential scans |
US4812756A (en) * | 1987-08-26 | 1989-03-14 | International Business Machines Corporation | Contactless technique for semicondutor wafer testing |
US4845558A (en) | 1987-12-03 | 1989-07-04 | Kla Instruments Corporation | Method and apparatus for detecting defects in repeated microminiature patterns |
US4877326A (en) | 1988-02-19 | 1989-10-31 | Kla Instruments Corporation | Method and apparatus for optical inspection of substrates |
US5054097A (en) | 1988-11-23 | 1991-10-01 | Schlumberger Technologies, Inc. | Methods and apparatus for alignment of images |
US5155336A (en) | 1990-01-19 | 1992-10-13 | Applied Materials, Inc. | Rapid thermal heating apparatus and method |
US5124927A (en) | 1990-03-02 | 1992-06-23 | International Business Machines Corp. | Latent-image control of lithography tools |
JP3707172B2 (en) * | 1996-01-24 | 2005-10-19 | 富士ゼロックス株式会社 | Image reading device |
US5189481A (en) * | 1991-07-26 | 1993-02-23 | Tencor Instruments | Particle detector for rough surfaces |
US5563702A (en) | 1991-08-22 | 1996-10-08 | Kla Instruments Corporation | Automated photomask inspection apparatus and method |
DE69208413T2 (en) * | 1991-08-22 | 1996-11-14 | Kla Instr Corp | Device for automatic testing of photomask |
CA2131692A1 (en) | 1992-03-09 | 1993-09-16 | Sybille Muller | An anti-idiotypic antibody and its use in diagnosis and therapy in hiv-related disease |
US6205259B1 (en) | 1992-04-09 | 2001-03-20 | Olympus Optical Co., Ltd. | Image processing apparatus |
JP2667940B2 (en) * | 1992-04-27 | 1997-10-27 | 三菱電機株式会社 | Mask inspection method and mask detection device |
JP3730263B2 (en) | 1992-05-27 | 2005-12-21 | ケーエルエー・インストルメンツ・コーポレーション | Apparatus and method for automatic substrate inspection using charged particle beam |
JP3212389B2 (en) | 1992-10-26 | 2001-09-25 | 株式会社キリンテクノシステム | Inspection method for foreign substances on solids |
KR100300618B1 (en) | 1992-12-25 | 2001-11-22 | 오노 시게오 | EXPOSURE METHOD, EXPOSURE DEVICE, AND DEVICE MANUFACTURING METHOD USING THE DEVICE |
US5448053A (en) * | 1993-03-01 | 1995-09-05 | Rhoads; Geoffrey B. | Method and apparatus for wide field distortion-compensated imaging |
US5355212A (en) | 1993-07-19 | 1994-10-11 | Tencor Instruments | Process for inspecting patterned wafers |
US5453844A (en) | 1993-07-21 | 1995-09-26 | The University Of Rochester | Image data coding and compression system utilizing controlled blurring |
US5497381A (en) * | 1993-10-15 | 1996-03-05 | Analog Devices, Inc. | Bitstream defect analysis method for integrated circuits |
US5544256A (en) | 1993-10-22 | 1996-08-06 | International Business Machines Corporation | Automated defect classification system |
US5500607A (en) | 1993-12-22 | 1996-03-19 | International Business Machines Corporation | Probe-oxide-semiconductor method and apparatus for measuring oxide charge on a semiconductor wafer |
US5553168A (en) | 1994-01-21 | 1996-09-03 | Texas Instruments Incorporated | System and method for recognizing visual indicia |
US5696835A (en) | 1994-01-21 | 1997-12-09 | Texas Instruments Incorporated | Apparatus and method for aligning and measuring misregistration |
US5608538A (en) * | 1994-08-24 | 1997-03-04 | International Business Machines Corporation | Scan line queuing for high performance image correction |
US5572608A (en) | 1994-08-24 | 1996-11-05 | International Business Machines Corporation | Sinc filter in linear lumen space for scanner |
US5528153A (en) | 1994-11-07 | 1996-06-18 | Texas Instruments Incorporated | Method for non-destructive, non-contact measurement of dielectric constant of thin films |
US6014461A (en) * | 1994-11-30 | 2000-01-11 | Texas Instruments Incorporated | Apparatus and method for automatic knowlege-based object identification |
US5694478A (en) | 1994-12-15 | 1997-12-02 | Minnesota Mining And Manufacturing Company | Method and apparatus for detecting and identifying microbial colonies |
US5948972A (en) | 1994-12-22 | 1999-09-07 | Kla-Tencor Corporation | Dual stage instrument for scanning a specimen |
CA2139182A1 (en) | 1994-12-28 | 1996-06-29 | Paul Chevrette | Method and system for fast microscanning |
US5661408A (en) | 1995-03-01 | 1997-08-26 | Qc Solutions, Inc. | Real-time in-line testing of semiconductor wafers |
US5991699A (en) | 1995-05-04 | 1999-11-23 | Kla Instruments Corporation | Detecting groups of defects in semiconductor feature space |
US5485091A (en) * | 1995-05-12 | 1996-01-16 | International Business Machines Corporation | Contactless electrical thin oxide measurements |
US5644223A (en) | 1995-05-12 | 1997-07-01 | International Business Machines Corporation | Uniform density charge deposit source |
TW341664B (en) | 1995-05-12 | 1998-10-01 | Ibm | Photovoltaic oxide charge measurement probe technique |
US6288780B1 (en) * | 1995-06-06 | 2001-09-11 | Kla-Tencor Technologies Corp. | High throughput brightfield/darkfield wafer inspection system using advanced optical techniques |
US5594247A (en) * | 1995-07-07 | 1997-01-14 | Keithley Instruments, Inc. | Apparatus and method for depositing charge on a semiconductor wafer |
US5773989A (en) | 1995-07-14 | 1998-06-30 | University Of South Florida | Measurement of the mobile ion concentration in the oxide layer of a semiconductor wafer |
US5621519A (en) * | 1995-07-31 | 1997-04-15 | Neopath, Inc. | Imaging system transfer function control method and apparatus |
US5619548A (en) * | 1995-08-11 | 1997-04-08 | Oryx Instruments And Materials Corp. | X-ray thickness gauge |
DE69634089T2 (en) | 1995-10-02 | 2005-12-08 | Kla-Tencor Corp., San Jose | IMPROVING THE ORIENTATION OF INSPECTION SYSTEMS BEFORE IMAGE RECORDING |
US5754678A (en) | 1996-01-17 | 1998-05-19 | Photon Dynamics, Inc. | Substrate inspection apparatus and method |
JPH09320505A (en) | 1996-03-29 | 1997-12-12 | Hitachi Ltd | Electron beam type inspecting method, device therefor, manufacture of semiconductor, and its manufacturing line |
US5673208A (en) * | 1996-04-11 | 1997-09-30 | Micron Technology, Inc. | Focus spot detection method and system |
US5917332A (en) * | 1996-05-09 | 1999-06-29 | Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. | Arrangement for improving defect scanner sensitivity and scanning defects on die of a semiconductor wafer |
US5742658A (en) * | 1996-05-23 | 1998-04-21 | Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. | Apparatus and method for determining the elemental compositions and relative locations of particles on the surface of a semiconductor wafer |
US6292582B1 (en) | 1996-05-31 | 2001-09-18 | Lin Youling | Method and system for identifying defects in a semiconductor |
US6246787B1 (en) | 1996-05-31 | 2001-06-12 | Texas Instruments Incorporated | System and method for knowledgebase generation and management |
US6091846A (en) | 1996-05-31 | 2000-07-18 | Texas Instruments Incorporated | Method and system for anomaly detection |
US6205239B1 (en) * | 1996-05-31 | 2001-03-20 | Texas Instruments Incorporated | System and method for circuit repair |
US5822218A (en) * | 1996-08-27 | 1998-10-13 | Clemson University | Systems, methods and computer program products for prediction of defect-related failures in integrated circuits |
US5767693A (en) | 1996-09-04 | 1998-06-16 | Smithley Instruments, Inc. | Method and apparatus for measurement of mobile charges with a corona screen gun |
US6076465A (en) | 1996-09-20 | 2000-06-20 | Kla-Tencor Corporation | System and method for determining reticle defect printability |
KR100200734B1 (en) * | 1996-10-10 | 1999-06-15 | 윤종용 | Measuring apparatus and method of aerial image |
US5866806A (en) * | 1996-10-11 | 1999-02-02 | Kla-Tencor Corporation | System for locating a feature of a surface |
US5928389A (en) | 1996-10-21 | 1999-07-27 | Applied Materials, Inc. | Method and apparatus for priority based scheduling of wafer processing within a multiple chamber semiconductor wafer processing tool |
US6259960B1 (en) | 1996-11-01 | 2001-07-10 | Joel Ltd. | Part-inspecting system |
US5852232A (en) | 1997-01-02 | 1998-12-22 | Kla-Tencor Corporation | Acoustic sensor as proximity detector |
US5955661A (en) | 1997-01-06 | 1999-09-21 | Kla-Tencor Corporation | Optical profilometer combined with stylus probe measurement device |
US5795685A (en) | 1997-01-14 | 1998-08-18 | International Business Machines Corporation | Simple repair method for phase shifting masks |
US5889593A (en) * | 1997-02-26 | 1999-03-30 | Kla Instruments Corporation | Optical system and method for angle-dependent reflection or transmission measurement |
US5980187A (en) | 1997-04-16 | 1999-11-09 | Kla-Tencor Corporation | Mechanism for transporting semiconductor-process masks |
US6121783A (en) | 1997-04-22 | 2000-09-19 | Horner; Gregory S. | Method and apparatus for establishing electrical contact between a wafer and a chuck |
US6097196A (en) * | 1997-04-23 | 2000-08-01 | Verkuil; Roger L. | Non-contact tunnelling field measurement for a semiconductor oxide layer |
US6078738A (en) | 1997-05-08 | 2000-06-20 | Lsi Logic Corporation | Comparing aerial image to SEM of photoresist or substrate pattern for masking process characterization |
KR100308811B1 (en) | 1997-05-10 | 2001-12-15 | 박종섭 | Method for improving time error of time and frequency generating device using gps |
US6201999B1 (en) * | 1997-06-09 | 2001-03-13 | Applied Materials, Inc. | Method and apparatus for automatically generating schedules for wafer processing within a multichamber semiconductor wafer processing tool |
US6011404A (en) * | 1997-07-03 | 2000-01-04 | Lucent Technologies Inc. | System and method for determining near--surface lifetimes and the tunneling field of a dielectric in a semiconductor |
US6072320A (en) | 1997-07-30 | 2000-06-06 | Verkuil; Roger L. | Product wafer junction leakage measurement using light and eddy current |
US6104206A (en) | 1997-08-05 | 2000-08-15 | Verkuil; Roger L. | Product wafer junction leakage measurement using corona and a kelvin probe |
US5834941A (en) | 1997-08-11 | 1998-11-10 | Keithley Instruments, Inc. | Mobile charge measurement using corona charge and ultraviolet light |
US6191605B1 (en) * | 1997-08-18 | 2001-02-20 | Tom G. Miller | Contactless method for measuring total charge of an insulating layer on a substrate using corona charge |
US6757645B2 (en) | 1997-09-17 | 2004-06-29 | Numerical Technologies, Inc. | Visual inspection and verification system |
US6470489B1 (en) | 1997-09-17 | 2002-10-22 | Numerical Technologies, Inc. | Design rule checking system and method |
US6578188B1 (en) * | 1997-09-17 | 2003-06-10 | Numerical Technologies, Inc. | Method and apparatus for a network-based mask defect printability analysis system |
US7107571B2 (en) * | 1997-09-17 | 2006-09-12 | Synopsys, Inc. | Visual analysis and verification system using advanced tools |
US5965306A (en) | 1997-10-15 | 1999-10-12 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method of determining the printability of photomask defects |
US5874733A (en) * | 1997-10-16 | 1999-02-23 | Raytheon Company | Convergent beam scanner linearizing method and apparatus |
US6097887A (en) | 1997-10-27 | 2000-08-01 | Kla-Tencor Corporation | Software system and method for graphically building customized recipe flowcharts |
US6233719B1 (en) | 1997-10-27 | 2001-05-15 | Kla-Tencor Corporation | System and method for analyzing semiconductor production data |
US6104835A (en) | 1997-11-14 | 2000-08-15 | Kla-Tencor Corporation | Automatic knowledge database generation for classifying objects and systems therefor |
JPH11162832A (en) | 1997-11-25 | 1999-06-18 | Nikon Corp | Scan aligning method and scan aligner |
US5999003A (en) * | 1997-12-12 | 1999-12-07 | Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. | Intelligent usage of first pass defect data for improved statistical accuracy of wafer level classification |
US6614520B1 (en) | 1997-12-18 | 2003-09-02 | Kla-Tencor Corporation | Method for inspecting a reticle |
US6060709A (en) | 1997-12-31 | 2000-05-09 | Verkuil; Roger L. | Apparatus and method for depositing uniform charge on a thin oxide semiconductor wafer |
US6122017A (en) | 1998-01-22 | 2000-09-19 | Hewlett-Packard Company | Method for providing motion-compensated multi-field enhancement of still images from video |
US6175645B1 (en) * | 1998-01-22 | 2001-01-16 | Applied Materials, Inc. | Optical inspection method and apparatus |
US6171737B1 (en) * | 1998-02-03 | 2001-01-09 | Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. | Low cost application of oxide test wafer for defect monitor in photolithography process |
US5932377A (en) | 1998-02-24 | 1999-08-03 | International Business Machines Corporation | Exact transmission balanced alternating phase-shifting mask for photolithography |
US6091845A (en) | 1998-02-24 | 2000-07-18 | Micron Technology, Inc. | Inspection technique of photomask |
US6091257A (en) | 1998-02-26 | 2000-07-18 | Verkuil; Roger L. | Vacuum activated backside contact |
US6282309B1 (en) | 1998-05-29 | 2001-08-28 | Kla-Tencor Corporation | Enhanced sensitivity automated photomask inspection system |
US6137570A (en) | 1998-06-30 | 2000-10-24 | Kla-Tencor Corporation | System and method for analyzing topological features on a surface |
JP2000089148A (en) | 1998-07-13 | 2000-03-31 | Canon Inc | Optical scanner and image forming device using the same |
US6324298B1 (en) | 1998-07-15 | 2001-11-27 | August Technology Corp. | Automated wafer defect inspection system and a process of performing such inspection |
US6266437B1 (en) | 1998-09-04 | 2001-07-24 | Sandia Corporation | Sequential detection of web defects |
US6466314B1 (en) | 1998-09-17 | 2002-10-15 | Applied Materials, Inc. | Reticle design inspection system |
US6040912A (en) | 1998-09-30 | 2000-03-21 | Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. | Method and apparatus for detecting process sensitivity to integrated circuit layout using wafer to wafer defect inspection device |
US6122046A (en) | 1998-10-02 | 2000-09-19 | Applied Materials, Inc. | Dual resolution combined laser spot scanning and area imaging inspection |
US6535628B2 (en) * | 1998-10-15 | 2003-03-18 | Applied Materials, Inc. | Detection of wafer fragments in a wafer processing apparatus |
US6393602B1 (en) * | 1998-10-21 | 2002-05-21 | Texas Instruments Incorporated | Method of a comprehensive sequential analysis of the yield losses of semiconductor wafers |
JP3860347B2 (en) | 1998-10-30 | 2006-12-20 | 富士通株式会社 | Link processing device |
US6248486B1 (en) | 1998-11-23 | 2001-06-19 | U.S. Philips Corporation | Method of detecting aberrations of an optical imaging system |
US6476913B1 (en) | 1998-11-30 | 2002-11-05 | Hitachi, Ltd. | Inspection method, apparatus and system for circuit pattern |
US6529621B1 (en) | 1998-12-17 | 2003-03-04 | Kla-Tencor | Mechanisms for making and inspecting reticles |
US6539106B1 (en) * | 1999-01-08 | 2003-03-25 | Applied Materials, Inc. | Feature-based defect detection |
US6373975B1 (en) * | 1999-01-25 | 2002-04-16 | International Business Machines Corporation | Error checking of simulated printed images with process window effects included |
US7106895B1 (en) | 1999-05-05 | 2006-09-12 | Kla-Tencor | Method and apparatus for inspecting reticles implementing parallel processing |
US6842225B1 (en) * | 1999-05-07 | 2005-01-11 | Nikon Corporation | Exposure apparatus, microdevice, photomask, method of exposure, and method of production of device |
WO2000070332A1 (en) * | 1999-05-18 | 2000-11-23 | Applied Materials, Inc. | Method of and apparatus for inspection of articles by comparison with a master |
US6526164B1 (en) * | 1999-05-27 | 2003-02-25 | International Business Machines Corporation | Intelligent photomask disposition |
US6922482B1 (en) | 1999-06-15 | 2005-07-26 | Applied Materials, Inc. | Hybrid invariant adaptive automatic defect classification |
US6407373B1 (en) | 1999-06-15 | 2002-06-18 | Applied Materials, Inc. | Apparatus and method for reviewing defects on an object |
JP2001143982A (en) | 1999-06-29 | 2001-05-25 | Applied Materials Inc | Integrated dimension control for semiconductor device manufacturing |
WO2001003380A1 (en) * | 1999-07-02 | 2001-01-11 | Fujitsu Limited | Service allotting device |
US6776692B1 (en) | 1999-07-09 | 2004-08-17 | Applied Materials Inc. | Closed-loop control of wafer polishing in a chemical mechanical polishing system |
US6466895B1 (en) | 1999-07-16 | 2002-10-15 | Applied Materials, Inc. | Defect reference system automatic pattern classification |
US6248485B1 (en) | 1999-07-19 | 2001-06-19 | Lucent Technologies Inc. | Method for controlling a process for patterning a feature in a photoresist |
US6466315B1 (en) | 1999-09-03 | 2002-10-15 | Applied Materials, Inc. | Method and system for reticle inspection by photolithography simulation |
US20020144230A1 (en) | 1999-09-22 | 2002-10-03 | Dupont Photomasks, Inc. | System and method for correcting design rule violations in a mask layout file |
US6268093B1 (en) | 1999-10-13 | 2001-07-31 | Applied Materials, Inc. | Method for reticle inspection using aerial imaging |
FR2801673B1 (en) * | 1999-11-26 | 2001-12-28 | Pechiney Aluminium | METHOD FOR MEASURING THE DEGREE AND THE HOMOGENEITY OF CALCINATION OF ALUMINS |
US7190292B2 (en) | 1999-11-29 | 2007-03-13 | Bizjak Karl M | Input level adjust system and method |
US6738954B1 (en) * | 1999-12-08 | 2004-05-18 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method for prediction random defect yields of integrated circuits with accuracy and computation time controls |
US6445199B1 (en) | 1999-12-14 | 2002-09-03 | Kla-Tencor Corporation | Methods and apparatus for generating spatially resolved voltage contrast maps of semiconductor test structures |
US6771806B1 (en) | 1999-12-14 | 2004-08-03 | Kla-Tencor | Multi-pixel methods and apparatus for analysis of defect information from test structures on semiconductor devices |
US6701004B1 (en) * | 1999-12-22 | 2004-03-02 | Intel Corporation | Detecting defects on photomasks |
US6778695B1 (en) | 1999-12-23 | 2004-08-17 | Franklin M. Schellenberg | Design-based reticle defect prioritization |
US7120285B1 (en) | 2000-02-29 | 2006-10-10 | Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. | Method for evaluation of reticle image using aerial image simulator |
US6451690B1 (en) | 2000-03-13 | 2002-09-17 | Matsushita Electronics Corporation | Method of forming electrode structure and method of fabricating semiconductor device |
US6482557B1 (en) * | 2000-03-24 | 2002-11-19 | Dupont Photomasks, Inc. | Method and apparatus for evaluating the runability of a photomask inspection tool |
US6569691B1 (en) | 2000-03-29 | 2003-05-27 | Semiconductor Diagnostics, Inc. | Measurement of different mobile ion concentrations in the oxide layer of a semiconductor wafer |
US6759255B2 (en) | 2000-05-10 | 2004-07-06 | Kla-Tencor Technologies Corp. | Method and system for detecting metal contamination on a semiconductor wafer |
US6425113B1 (en) | 2000-06-13 | 2002-07-23 | Leigh C. Anderson | Integrated verification and manufacturability tool |
WO2002001597A1 (en) * | 2000-06-27 | 2002-01-03 | Ebara Corporation | Charged particle beam inspection apparatus and method for fabricating device using that inspection apparatus |
US6636301B1 (en) | 2000-08-10 | 2003-10-21 | Kla-Tencor Corporation | Multiple beam inspection apparatus and method |
US6634018B2 (en) * | 2000-08-24 | 2003-10-14 | Texas Instruments Incorporated | Optical proximity correction |
TW513772B (en) | 2000-09-05 | 2002-12-11 | Komatsu Denshi Kinzoku Kk | Apparatus for inspecting wafer surface, method for inspecting wafer surface, apparatus for judging defective wafer, method for judging defective wafer and information treatment apparatus of wafer surface |
DE10044257A1 (en) | 2000-09-07 | 2002-04-11 | Infineon Technologies Ag | Process for generating mask layout data for lithography simulation and optimized mask layout data, and associated device and programs |
US6513151B1 (en) * | 2000-09-14 | 2003-01-28 | Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. | Full flow focus exposure matrix analysis and electrical testing for new product mask evaluation |
US6593152B2 (en) | 2000-11-02 | 2003-07-15 | Ebara Corporation | Electron beam apparatus and method of manufacturing semiconductor device using the apparatus |
US6857116B1 (en) | 2000-11-15 | 2005-02-15 | Reshape, Inc. | Optimization of abutted-pin hierarchical physical design |
US6753954B2 (en) | 2000-12-06 | 2004-06-22 | Asml Masktools B.V. | Method and apparatus for detecting aberrations in a projection lens utilized for projection optics |
US6602728B1 (en) | 2001-01-05 | 2003-08-05 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method for generating a proximity model based on proximity rules |
US6680621B2 (en) * | 2001-01-26 | 2004-01-20 | Semiconductor Diagnostics, Inc. | Steady state method for measuring the thickness and the capacitance of ultra thin dielectric in the presence of substantial leakage current |
US6597193B2 (en) | 2001-01-26 | 2003-07-22 | Semiconductor Diagnostics, Inc. | Steady state method for measuring the thickness and the capacitance of ultra thin dielectric in the presence of substantial leakage current |
CN1262960C (en) * | 2001-03-12 | 2006-07-05 | Pdf技术公司 | Extraction method of defect density and size distributions |
US6873720B2 (en) | 2001-03-20 | 2005-03-29 | Synopsys, Inc. | System and method of providing mask defect printability analysis |
JP3973372B2 (en) | 2001-03-23 | 2007-09-12 | 株式会社日立製作所 | Substrate inspection apparatus and substrate inspection method using charged particle beam |
US6605478B2 (en) | 2001-03-30 | 2003-08-12 | Appleid Materials, Inc, | Kill index analysis for automatic defect classification in semiconductor wafers |
US6665065B1 (en) | 2001-04-09 | 2003-12-16 | Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. | Defect detection in pellicized reticles via exposure at short wavelengths |
JP4038356B2 (en) | 2001-04-10 | 2008-01-23 | 株式会社日立製作所 | Defect data analysis method and apparatus, and review system |
JP4266082B2 (en) | 2001-04-26 | 2009-05-20 | 株式会社東芝 | Inspection method for exposure mask pattern |
JP4199939B2 (en) | 2001-04-27 | 2008-12-24 | 株式会社日立製作所 | Semiconductor inspection system |
JP2002353099A (en) | 2001-05-22 | 2002-12-06 | Canon Inc | Apparatus and method for detecting position aligner and method for manufacturing device |
US20020186878A1 (en) | 2001-06-07 | 2002-12-12 | Hoon Tan Seow | System and method for multiple image analysis |
US6779159B2 (en) * | 2001-06-08 | 2004-08-17 | Sumitomo Mitsubishi Silicon Corporation | Defect inspection method and defect inspection apparatus |
US6581193B1 (en) | 2001-06-13 | 2003-06-17 | Kla-Tencor | Apparatus and methods for modeling process effects and imaging effects in scanning electron microscopy |
US7382447B2 (en) * | 2001-06-26 | 2008-06-03 | Kla-Tencor Technologies Corporation | Method for determining lithographic focus and exposure |
US20030014146A1 (en) * | 2001-07-12 | 2003-01-16 | Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba | Dangerous process/pattern detection system and method, danger detection program, and semiconductor device manufacturing method |
US6593748B1 (en) | 2001-07-12 | 2003-07-15 | Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. | Process integration of electrical thickness measurement of gate oxide and tunnel oxides by corona discharge technique |
JP2003031477A (en) * | 2001-07-17 | 2003-01-31 | Hitachi Ltd | Manufacturing method of semiconductor device and system thereof |
JP4122735B2 (en) * | 2001-07-24 | 2008-07-23 | 株式会社日立製作所 | Semiconductor device inspection method and inspection condition setting method |
US7030997B2 (en) | 2001-09-11 | 2006-04-18 | The Regents Of The University Of California | Characterizing aberrations in an imaging lens and applications to visual testing and integrated circuit mask analysis |
EP2164267B1 (en) * | 2001-09-12 | 2011-04-27 | Panasonic Corporation | Picture decoding apparatus and method |
JP3870052B2 (en) | 2001-09-20 | 2007-01-17 | 株式会社日立製作所 | Semiconductor device manufacturing method and defect inspection data processing method |
JP3955450B2 (en) * | 2001-09-27 | 2007-08-08 | 株式会社ルネサステクノロジ | Sample inspection method |
US6670082B2 (en) | 2001-10-09 | 2003-12-30 | Numerical Technologies, Inc. | System and method for correcting 3D effects in an alternating phase-shifting mask |
WO2003036549A1 (en) | 2001-10-25 | 2003-05-01 | Kla-Tencor Technologies Corporation | Apparatus and methods for managing reliability of semiconductor devices |
US6751519B1 (en) | 2001-10-25 | 2004-06-15 | Kla-Tencor Technologies Corporation | Methods and systems for predicting IC chip yield |
US6918101B1 (en) | 2001-10-25 | 2005-07-12 | Kla -Tencor Technologies Corporation | Apparatus and methods for determining critical area of semiconductor design data |
US6948141B1 (en) | 2001-10-25 | 2005-09-20 | Kla-Tencor Technologies Corporation | Apparatus and methods for determining critical area of semiconductor design data |
US6734696B2 (en) | 2001-11-01 | 2004-05-11 | Kla-Tencor Technologies Corp. | Non-contact hysteresis measurements of insulating films |
JP2003151483A (en) | 2001-11-19 | 2003-05-23 | Hitachi Ltd | Substrate inspection device for circuit pattern using charged particle beam and substrate inspection method |
US6886153B1 (en) | 2001-12-21 | 2005-04-26 | Kla-Tencor Corporation | Design driven inspection or measurement for semiconductor using recipe |
US6658640B2 (en) | 2001-12-26 | 2003-12-02 | Numerical Technologies, Inc. | Simulation-based feed forward process control |
US6789032B2 (en) | 2001-12-26 | 2004-09-07 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method of statistical binning for reliability selection |
US6906305B2 (en) | 2002-01-08 | 2005-06-14 | Brion Technologies, Inc. | System and method for aerial image sensing |
US7236847B2 (en) | 2002-01-16 | 2007-06-26 | Kla-Tencor Technologies Corp. | Systems and methods for closed loop defect reduction |
US6691052B1 (en) * | 2002-01-30 | 2004-02-10 | Kla-Tencor Corporation | Apparatus and methods for generating an inspection reference pattern |
JP3629244B2 (en) | 2002-02-19 | 2005-03-16 | 本多エレクトロン株式会社 | Wafer inspection equipment |
US7257247B2 (en) | 2002-02-21 | 2007-08-14 | International Business Machines Corporation | Mask defect analysis system |
US20030223639A1 (en) | 2002-03-05 | 2003-12-04 | Vladimir Shlain | Calibration and recognition of materials in technical images using specific and non-specific features |
US20030192015A1 (en) | 2002-04-04 | 2003-10-09 | Numerical Technologies, Inc. | Method and apparatus to facilitate test pattern design for model calibration and proximity correction |
US6966047B1 (en) | 2002-04-09 | 2005-11-15 | Kla-Tencor Technologies Corporation | Capturing designer intent in reticle inspection |
US6642066B1 (en) | 2002-05-15 | 2003-11-04 | Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. | Integrated process for depositing layer of high-K dielectric with in-situ control of K value and thickness of high-K dielectric layer |
US7363099B2 (en) * | 2002-06-07 | 2008-04-22 | Cadence Design Systems, Inc. | Integrated circuit metrology |
US6828542B2 (en) | 2002-06-07 | 2004-12-07 | Brion Technologies, Inc. | System and method for lithography process monitoring and control |
EP1532670A4 (en) | 2002-06-07 | 2007-09-12 | Praesagus Inc | Characterization adn reduction of variation for integrated circuits |
US7124386B2 (en) | 2002-06-07 | 2006-10-17 | Praesagus, Inc. | Dummy fill for integrated circuits |
US20030229875A1 (en) | 2002-06-07 | 2003-12-11 | Smith Taber H. | Use of models in integrated circuit fabrication |
US7152215B2 (en) | 2002-06-07 | 2006-12-19 | Praesagus, Inc. | Dummy fill for integrated circuits |
US7393755B2 (en) | 2002-06-07 | 2008-07-01 | Cadence Design Systems, Inc. | Dummy fill for integrated circuits |
JP2004031709A (en) * | 2002-06-27 | 2004-01-29 | Seiko Instruments Inc | Waferless measuring recipe generating system |
US6777676B1 (en) | 2002-07-05 | 2004-08-17 | Kla-Tencor Technologies Corporation | Non-destructive root cause analysis on blocked contact or via |
US7012438B1 (en) * | 2002-07-10 | 2006-03-14 | Kla-Tencor Technologies Corp. | Methods and systems for determining a property of an insulating film |
EP1543451A4 (en) | 2002-07-12 | 2010-11-17 | Cadence Design Systems Inc | Method and system for context-specific mask writing |
JP2006502422A (en) | 2002-07-12 | 2006-01-19 | ケイデンス デザイン システムズ インコーポレイテッド | Method and system for context-specific mask inspection |
KR100979484B1 (en) | 2002-07-15 | 2010-09-02 | 케이엘에이-텐코 코포레이션 | Defect inspection methods that include acquiring aerial images of a reticle for different lithographic process variables |
US6902855B2 (en) | 2002-07-15 | 2005-06-07 | Kla-Tencor Technologies | Qualifying patterns, patterning processes, or patterning apparatus in the fabrication of microlithographic patterns |
US6775818B2 (en) | 2002-08-20 | 2004-08-10 | Lsi Logic Corporation | Device parameter and gate performance simulation based on wafer image prediction |
US6784446B1 (en) | 2002-08-29 | 2004-08-31 | Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. | Reticle defect printability verification by resist latent image comparison |
US20040049722A1 (en) | 2002-09-09 | 2004-03-11 | Kabushiki Kaisha Toshiba | Failure analysis system, failure analysis method, a computer program product and a manufacturing method for a semiconductor device |
US7043071B2 (en) * | 2002-09-13 | 2006-05-09 | Synopsys, Inc. | Soft defect printability simulation and analysis for masks |
KR100474571B1 (en) * | 2002-09-23 | 2005-03-10 | 삼성전자주식회사 | Method of setting reference images, method and apparatus using the setting method for inspecting patterns on a wafer |
US7061625B1 (en) | 2002-09-27 | 2006-06-13 | Kla-Tencor Technologies Corporation | Method and apparatus using interferometric metrology for high aspect ratio inspection |
US7123356B1 (en) | 2002-10-15 | 2006-10-17 | Kla-Tencor Technologies Corp. | Methods and systems for inspecting reticles using aerial imaging and die-to-database detection |
US7027143B1 (en) | 2002-10-15 | 2006-04-11 | Kla-Tencor Technologies Corp. | Methods and systems for inspecting reticles using aerial imaging at off-stepper wavelengths |
US7379175B1 (en) | 2002-10-15 | 2008-05-27 | Kla-Tencor Technologies Corp. | Methods and systems for reticle inspection and defect review using aerial imaging |
US6807503B2 (en) | 2002-11-04 | 2004-10-19 | Brion Technologies, Inc. | Method and apparatus for monitoring integrated circuit fabrication |
US7386839B1 (en) | 2002-11-06 | 2008-06-10 | Valery Golender | System and method for troubleshooting software configuration problems using application tracing |
US7457736B2 (en) | 2002-11-21 | 2008-11-25 | Synopsys, Inc. | Automated creation of metrology recipes |
JP2006515464A (en) * | 2002-12-11 | 2006-05-25 | ピー・デイ・エフ ソリユーシヨンズ インコーポレイテツド | System and method for fast positioning of electrical faults on integrated circuits |
WO2004055472A2 (en) | 2002-12-13 | 2004-07-01 | Smith Bruce W | Method for aberration detection and measurement |
US6882745B2 (en) * | 2002-12-19 | 2005-04-19 | Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. | Method and apparatus for translating detected wafer defect coordinates to reticle coordinates using CAD data |
US7162071B2 (en) | 2002-12-20 | 2007-01-09 | Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. | Progressive self-learning defect review and classification method |
US6718526B1 (en) * | 2003-02-07 | 2004-04-06 | Kla-Tencor Corporation | Spatial signature analysis |
US7030966B2 (en) | 2003-02-11 | 2006-04-18 | Asml Netherlands B.V. | Lithographic apparatus and method for optimizing an illumination source using photolithographic simulations |
US7756320B2 (en) * | 2003-03-12 | 2010-07-13 | Hitachi High-Technologies Corporation | Defect classification using a logical equation for high stage classification |
JP3699960B2 (en) | 2003-03-14 | 2005-09-28 | 株式会社東芝 | Inspection recipe creation system, defect review system, inspection recipe creation method and defect review method |
US7053355B2 (en) * | 2003-03-18 | 2006-05-30 | Brion Technologies, Inc. | System and method for lithography process monitoring and control |
US7508973B2 (en) | 2003-03-28 | 2009-03-24 | Hitachi High-Technologies Corporation | Method of inspecting defects |
US6859746B1 (en) * | 2003-05-01 | 2005-02-22 | Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. | Methods of using adaptive sampling techniques based upon categorization of process variations, and system for performing same |
US7739064B1 (en) | 2003-05-09 | 2010-06-15 | Kla-Tencor Corporation | Inline clustered defect reduction |
JP2004340652A (en) | 2003-05-14 | 2004-12-02 | Hitachi Ltd | Flaw inspection device and positive electron beam application device |
US6777147B1 (en) | 2003-05-21 | 2004-08-17 | International Business Machines Corporation | Method for evaluating the effects of multiple exposure processes in lithography |
US7346470B2 (en) | 2003-06-10 | 2008-03-18 | International Business Machines Corporation | System for identification of defects on circuits or other arrayed products |
US9002497B2 (en) * | 2003-07-03 | 2015-04-07 | Kla-Tencor Technologies Corp. | Methods and systems for inspection of wafers and reticles using designer intent data |
US7135344B2 (en) * | 2003-07-11 | 2006-11-14 | Applied Materials, Israel, Ltd. | Design-based monitoring |
US6988045B2 (en) * | 2003-08-04 | 2006-01-17 | Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. | Dynamic metrology sampling methods, and system for performing same |
US7003758B2 (en) | 2003-10-07 | 2006-02-21 | Brion Technologies, Inc. | System and method for lithography simulation |
US7103484B1 (en) | 2003-10-31 | 2006-09-05 | Kla-Tencor Technologies Corp. | Non-contact methods for measuring electrical thickness and determining nitrogen content of insulating films |
JP2005183907A (en) | 2003-11-26 | 2005-07-07 | Matsushita Electric Ind Co Ltd | Method and apparatus for analyzing pattern |
JP4351522B2 (en) | 2003-11-28 | 2009-10-28 | 株式会社日立ハイテクノロジーズ | Pattern defect inspection apparatus and pattern defect inspection method |
US8151220B2 (en) * | 2003-12-04 | 2012-04-03 | Kla-Tencor Technologies Corp. | Methods for simulating reticle layout data, inspecting reticle layout data, and generating a process for inspecting reticle layout data |
US7646906B2 (en) | 2004-01-29 | 2010-01-12 | Kla-Tencor Technologies Corp. | Computer-implemented methods for detecting defects in reticle design data |
JP4426871B2 (en) | 2004-02-25 | 2010-03-03 | エスアイアイ・ナノテクノロジー株式会社 | Image noise removal of FIB / SEM combined device |
US7194709B2 (en) * | 2004-03-05 | 2007-03-20 | Keith John Brankner | Automatic alignment of integrated circuit and design layout of integrated circuit to more accurately assess the impact of anomalies |
US7171334B2 (en) * | 2004-06-01 | 2007-01-30 | Brion Technologies, Inc. | Method and apparatus for synchronizing data acquisition of a monitored IC fabrication process |
JP4347751B2 (en) | 2004-06-07 | 2009-10-21 | 株式会社アドバンテスト | Defect analysis system and defect location display method |
US7207017B1 (en) | 2004-06-10 | 2007-04-17 | Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. | Method and system for metrology recipe generation and review and analysis of design, simulation and metrology results |
US7912259B2 (en) * | 2004-08-09 | 2011-03-22 | Bracco International Bv | Image registration method and apparatus for medical imaging based on multiple masks |
US7310796B2 (en) * | 2004-08-27 | 2007-12-18 | Applied Materials, Israel, Ltd. | System and method for simulating an aerial image |
TW200622275A (en) * | 2004-09-06 | 2006-07-01 | Mentor Graphics Corp | Integrated circuit yield and quality analysis methods and systems |
JP4904034B2 (en) * | 2004-09-14 | 2012-03-28 | ケーエルエー−テンカー コーポレイション | Method, system and carrier medium for evaluating reticle layout data |
US7142992B1 (en) | 2004-09-30 | 2006-11-28 | Kla-Tencor Technologies Corp. | Flexible hybrid defect classification for semiconductor manufacturing |
KR20170003710A (en) | 2004-10-12 | 2017-01-09 | 케이엘에이-텐코 코포레이션 | Computer-implemented methods and systems for classifying defects on a specimen |
US7729529B2 (en) | 2004-12-07 | 2010-06-01 | Kla-Tencor Technologies Corp. | Computer-implemented methods for detecting and/or sorting defects in a design pattern of a reticle |
US7386418B2 (en) * | 2004-12-13 | 2008-06-10 | Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co., Ltd. | Yield analysis method |
JP2006200972A (en) | 2005-01-19 | 2006-08-03 | Tokyo Seimitsu Co Ltd | Image defect inspection method, image defect inspection device, and external appearance inspection device |
US7475382B2 (en) | 2005-02-24 | 2009-01-06 | Synopsys, Inc. | Method and apparatus for determining an improved assist feature configuration in a mask layout |
US7804993B2 (en) | 2005-02-28 | 2010-09-28 | Applied Materials South East Asia Pte. Ltd. | Method and apparatus for detecting defects in wafers including alignment of the wafer images so as to induce the same smear in all images |
US7813541B2 (en) | 2005-02-28 | 2010-10-12 | Applied Materials South East Asia Pte. Ltd. | Method and apparatus for detecting defects in wafers |
US7496880B2 (en) | 2005-03-17 | 2009-02-24 | Synopsys, Inc. | Method and apparatus for assessing the quality of a process model |
US7760347B2 (en) * | 2005-05-13 | 2010-07-20 | Applied Materials, Inc. | Design-based method for grouping systematic defects in lithography pattern writing system |
US7760929B2 (en) * | 2005-05-13 | 2010-07-20 | Applied Materials, Inc. | Grouping systematic defects with feedback from electrical inspection |
US7444615B2 (en) | 2005-05-31 | 2008-10-28 | Invarium, Inc. | Calibration on wafer sweet spots |
US7564017B2 (en) | 2005-06-03 | 2009-07-21 | Brion Technologies, Inc. | System and method for characterizing aerial image quality in a lithography system |
US7853920B2 (en) | 2005-06-03 | 2010-12-14 | Asml Netherlands B.V. | Method for detecting, sampling, analyzing, and correcting marginal patterns in integrated circuit manufacturing |
US7501215B2 (en) | 2005-06-28 | 2009-03-10 | Asml Netherlands B.V. | Device manufacturing method and a calibration substrate |
US20070002322A1 (en) * | 2005-06-30 | 2007-01-04 | Yan Borodovsky | Image inspection method |
US7769225B2 (en) * | 2005-08-02 | 2010-08-03 | Kla-Tencor Technologies Corp. | Methods and systems for detecting defects in a reticle design pattern |
US7488933B2 (en) * | 2005-08-05 | 2009-02-10 | Brion Technologies, Inc. | Method for lithography model calibration |
KR100958714B1 (en) * | 2005-08-08 | 2010-05-18 | 브라이언 테크놀로지스, 인코포레이티드 | System and method for creating a focus-exposure model of a lithography process |
US7749666B2 (en) * | 2005-08-09 | 2010-07-06 | Asml Netherlands B.V. | System and method for measuring and analyzing lithographic parameters and determining optimal process corrections |
KR100909474B1 (en) | 2005-08-10 | 2009-07-28 | 삼성전자주식회사 | Methods for Detecting Defective Semiconductor Wafers with Local Defect Mode Using Wafer Defect Index and Equipments Used Thereon |
JP4203498B2 (en) * | 2005-09-22 | 2009-01-07 | アドバンスド・マスク・インスペクション・テクノロジー株式会社 | Image correction apparatus, pattern inspection apparatus, image correction method, and pattern defect inspection method |
US7570796B2 (en) | 2005-11-18 | 2009-08-04 | Kla-Tencor Technologies Corp. | Methods and systems for utilizing design data in combination with inspection data |
US8041103B2 (en) | 2005-11-18 | 2011-10-18 | Kla-Tencor Technologies Corp. | Methods and systems for determining a position of inspection data in design data space |
US7676077B2 (en) * | 2005-11-18 | 2010-03-09 | Kla-Tencor Technologies Corp. | Methods and systems for utilizing design data in combination with inspection data |
US7570800B2 (en) | 2005-12-14 | 2009-08-04 | Kla-Tencor Technologies Corp. | Methods and systems for binning defects detected on a specimen |
US7801353B2 (en) | 2006-02-01 | 2010-09-21 | Applied Materials Israel, Ltd. | Method for defect detection using computer aided design data |
EP1982160A4 (en) * | 2006-02-09 | 2016-02-17 | Kla Tencor Tech Corp | Methods and systems for determining a characteristic of a wafer |
US8102408B2 (en) | 2006-06-29 | 2012-01-24 | Kla-Tencor Technologies Corp. | Computer-implemented methods and systems for determining different process windows for a wafer printing process for different reticle designs |
US7904845B2 (en) * | 2006-12-06 | 2011-03-08 | Kla-Tencor Corp. | Determining locations on a wafer to be reviewed during defect review |
WO2008077100A2 (en) * | 2006-12-19 | 2008-06-26 | Kla-Tencor Corporation | Systems and methods for creating inspection recipes |
WO2008086282A2 (en) | 2007-01-05 | 2008-07-17 | Kla-Tencor Corporation | Methods and systems for using electrical information for a device being fabricated on a wafer to perform one or more defect-related functions |
US7962864B2 (en) * | 2007-05-24 | 2011-06-14 | Applied Materials, Inc. | Stage yield prediction |
JP5068591B2 (en) * | 2007-06-29 | 2012-11-07 | 株式会社日立ハイテクノロジーズ | Semiconductor defect classification method, semiconductor defect classification device, semiconductor defect classification device program, semiconductor defect inspection method, and semiconductor defect inspection system |
-
2008
- 2008-08-20 JP JP2010521995A patent/JP5425779B2/en active Active
- 2008-08-20 WO PCT/US2008/073706 patent/WO2009026358A1/en active Application Filing
- 2008-08-20 CN CN2008801035763A patent/CN101785009B/en active Active
- 2008-08-20 TW TW97131870A patent/TWI469235B/en active
- 2008-08-20 KR KR1020107006100A patent/KR101448971B1/en active IP Right Grant
- 2008-08-20 US US12/195,024 patent/US7975245B2/en active Active
Patent Citations (3)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
JP2002071575A (en) * | 2000-09-04 | 2002-03-08 | Matsushita Electric Ind Co Ltd | Defect inspecting and analyzing method and system therefor |
JP2002365235A (en) * | 2001-06-08 | 2002-12-18 | Sumitomo Mitsubishi Silicon Corp | Defect inspection method and apparatus |
JP2004045066A (en) * | 2002-07-09 | 2004-02-12 | Fujitsu Ltd | Inspection apparatus and inspection method |
Cited By (1)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US10460434B2 (en) | 2017-08-22 | 2019-10-29 | Applied Materials Israel Ltd. | Method of defect detection and system thereof |
Also Published As
Publication number | Publication date |
---|---|
JP2010537199A (en) | 2010-12-02 |
US20090055783A1 (en) | 2009-02-26 |
TWI469235B (en) | 2015-01-11 |
JP5425779B2 (en) | 2014-02-26 |
KR20100044902A (en) | 2010-04-30 |
US7975245B2 (en) | 2011-07-05 |
TW200915461A (en) | 2009-04-01 |
KR101448971B1 (en) | 2014-10-13 |
CN101785009B (en) | 2012-10-10 |
CN101785009A (en) | 2010-07-21 |
Similar Documents
Publication | Publication Date | Title |
---|---|---|
US7975245B2 (en) | Computer-implemented methods for determining if actual defects are potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects | |
US10223492B1 (en) | Based device risk assessment | |
KR101381309B1 (en) | Computer-implemented methods, carrier media, and systems for generating a metrology sampling plan | |
US8194968B2 (en) | Methods and systems for using electrical information for a device being fabricated on a wafer to perform one or more defect-related functions | |
US9201022B2 (en) | Extraction of systematic defects | |
US7904845B2 (en) | Determining locations on a wafer to be reviewed during defect review | |
KR102094577B1 (en) | Setting up a wafer inspection process using programmed defects | |
WO2009018337A1 (en) | Semiconductor device property extraction, generation, visualization, and monitoring methods | |
Le Denmat et al. | Tracking of design related defects hidden in the random defectivity in a production environment | |
WO2023107229A1 (en) | Process window qualification modulation layouts |
Legal Events
Date | Code | Title | Description |
---|---|---|---|
WWE | Wipo information: entry into national phase |
Ref document number: 200880103576.3 Country of ref document: CN |
|
121 | Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application |
Ref document number: 08798269 Country of ref document: EP Kind code of ref document: A1 |
|
ENP | Entry into the national phase |
Ref document number: 2010521995 Country of ref document: JP Kind code of ref document: A |
|
NENP | Non-entry into the national phase |
Ref country code: DE |
|
ENP | Entry into the national phase |
Ref document number: 20107006100 Country of ref document: KR Kind code of ref document: A |
|
122 | Ep: pct application non-entry in european phase |
Ref document number: 08798269 Country of ref document: EP Kind code of ref document: A1 |