US20050197728A1 - Feature targeted inspection - Google Patents
Feature targeted inspection Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- US20050197728A1 US20050197728A1 US10/794,225 US79422504A US2005197728A1 US 20050197728 A1 US20050197728 A1 US 20050197728A1 US 79422504 A US79422504 A US 79422504A US 2005197728 A1 US2005197728 A1 US 2005197728A1
- Authority
- US
- United States
- Prior art keywords
- high risk
- inspection
- integrated circuit
- locations
- features
- Prior art date
- Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
- Granted
Links
Images
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G03—PHOTOGRAPHY; CINEMATOGRAPHY; ANALOGOUS TECHNIQUES USING WAVES OTHER THAN OPTICAL WAVES; ELECTROGRAPHY; HOLOGRAPHY
- G03F—PHOTOMECHANICAL PRODUCTION OF TEXTURED OR PATTERNED SURFACES, e.g. FOR PRINTING, FOR PROCESSING OF SEMICONDUCTOR DEVICES; MATERIALS THEREFOR; ORIGINALS THEREFOR; APPARATUS SPECIALLY ADAPTED THEREFOR
- G03F7/00—Photomechanical, e.g. photolithographic, production of textured or patterned surfaces, e.g. printing surfaces; Materials therefor, e.g. comprising photoresists; Apparatus specially adapted therefor
- G03F7/70—Microphotolithographic exposure; Apparatus therefor
- G03F7/70483—Information management; Active and passive control; Testing; Wafer monitoring, e.g. pattern monitoring
- G03F7/70605—Workpiece metrology
- G03F7/70616—Monitoring the printed patterns
- G03F7/7065—Defects, e.g. optical inspection of patterned layer for defects
Definitions
- This invention relates to the field of integrated circuit fabrication. More particularly, this invention relates to inspection of integrated circuits.
- integrated circuits are fabricated by forming a layer, modifying the formed layer in same manner, such as by etching it, and then forming additional layers on top of it. As the layers are formed, different structures of the integrated circuit are created. During the course of fabrication for the integrated circuit, millions of structures are so formed. If even one of the structures is not formed correctly, it is possible that the integrated circuit will not function properly. Thus, great care is exerted to ensure that all of the structures on the integrated circuit are properly formed.
- inspection it is meant that the shape of the structure is observed, typically through some process that can detect shape, such as an optical inspection or an inspection with an electron microscope, such as a scanning electron microscope.
- Such inspections are generally referred to as visual inspections herein, even though they may not be, and typically never are, conducted with the naked eye.
- Visual inspections may be performed at various points in time during the fabrication process. For example, a visual inspection can be performed at the end of the fabrication process. However, at that point, many of the various layers and the structures which are formed thereon can no longer be seen by an inspection method that doesn't destroy the integrated circuit. Thus, it is generally desirable to inspect the integrated circuit at several different points during the fabrication process.
- a method of inspecting a subject integrated circuit A set of historical integrated circuits is inspected to detect defects and produce historical defect data.
- Features of the historical integrated circuits that have an occurrence of defects that is greater than a given limit are designated as high risk features, based on the historical defect data.
- Locations of the high risk features are identified on the subject integrated circuit. The locations of the high risk features are input into an inspection tool, and the locations of the high risk features on the integrated circuit are inspected to detect defects and produce subject defect data.
- the various embodiments of the present invention enable an inspection to be performed on an integrated circuit, where the inspections may be particularly directed to those portions or features of the integrated circuit that historically have a greater incidence of failure.
- the inspection time is not unduly protracted by inspecting those portions of the integrated circuit in which there is a lower probability of defect occurrence.
- the inspection time for the integrated can be designated as desired, such as by spending more time inspecting high risk features and less time inspecting other features, or by not inspecting other features at all.
- the step of analyzing the set of historical integrated circuits comprises analyzing existing inspection results from a selected group of previously inspected integrated circuits.
- the step of analyzing the set of historical integrated circuits comprises selecting a group of integrated circuits and then inspecting the selected group of integrated circuits.
- the integrated circuit is a monolithic semiconducting integrated circuit.
- the inspection of the integrated circuit is preferably either an in process inspection or a final inspection.
- the step of designating features as high risk features comprises a statistic analysis of the historical defect data.
- the step of identifying the locations of the high risk features preferably comprises analyzing design data for the subject integrated circuit.
- the inspection tool is preferably either an optical inspection tool or an electron microscope.
- the step of inspecting the locations of the high risk features includes inspecting an area of a given minimum size that includes the high risk feature.
- the steps of inspecting the locations of the high risk features includes inspecting an area of a given minimum size that includes the high risk feature.
- only the locations of the high risk features are inspected on the subject integrated circuit, or both the locations of the high risk features and other selectable locations are inspected on the subject integrated circuit.
- the subject defect data is added to the historical defect data to determine the high risk features.
- an apparatus for directing an inspection of a subject integrated circuit Means are provided for accessing historical defect data in regard to a set of historical integrated circuits. Means are used for analyzing the historical defect data. Means are provided for receiving criteria from which a given limit is constructed. A means designates features of the historical integrated circuits that have an occurrence of defects that is greater than the given limit as high risk features, based on the historical defect data. Means are used for identifying locations of the high risk features on the subject integrated circuit. Means are provided for inputting the locations of the high risk features into an inspection tool, and directing the inspection tool to inspect the locations of the high risk features.
- a software program on a computer readable media for directing an inspection of a subject integrated circuit.
- the program accesses historical defect data in regard to a set of historical integrated circuits, analyzes the historical defect data, receives criteria from which a given limit is constructed, designates features of the historical integrated circuits that have an occurrence of defects that is greater than the given limit as high risk features, based on the historical defect data, identifies locations of the high risk features on the subject integrated circuit, inputs the locations of the high risk features into an inspection tool, and directs the inspection tool to inspect the locations of the high risk features.
- FIG. 1 is a flow chart of a method according to the present invention.
- FIG. 2 is a functional block diagram of an apparatus according to the present invention.
- FIG. 3 is an integrated circuit depicting high risk features and minimum inspection areas according to the present invention.
- historical data is gathered.
- the historical data is preferably culled from a database of historical data that was gathered from integrated circuits that had previously been tested. Most preferably, the historical data is in regard to integrated circuits of the same type as that to be tested. However, in other embodiments, the historical data is taken from more than one type of integrated circuit, which include features of the same type or of a similar type.
- the integrated circuits referred to herein are monolithic semiconducting devices, such as those formed on group IV materials such as silicon or germanium, or on group III-V materials such as gallium arsenide.
- a desired group of integrated circuits is assembled and the integrated circuits are inspected to create the historical data.
- the historical data is taken from existing data that has been gathered from integrated circuits that were previously inspected.
- the historical data can come from the inspection of previous products, failure analysis data, or results from test chips that have been specifically designed to identify these high risk defects. Alternately, these high risk features could be extracted from design rules. For example, design layout data can be analyzed to identify the statistical occurrence of these high risk situations, and the relevant locations can be fed into the inspection tool.
- the historical data most preferably relates inspection data to test data.
- Inspection data generally relates to information in regard to how the integrated circuit appears visually. Such data includes, for example, information such as breaks in lines, poor edge definition, and other malformation of structures.
- Test data generally relates to information in regard to how the integrated circuit operates. Such data includes, for example, information such as open circuits, short circuits, and other far more complex electrical parameters. For each type of data, both inspection data and test data, there are certain incidents which are considered failures, or in other words, which are not desirable.
- the historical data preferably includes sufficient information to relate the inspection data to the test data for a given integrated circuit, such that the visual appearance of certain types of tests results can be determined. Stated in another way, there is enough information to preferably correlate a certain type of visual flaw in the inspection data to a certain type of electrical flaw in the test data. This correlation cannot be done for all inspection data and test data, because some electrical flaws do not have a visually perceptible component, and some physical flaws do not yield an electrically perceptible component, at least not at the level of inspection or test that is conducted.
- the historical data is analyzed as given in block 14 to determine high risk features. This is preferably accomplished such as with a two step process.
- a binning process is conducted, where similar structures are binned into feature groups. For example, all vias can be placed in one feature group, all gates can be placed in another feature group, all lines of a given width or on a given level of the integrated circuit can be placed in a third feature group, and so forth.
- the groups can be defined to be as narrow or as broad as desired. However, the defined breadth of the various groups will tend to have an impact on the efficiency gains of the methods according to the present invention, as described in more detail hereafter.
- the historical data is also partitioned according to the feature groups. For example, in one embodiment the test data associated with a given structure within a feature group is culled from the historical data, and the number of failures is tallied for that feature group. This can then be repeated as desired for every failure of the various structures within the feature group, to yield a total failure count for that feature group. Preferably, this is accomplished for every failure for every structure within the feature group.
- the inspection data associated with a given structure within a feature group is culled from the historical data, and the number of failures is tallied for that feature group. This can then be repeated as desired for every failure of the various structures within the feature group, to yield a total failure count for that feature group. Preferably, this is accomplished for every failure for every structure within the feature group.
- both the test data and the inspection data associated with a given structure within a feature group are culled from the historical data, and those visual flaws which result in electrical flaws are identified and tallied for that feature. This can then be repeated as desired for every failure of the various structures with the feature group, to yield a total failure count for that feature group. Preferably, this is accomplished for every failure for every structure within the feature group.
- high risk feature groups are identified, as given in block 16 .
- This can be accomplished by any one or more of a variety of different methods. For example, in one embodiment, a given number of failures is determined to be a limit, and any feature group having more than the limit number of failures is identified as being a high risk feature group. Alternately, a feature group having any failures at all is identified as being a high risk feature group. In yet another embodiment, statistical means are used to determine those feature groups which have a statistically significant number of failures, and such feature groups are then identified as being high risk feature groups. Other methods could also be used.
- Such information is preferably contained within the historical data, or may alternately be located in a separate database.
- Such information is typically available within an integrated circuit design database, which may or may not be considered to be a part of the historical data.
- the physical location of each structure within a feature group that is identified as a high risk feature group is provided to an inspection tool, as given in block 18 .
- the inspection tool is programmed to receive the high risk location information, and use it in some manner during the inspection of integrated circuits, as given in block 20 .
- every location identified in the high risk location information is inspected by the inspection tool.
- a relatively high percentage of the locations identified in the high risk location information is inspected by the inspection tool.
- other locations are also inspected by the inspection tool, even though they are not designated as high risk locations in the high risk location information.
- locations on the integrated circuit that are not designated in the high risk location information such locations are called low risk locations or low risk structures in the further discussion below.
- either all of the low risk locations are inspected by the inspection tool, or none of the low risk locations are inspected by the inspection tool, or only some amount of the low risk locations are inspected by the inspection tool.
- a feature group is defined to include a relatively narrow range of structures within it, then if it is designated as a high risk group, there will be fewer structures slated for inspection, and the amount of time required for such an inspection will be generally reduced.
- the vias are included within the feature group, rather than vias and lines, then if the feature group is designated as a high risk group, only the vias would need to be inspected, and the lines may not need to be inspected.
- the level of failures at which a given feature group is designated as a high risk group also effects how efficient the inspection process will be. For example, if any failure at all designates a feature group as a high risk feature group, then there will tend to be a relatively greater number of high risk feature groups, which tends to indicate a relatively higher number of structures that will be inspected. However, having too high a value set as the limit for designating a feature group as a high risk feature group may allow too many structures to not be inspected.
- Another selectable parameter which impacts the efficiency of the inspection process according to the present invention is the level at which high risk feature groups will be inspected. If all structures within the high risk feature groups are inspected, then a relatively greater amount of time will be required to perform the inspection. Finally, the level at which the low risk structures are inspected also impacts the efficiency of the process. If all low risk structures are inspected, then the inspection process will tend to require a relatively greater amount of time.
- the selectable parameters as described above are balanced, such that a reasonable degree of inspection is accomplished, and the inspection is predominantly directed toward those structures which have a higher historical defect rate.
- This balance of the selectable parameters may be accomplished by either a statistical or an empirical process. For example, there are various statistical procedures which can be used to determine the levels of the various selectable parameters, and yield a balance that will achieve the desired inspection goals. Alternately, the levels of the various selectable parameters can be adjusted, such as one at a time and in various combinations, until it is observed that the inspection method yields the desired results. Most preferably, some type of statistical process is first used to set the level of the selectable parameters, and then the levels of the selectable parameters are fine tuned using a combination of both statistical and empirical information as the process runs.
- the structures are binned so that only structures of a single type are placed within a single feature group.
- a feature group is designated as a high risk feature group if the number of failures within the feature group is statistically significant in comparison to the number of failures within the other feature groups.
- High risk feature groups are inspected at a one hundred percent level, or in other words, every structure binned within a high risk feature group is inspected.
- Low risk features are inspected at a sampled level that is statistically determined, based upon the expected failure rates for non high risk failure groups. In this manner, the integrated circuit is, in most cases, inspected at a reduced level, which enables the integrated circuit to be inspected more quickly. This allows integrated circuits to inspected on fewer inspection stations, or more integrated circuits to be inspected. Thus, inspection costs are generally decreased and inspection capacity is generally increased.
- the method can also be adjusted by setting different inspection levels for different high risk feature groups. In other words, not every high risk feature group needs to be inspected at the same level.
- different inspection levels can be set for structures that exist on different layers of the integrated circuit. In other words, structures on a first layer may be inspected at a first level, and structures on a second layer may be inspected at a second level that is different from the first level.
- the apparatus 100 preferably includes an input 102 , such as a computer network input, through which the historical data can be accessed.
- the historical data already exists, such as in an engineering database, and is disposed on a centralized computer database, which is accessible through a network interface, such as the input 102 .
- a user interface 104 is preferably used to program the apparatus 100 , such as to input parameters used for the selection of the failure limits by which feature groups are designated as high risk feature groups, and the level of inspection for both high risk feature groups and low risk structures.
- the historical information or other information can preferably also be presented to an operator, such as on a display of the user interface 104 .
- a memory 106 preferably holds historical data as needed, and the limits and other information used by the apparatus 100 .
- the processor 108 is used to accomplish the computations and other logic and control functions of the apparatus 100 .
- a control output 110 preferably interfaces with the inspection tool 112 itself, and provides the information whereby the inspection tool 112 is directed to inspect the integrated circuit, as described above.
- the apparatus 100 directly controls the operation of the inspection tool 112 moment by moment through the control output 110 .
- the apparatus 100 only provides the inspection information to the inspection tool 112 , which then directs its own operation using the inspection information received from the apparatus 100 through the control output 110 .
- the apparatus 100 is included as a module within the inspection tool 112 , and is not a separate box.
- the inspection information can be sent to or requested by the inspection tool 112 through a network interface, such as the input 102 in some embodiments.
- the inspection tool 112 is a scanning electron microscope
- the apparatus 100 is either a personal computer, or a logic module running within the controller of the scanning electron microscope.
- the method is embodied within a program disposed on a computer readable media, which program is able to direct a personal computer to perform the method steps as described above.
- an area of interest 34 surrounds the structures 32 of a high risk feature group that are to be inspected.
- the area of interest 34 on the integrated 30 is also inspected.
- the size of the area of interest 34 is another of the selectable parameters that effects the efficiency of the method as described herein.
- the area of interest is increased, the amount of area to be inspected is generally increased, and so too is the length of time required for the inspection process.
- the area of interest is reduced, such as to a single point representing the center of the structure, for example, the possibility of missing a defect increases.
- a balance is preferably found, either statistically or empirically or by a blend of each, whereby a large enough area of interest 34 is inspected, while the inspection process itself is not unduly protracted.
- Another embodiment of the method according to the present invention is to measure critical dimensions such as with a scanning electron microscope in the area of these features of interest.
- the feature of interest may not be a high risk feature in terms of a heightened risk of defect, but it is desirable to measure the feature for parametric performance.
- critical dimensions are measured in one place in the scribe lines between the integrated circuits on the substrate. However, such a measurement often does not represent real parametric performance. If critical dimensions are measured in the specific features that are likely to be a worst case scenario, such as may be determined from test chip or historical product data, then the process can be fine tuned much more accurately.
Landscapes
- Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- Testing Or Measuring Of Semiconductors Or The Like (AREA)
Abstract
Description
- This invention relates to the field of integrated circuit fabrication. More particularly, this invention relates to inspection of integrated circuits.
- In general terms, integrated circuits are fabricated by forming a layer, modifying the formed layer in same manner, such as by etching it, and then forming additional layers on top of it. As the layers are formed, different structures of the integrated circuit are created. During the course of fabrication for the integrated circuit, millions of structures are so formed. If even one of the structures is not formed correctly, it is possible that the integrated circuit will not function properly. Thus, great care is exerted to ensure that all of the structures on the integrated circuit are properly formed.
- One method of ensuring that the structures are properly formed is to inspect the integrated circuit. By inspection it is meant that the shape of the structure is observed, typically through some process that can detect shape, such as an optical inspection or an inspection with an electron microscope, such as a scanning electron microscope. Such inspections are generally referred to as visual inspections herein, even though they may not be, and typically never are, conducted with the naked eye.
- Visual inspections may be performed at various points in time during the fabrication process. For example, a visual inspection can be performed at the end of the fabrication process. However, at that point, many of the various layers and the structures which are formed thereon can no longer be seen by an inspection method that doesn't destroy the integrated circuit. Thus, it is generally desirable to inspect the integrated circuit at several different points during the fabrication process.
- Unfortunately, several factors tend to dramatically increase the number of inspections that could be performed. For example, one factor is the number of layers that are used in modern integrated circuits. If an inspection is performed after the formation of each layer, then a significant number of inspections is required. In addition, modern integrated circuits use structures that are fashioned to be smaller and smaller as fabrication techniques improve. Thus, there are an ever increasing number of structures that could be inspected on each level.
- As the number of individual inspection sites increases, so too does the amount of time that an inspection requires. For example, it is not unusual for an electron microscope inspection of a substrate on which integrated circuits are formed to require ten hours or more. Such time requirements have placed a severe burden on the throughput of integrated circuit processing.
- One trend in the integrated circuit fabrication industry is the general increase of systematic defects that are often design dependent or layout dependant. Examples of these types of systematic defects include co-incident metal corners, stacked vias, vias on large metal lines, and electrically conductive lines that require optical proximity correction. These systematic defects are becoming generally more common than the traditional random defect mechanisms, and tend to be much more susceptible to process excursions such as alignment or equipment control.
- What is needed, therefore, is a system by which integrated circuits can be adequately inspected, but which does not require such a great length of time.
- The above and other needs are met by a method of inspecting a subject integrated circuit. A set of historical integrated circuits is inspected to detect defects and produce historical defect data. Features of the historical integrated circuits that have an occurrence of defects that is greater than a given limit are designated as high risk features, based on the historical defect data. Locations of the high risk features are identified on the subject integrated circuit. The locations of the high risk features are input into an inspection tool, and the locations of the high risk features on the integrated circuit are inspected to detect defects and produce subject defect data.
- In this manner, the various embodiments of the present invention enable an inspection to be performed on an integrated circuit, where the inspections may be particularly directed to those portions or features of the integrated circuit that historically have a greater incidence of failure. Thus, the inspection time is not unduly protracted by inspecting those portions of the integrated circuit in which there is a lower probability of defect occurrence. By so doing, the inspection time for the integrated can be designated as desired, such as by spending more time inspecting high risk features and less time inspecting other features, or by not inspecting other features at all.
- In various preferred embodiments, the step of analyzing the set of historical integrated circuits comprises analyzing existing inspection results from a selected group of previously inspected integrated circuits. Alternately, the step of analyzing the set of historical integrated circuits comprises selecting a group of integrated circuits and then inspecting the selected group of integrated circuits. Preferably, the integrated circuit is a monolithic semiconducting integrated circuit. The inspection of the integrated circuit is preferably either an in process inspection or a final inspection. Preferably, the step of designating features as high risk features comprises a statistic analysis of the historical defect data. The step of identifying the locations of the high risk features preferably comprises analyzing design data for the subject integrated circuit. The inspection tool is preferably either an optical inspection tool or an electron microscope. Preferably, the step of inspecting the locations of the high risk features includes inspecting an area of a given minimum size that includes the high risk feature. In alternate embodiments, only the locations of the high risk features are inspected on the subject integrated circuit, or both the locations of the high risk features and other selectable locations are inspected on the subject integrated circuit. In one embodiment the subject defect data is added to the historical defect data to determine the high risk features.
- According to another aspect of the invention there is described an apparatus for directing an inspection of a subject integrated circuit. Means are provided for accessing historical defect data in regard to a set of historical integrated circuits. Means are used for analyzing the historical defect data. Means are provided for receiving criteria from which a given limit is constructed. A means designates features of the historical integrated circuits that have an occurrence of defects that is greater than the given limit as high risk features, based on the historical defect data. Means are used for identifying locations of the high risk features on the subject integrated circuit. Means are provided for inputting the locations of the high risk features into an inspection tool, and directing the inspection tool to inspect the locations of the high risk features.
- According to yet another aspect of the invention, there is described a software program on a computer readable media for directing an inspection of a subject integrated circuit. The program accesses historical defect data in regard to a set of historical integrated circuits, analyzes the historical defect data, receives criteria from which a given limit is constructed, designates features of the historical integrated circuits that have an occurrence of defects that is greater than the given limit as high risk features, based on the historical defect data, identifies locations of the high risk features on the subject integrated circuit, inputs the locations of the high risk features into an inspection tool, and directs the inspection tool to inspect the locations of the high risk features.
- Further advantages of the invention are apparent by reference to the detailed description when considered in conjunction with the figures, which are not to scale so as to more clearly show the details, wherein like reference numbers indicate like elements throughout the several views, and wherein:
-
FIG. 1 is a flow chart of a method according to the present invention. -
FIG. 2 is a functional block diagram of an apparatus according to the present invention. -
FIG. 3 is an integrated circuit depicting high risk features and minimum inspection areas according to the present invention. - With reference now to
FIG. 1 , there is depicted a flow chart of amethod 10 according to the present invention. As given inblock 12, historical data is gathered. The historical data is preferably culled from a database of historical data that was gathered from integrated circuits that had previously been tested. Most preferably, the historical data is in regard to integrated circuits of the same type as that to be tested. However, in other embodiments, the historical data is taken from more than one type of integrated circuit, which include features of the same type or of a similar type. - For example, although it is preferred to use historical data from integrated circuits that are the same type of logic device, it is possible to alternately use historical data from other types of integrated circuits, such as memory, which include the same or similar features of interest. Examples of features include vias, trenches, gates, contacts, traces, and other physical design elements of an integrated circuit. Most preferably, the integrated circuits referred to herein are monolithic semiconducting devices, such as those formed on group IV materials such as silicon or germanium, or on group III-V materials such as gallium arsenide.
- In another embodiment, instead of relying upon existing data to form the historical data, a desired group of integrated circuits is assembled and the integrated circuits are inspected to create the historical data. However, most preferably the historical data is taken from existing data that has been gathered from integrated circuits that were previously inspected.
- The historical data can come from the inspection of previous products, failure analysis data, or results from test chips that have been specifically designed to identify these high risk defects. Alternately, these high risk features could be extracted from design rules. For example, design layout data can be analyzed to identify the statistical occurrence of these high risk situations, and the relevant locations can be fed into the inspection tool.
- The historical data most preferably relates inspection data to test data. Inspection data generally relates to information in regard to how the integrated circuit appears visually. Such data includes, for example, information such as breaks in lines, poor edge definition, and other malformation of structures. Test data generally relates to information in regard to how the integrated circuit operates. Such data includes, for example, information such as open circuits, short circuits, and other far more complex electrical parameters. For each type of data, both inspection data and test data, there are certain incidents which are considered failures, or in other words, which are not desirable.
- The historical data preferably includes sufficient information to relate the inspection data to the test data for a given integrated circuit, such that the visual appearance of certain types of tests results can be determined. Stated in another way, there is enough information to preferably correlate a certain type of visual flaw in the inspection data to a certain type of electrical flaw in the test data. This correlation cannot be done for all inspection data and test data, because some electrical flaws do not have a visually perceptible component, and some physical flaws do not yield an electrically perceptible component, at least not at the level of inspection or test that is conducted.
- The historical data is analyzed as given in
block 14 to determine high risk features. This is preferably accomplished such as with a two step process. First, a binning process is conducted, where similar structures are binned into feature groups. For example, all vias can be placed in one feature group, all gates can be placed in another feature group, all lines of a given width or on a given level of the integrated circuit can be placed in a third feature group, and so forth. The groups can be defined to be as narrow or as broad as desired. However, the defined breadth of the various groups will tend to have an impact on the efficiency gains of the methods according to the present invention, as described in more detail hereafter. - After all of the structures or the desired portion of the structures have been binned into feature groups, the historical data is also partitioned according to the feature groups. For example, in one embodiment the test data associated with a given structure within a feature group is culled from the historical data, and the number of failures is tallied for that feature group. This can then be repeated as desired for every failure of the various structures within the feature group, to yield a total failure count for that feature group. Preferably, this is accomplished for every failure for every structure within the feature group.
- In another embodiment, the inspection data associated with a given structure within a feature group is culled from the historical data, and the number of failures is tallied for that feature group. This can then be repeated as desired for every failure of the various structures within the feature group, to yield a total failure count for that feature group. Preferably, this is accomplished for every failure for every structure within the feature group.
- In yet another embodiment, both the test data and the inspection data associated with a given structure within a feature group are culled from the historical data, and those visual flaws which result in electrical flaws are identified and tallied for that feature. This can then be repeated as desired for every failure of the various structures with the feature group, to yield a total failure count for that feature group. Preferably, this is accomplished for every failure for every structure within the feature group.
- Once the failure tallies have been made for the various feature groups, high risk feature groups are identified, as given in
block 16. This can be accomplished by any one or more of a variety of different methods. For example, in one embodiment, a given number of failures is determined to be a limit, and any feature group having more than the limit number of failures is identified as being a high risk feature group. Alternately, a feature group having any failures at all is identified as being a high risk feature group. In yet another embodiment, statistical means are used to determine those feature groups which have a statistically significant number of failures, and such feature groups are then identified as being high risk feature groups. Other methods could also be used. - Not only are the high risk feature groups identified, but the physical locations of the structures binned within the feature groups are also identified. Such information is preferably contained within the historical data, or may alternately be located in a separate database. For example, such information is typically available within an integrated circuit design database, which may or may not be considered to be a part of the historical data.
- In a preferred embodiment, the physical location of each structure within a feature group that is identified as a high risk feature group is provided to an inspection tool, as given in
block 18. For ease in referring to such information as provided to the inspection tool, the information will be called high risk location information in the further discussion below. The inspection tool is programmed to receive the high risk location information, and use it in some manner during the inspection of integrated circuits, as given inblock 20. For example, in one embodiment, every location identified in the high risk location information is inspected by the inspection tool. In other embodiments, a relatively high percentage of the locations identified in the high risk location information is inspected by the inspection tool. - In some embodiments, other locations are also inspected by the inspection tool, even though they are not designated as high risk locations in the high risk location information. For ease in referring to locations on the integrated circuit that are not designated in the high risk location information, such locations are called low risk locations or low risk structures in the further discussion below. In these embodiments, either all of the low risk locations are inspected by the inspection tool, or none of the low risk locations are inspected by the inspection tool, or only some amount of the low risk locations are inspected by the inspection tool.
- Several aspects of the method as described above have a bearing on the efficiency of the inspection process. For example, if a feature group is defined to include a relatively narrow range of structures within it, then if it is designated as a high risk group, there will be fewer structures slated for inspection, and the amount of time required for such an inspection will be generally reduced. As a specific example, if only the vias are included within the feature group, rather than vias and lines, then if the feature group is designated as a high risk group, only the vias would need to be inspected, and the lines may not need to be inspected.
- Similarly, the level of failures at which a given feature group is designated as a high risk group also effects how efficient the inspection process will be. For example, if any failure at all designates a feature group as a high risk feature group, then there will tend to be a relatively greater number of high risk feature groups, which tends to indicate a relatively higher number of structures that will be inspected. However, having too high a value set as the limit for designating a feature group as a high risk feature group may allow too many structures to not be inspected.
- Another selectable parameter which impacts the efficiency of the inspection process according to the present invention is the level at which high risk feature groups will be inspected. If all structures within the high risk feature groups are inspected, then a relatively greater amount of time will be required to perform the inspection. Finally, the level at which the low risk structures are inspected also impacts the efficiency of the process. If all low risk structures are inspected, then the inspection process will tend to require a relatively greater amount of time.
- Most preferably, the selectable parameters as described above are balanced, such that a reasonable degree of inspection is accomplished, and the inspection is predominantly directed toward those structures which have a higher historical defect rate. This balance of the selectable parameters may be accomplished by either a statistical or an empirical process. For example, there are various statistical procedures which can be used to determine the levels of the various selectable parameters, and yield a balance that will achieve the desired inspection goals. Alternately, the levels of the various selectable parameters can be adjusted, such as one at a time and in various combinations, until it is observed that the inspection method yields the desired results. Most preferably, some type of statistical process is first used to set the level of the selectable parameters, and then the levels of the selectable parameters are fine tuned using a combination of both statistical and empirical information as the process runs.
- As a specific example, the structures are binned so that only structures of a single type are placed within a single feature group. A feature group is designated as a high risk feature group if the number of failures within the feature group is statistically significant in comparison to the number of failures within the other feature groups. High risk feature groups are inspected at a one hundred percent level, or in other words, every structure binned within a high risk feature group is inspected. Low risk features are inspected at a sampled level that is statistically determined, based upon the expected failure rates for non high risk failure groups. In this manner, the integrated circuit is, in most cases, inspected at a reduced level, which enables the integrated circuit to be inspected more quickly. This allows integrated circuits to inspected on fewer inspection stations, or more integrated circuits to be inspected. Thus, inspection costs are generally decreased and inspection capacity is generally increased.
- The method can also be adjusted by setting different inspection levels for different high risk feature groups. In other words, not every high risk feature group needs to be inspected at the same level. Similarly, different inspection levels can be set for structures that exist on different layers of the integrated circuit. In other words, structures on a first layer may be inspected at a first level, and structures on a second layer may be inspected at a second level that is different from the first level.
- A functional block diagram of an
apparatus 100 according to the present invention is depicted inFIG. 2 . Theapparatus 100 preferably includes aninput 102, such as a computer network input, through which the historical data can be accessed. In a most preferred embodiment, the historical data already exists, such as in an engineering database, and is disposed on a centralized computer database, which is accessible through a network interface, such as theinput 102. - A user interface 104 is preferably used to program the
apparatus 100, such as to input parameters used for the selection of the failure limits by which feature groups are designated as high risk feature groups, and the level of inspection for both high risk feature groups and low risk structures. The historical information or other information can preferably also be presented to an operator, such as on a display of the user interface 104. Amemory 106 preferably holds historical data as needed, and the limits and other information used by theapparatus 100. Theprocessor 108 is used to accomplish the computations and other logic and control functions of theapparatus 100. - A
control output 110 preferably interfaces with theinspection tool 112 itself, and provides the information whereby theinspection tool 112 is directed to inspect the integrated circuit, as described above. In some embodiments, theapparatus 100 directly controls the operation of theinspection tool 112 moment by moment through thecontrol output 110. In other embodiments theapparatus 100 only provides the inspection information to theinspection tool 112, which then directs its own operation using the inspection information received from theapparatus 100 through thecontrol output 110. In other embodiments, theapparatus 100 is included as a module within theinspection tool 112, and is not a separate box. Alternately, the inspection information can be sent to or requested by theinspection tool 112 through a network interface, such as theinput 102 in some embodiments. - In a most preferred embodiment, the
inspection tool 112 is a scanning electron microscope, and theapparatus 100 is either a personal computer, or a logic module running within the controller of the scanning electron microscope. In one embodiment, the method is embodied within a program disposed on a computer readable media, which program is able to direct a personal computer to perform the method steps as described above. Thus, it is appreciated that there are many different embodiments and forms for the present invention. - As depicted in
FIG. 3 , in a most preferred embodiment, an area ofinterest 34 surrounds thestructures 32 of a high risk feature group that are to be inspected. The area ofinterest 34 on the integrated 30 is also inspected. The size of the area ofinterest 34 is another of the selectable parameters that effects the efficiency of the method as described herein. As the area of interest is increased, the amount of area to be inspected is generally increased, and so too is the length of time required for the inspection process. However, if the area of interest is reduced, such as to a single point representing the center of the structure, for example, the possibility of missing a defect increases. Thus, similar to that as described above, a balance is preferably found, either statistically or empirically or by a blend of each, whereby a large enough area ofinterest 34 is inspected, while the inspection process itself is not unduly protracted. - Another embodiment of the method according to the present invention is to measure critical dimensions such as with a scanning electron microscope in the area of these features of interest. In this embodiment, the feature of interest may not be a high risk feature in terms of a heightened risk of defect, but it is desirable to measure the feature for parametric performance. Traditionally, critical dimensions are measured in one place in the scribe lines between the integrated circuits on the substrate. However, such a measurement often does not represent real parametric performance. If critical dimensions are measured in the specific features that are likely to be a worst case scenario, such as may be determined from test chip or historical product data, then the process can be fine tuned much more accurately.
- Although there have been some distinctions made herein between inspection processes and test processes, and the description of the methods and apparatuses as described herein has generally been made in regard to inspection, it is understood that these methods are also generally applicable to testing and are not to be limited to inspection alone.
- The foregoing description of preferred embodiments for this invention has been presented for purposes of illustration and description. It is not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the invention to the precise form disclosed. Obvious modifications or variations are possible in light of the above teachings. The embodiments are chosen and described in an effort to provide the best illustrations of the principles of the invention and its practical application, and to thereby enable one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the invention in various embodiments and with various modifications as are suited to the particular use contemplated. All such modifications and variations are within the scope of the invention as determined by the appended claims when interpreted in accordance with the breadth to which they are fairly, legally, and equitably entitled.
Claims (20)
Priority Applications (1)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US10/794,225 US6931297B1 (en) | 2004-03-05 | 2004-03-05 | Feature targeted inspection |
Applications Claiming Priority (1)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
US10/794,225 US6931297B1 (en) | 2004-03-05 | 2004-03-05 | Feature targeted inspection |
Publications (2)
Publication Number | Publication Date |
---|---|
US6931297B1 US6931297B1 (en) | 2005-08-16 |
US20050197728A1 true US20050197728A1 (en) | 2005-09-08 |
Family
ID=34827579
Family Applications (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
US10/794,225 Expired - Fee Related US6931297B1 (en) | 2004-03-05 | 2004-03-05 | Feature targeted inspection |
Country Status (1)
Country | Link |
---|---|
US (1) | US6931297B1 (en) |
Families Citing this family (4)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
AU2002365162A1 (en) * | 2001-11-14 | 2003-07-09 | Northwestern University | Self-assembly and mineralization of peptide-amphiphile nanofibers |
CN102027475A (en) * | 2008-02-21 | 2011-04-20 | 明导公司 | Identifying the cause of a yield excursion through the statistical analysis of scan diagnosis results |
US8656323B2 (en) * | 2011-02-22 | 2014-02-18 | Kla-Tencor Corporation | Based device risk assessment |
US20140207403A1 (en) * | 2013-01-22 | 2014-07-24 | General Electric Company | Inspection instrument auto-configuration |
Citations (4)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US6687561B1 (en) * | 2002-04-03 | 2004-02-03 | Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. | Method and apparatus for determining a sampling plan based on defectivity |
US20040088068A1 (en) * | 2002-10-31 | 2004-05-06 | Daniel Kadosh | Method and apparatus for providing first-principles feed-forward manufacturing control |
US6745086B1 (en) * | 2002-04-03 | 2004-06-01 | Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. | Method and apparatus for determining control actions incorporating defectivity effects |
US6754593B1 (en) * | 2002-06-06 | 2004-06-22 | Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. | Method and apparatus for measuring defects |
-
2004
- 2004-03-05 US US10/794,225 patent/US6931297B1/en not_active Expired - Fee Related
Patent Citations (4)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US6687561B1 (en) * | 2002-04-03 | 2004-02-03 | Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. | Method and apparatus for determining a sampling plan based on defectivity |
US6745086B1 (en) * | 2002-04-03 | 2004-06-01 | Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. | Method and apparatus for determining control actions incorporating defectivity effects |
US6754593B1 (en) * | 2002-06-06 | 2004-06-22 | Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. | Method and apparatus for measuring defects |
US20040088068A1 (en) * | 2002-10-31 | 2004-05-06 | Daniel Kadosh | Method and apparatus for providing first-principles feed-forward manufacturing control |
Also Published As
Publication number | Publication date |
---|---|
US6931297B1 (en) | 2005-08-16 |
Similar Documents
Publication | Publication Date | Title |
---|---|---|
JP4077951B2 (en) | Defect analysis method, recording medium, and process management method | |
US8788237B2 (en) | Methods and apparatus for hybrid outlier detection | |
US8606536B2 (en) | Methods and apparatus for hybrid outlier detection | |
JP5460662B2 (en) | Region determination device, observation device or inspection device, region determination method, and observation method or inspection method using region determination method | |
TWI469235B (en) | Computer-implemented methods for determining if actual defects are potentially systematic defects or potentially random defects | |
US7904279B2 (en) | Methods and apparatus for data analysis | |
JP5080526B2 (en) | Method and apparatus for data analysis | |
US8289508B2 (en) | Defect detection recipe definition | |
Miller et al. | Unit level predicted yield: a method of identifying high defect density die at wafer sort | |
US6701204B1 (en) | System and method for finding defective tools in a semiconductor fabrication facility | |
US7386420B2 (en) | Data analysis method for integrated circuit process and semiconductor process | |
JP4611369B2 (en) | Device manufacturing method | |
US7991497B2 (en) | Method and system for defect detection in manufacturing integrated circuits | |
US6487511B1 (en) | Method and apparatus for measuring cumulative defects | |
US6539272B1 (en) | Electric device inspection method and electric device inspection system | |
US6931297B1 (en) | Feature targeted inspection | |
US6885955B1 (en) | Semiconductor process yield analysis based on evaluation of parametric relationship | |
JP2003100834A (en) | Method for analyzing defect, method and program for verifying chip sorting data | |
Robinson et al. | Inline Part Average Testing (I-PAT) for automotive die reliability | |
JPH10107111A (en) | Manufacturing method of semiconductor device | |
JP5015227B2 (en) | Defect analysis method, program, and electronic device manufacturing method | |
JP4633349B2 (en) | Defect analysis method and program for manufacturing electronic device | |
CN117981066A (en) | System and method for weighting defects with co-located modeled flaws | |
KR20050072166A (en) | Method for testing wafer | |
JP2005011829A (en) | Method of estimating survival expectation rate, method of estimating yield, and method and program for inspecting wafer |
Legal Events
Date | Code | Title | Description |
---|---|---|---|
FEPP | Fee payment procedure |
Free format text: PAYOR NUMBER ASSIGNED (ORIGINAL EVENT CODE: ASPN); ENTITY STATUS OF PATENT OWNER: LARGE ENTITY |
|
FPAY | Fee payment |
Year of fee payment: 4 |
|
FPAY | Fee payment |
Year of fee payment: 8 |
|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: DEUTSCHE BANK AG NEW YORK BRANCH, AS COLLATERAL AG Free format text: PATENT SECURITY AGREEMENT;ASSIGNORS:LSI CORPORATION;AGERE SYSTEMS LLC;REEL/FRAME:032856/0031 Effective date: 20140506 |
|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL IP (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNOR:LSI CORPORATION;REEL/FRAME:035390/0388 Effective date: 20140814 |
|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: AGERE SYSTEMS LLC, PENNSYLVANIA Free format text: TERMINATION AND RELEASE OF SECURITY INTEREST IN PATENT RIGHTS (RELEASES RF 032856-0031);ASSIGNOR:DEUTSCHE BANK AG NEW YORK BRANCH, AS COLLATERAL AGENT;REEL/FRAME:037684/0039 Effective date: 20160201 Owner name: LSI CORPORATION, CALIFORNIA Free format text: TERMINATION AND RELEASE OF SECURITY INTEREST IN PATENT RIGHTS (RELEASES RF 032856-0031);ASSIGNOR:DEUTSCHE BANK AG NEW YORK BRANCH, AS COLLATERAL AGENT;REEL/FRAME:037684/0039 Effective date: 20160201 |
|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., AS COLLATERAL AGENT, NORTH CAROLINA Free format text: PATENT SECURITY AGREEMENT;ASSIGNOR:AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL IP (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD.;REEL/FRAME:037808/0001 Effective date: 20160201 Owner name: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., AS COLLATERAL AGENT, NORTH Free format text: PATENT SECURITY AGREEMENT;ASSIGNOR:AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL IP (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD.;REEL/FRAME:037808/0001 Effective date: 20160201 |
|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL IP (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD., SINGAPORE Free format text: TERMINATION AND RELEASE OF SECURITY INTEREST IN PATENTS;ASSIGNOR:BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., AS COLLATERAL AGENT;REEL/FRAME:041710/0001 Effective date: 20170119 Owner name: AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL IP (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD Free format text: TERMINATION AND RELEASE OF SECURITY INTEREST IN PATENTS;ASSIGNOR:BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., AS COLLATERAL AGENT;REEL/FRAME:041710/0001 Effective date: 20170119 |
|
REMI | Maintenance fee reminder mailed | ||
LAPS | Lapse for failure to pay maintenance fees |
Free format text: PATENT EXPIRED FOR FAILURE TO PAY MAINTENANCE FEES (ORIGINAL EVENT CODE: EXP.) |
|
STCH | Information on status: patent discontinuation |
Free format text: PATENT EXPIRED DUE TO NONPAYMENT OF MAINTENANCE FEES UNDER 37 CFR 1.362 |
|
FP | Lapsed due to failure to pay maintenance fee |
Effective date: 20170816 |
|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: BELL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC, ILLINOIS Free format text: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES GENERAL IP (SINGAPORE) PTE. LTD.;BROADCOM CORPORATION;REEL/FRAME:044887/0109 Effective date: 20171208 |
|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: CORTLAND CAPITAL MARKET SERVICES LLC, AS COLLATERA Free format text: SECURITY INTEREST;ASSIGNORS:HILCO PATENT ACQUISITION 56, LLC;BELL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC;BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC;REEL/FRAME:045216/0020 Effective date: 20180124 |
|
AS | Assignment |
Owner name: BELL NORTHERN RESEARCH, LLC, ILLINOIS Free format text: RELEASE BY SECURED PARTY;ASSIGNOR:CORTLAND CAPITAL MARKET SERVICES LLC;REEL/FRAME:059720/0223 Effective date: 20220401 Owner name: BELL SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC, ILLINOIS Free format text: RELEASE BY SECURED PARTY;ASSIGNOR:CORTLAND CAPITAL MARKET SERVICES LLC;REEL/FRAME:059720/0223 Effective date: 20220401 Owner name: HILCO PATENT ACQUISITION 56, LLC, ILLINOIS Free format text: RELEASE BY SECURED PARTY;ASSIGNOR:CORTLAND CAPITAL MARKET SERVICES LLC;REEL/FRAME:059720/0223 Effective date: 20220401 |