IP Library › Granted Patent US 11,994,806
Granted Patent B2
US 11,994,806 · App. 17/436,947 · Granted May 28, 2024

Metrology method and apparatus, computer program and lithographic system

Inventors: Alexandru Onose (Eindhoven, NL); Remco Dirks (Deurne, NL); Roger Hubertus Elisabeth Clementine Bosch (Mierlo, NL); Sander Silvester Adelgondus Marie Jacobs (Eindhoven, NL); Frank Jaco Buijnsters (Eindhoven, NL); Siebe Tjerk De Zwart (Valkenswaard, NL); Artur Palha Da Silva Clerigo (Eindhoven, NL); Nick Verheul (Den Bosch, NL)
Assignee: ASML NETHERLANDS B.V.
G03F7/705G03F7/70625G03F7/70633G03F7/706841G03F7/70616
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 11,994,806
App. No.
17/436,947
Granted
May 28, 2024
Kind
B2
Abstract

A method, computer program and associated apparatuses for metrology. The method includes determining a reconstruction recipe describing at least nominal values for use in a reconstruction of a parameterization describing a target. The method includes obtaining first measurement data relating to measurements of a plurality of targets on at least one substrate, the measurement data relating to one or more acquisition settings and performing an optimization by minimizing a cost function which minimizes differences between the first measurement data and simulated measurement data based on a reconstructed parameterization for each of the plurality of targets. A constraint on the cost function is imposed based on a hierarchical prior. Also disclosed is a hybrid model method comprising obtaining a coarse model operable to provide simulated coarse data; and training a data driven model to correct the simulated coarse data so as to determine simulated data for use in reconstruction.

Claims (32)

1. A method of determining a reconstruction recipe describing at least nominal values for use in a reconstruction of a parameterization describing a target, the method comprising:

obtaining first measurement data relating to measurements of a plurality of targets on at least one substrate, the measurement data relating to one or more acquisition settings; and

performing, by a hardware computer system, an optimization by minimizing a cost function to minimize differences between the first measurement data and simulated measurement data based on a reconstructed parameterization for each of the plurality of targets,

wherein a constraint on the cost function is imposed based on a hierarchical prior.

2. The method as claimed in claim 1 , wherein the hierarchical prior encodes prior information regarding a scale of parameters.

3. The method as claimed in claim 1 , wherein the hierarchical prior imposes a constraint on differences in parameter values in the reconstructed parameterization from corresponding experimentally measured parameter values obtained from a tool of reference.

4. The method as claimed in claim 3 , wherein the constraint on differences in parameter values in the reconstructed parameterization from corresponding experimentally obtained parameter values allows for an inexact match to take into account statistical errors which affect the first measurement data.

5. The method as claimed in claim 3 , further comprising outputting tool matching data describing a relationship between the first measurement data with respect to corresponding experimentally obtained measurement data from the tool of reference.

6. The method as claimed in claim 1 , wherein a first regularization is imposed on the hierarchical prior.

7. The method as claimed in claim 6 , wherein the first regularization determines a fix-float strategy by preferring solutions with the minimum number of parameters varied.

8. The method as claimed in claim 6 , wherein the first regularization is an L1 norm regularization.

9. The method as claimed in claim 6 , comprising minimizing the cost function for different strengths of the first regularization.

10. The method as claimed in claim 1 , further comprising matching one or more statistical properties of the solution of the cost function to that of a solution of a single target reconstruction, wherein the strength of a second regularization imposed on the single target reconstruction is determined iteratively.

11. The method as claimed in claim 10 , wherein the determining the strength of the second regularization comprises minimizing a divergence between a parameter distribution of the solution of the cost function and a parameter distribution of the solution of the single target reconstruction over multiple targets.

12. The method as claimed in claim 10 , wherein one or more performance indicators describing performance of the parameter values from the matched single target reconstruction are evaluated, and the reconstruction recipe corresponding to the best performance indicators is chosen as the determined reconstruction recipe.

13. The method as claimed in claim 1 , wherein the hierarchical prior imposes a constraint in favour of a region of interest describing a valid physical parameterization.

14. The method as claimed in claim 1 , wherein the hierarchical prior imposes a consistency constraint in favour of consistency for highly correlated parameters over multiple targets.

15. The method as claimed in claim 14 , wherein the consistency constraint relates at least to material property parameters, where it can be assumed that the material properties will not vary significantly between targets.

16. A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer readable medium having instructions therein, the instructions, when executed by a computer system, configured to cause the computer system to at least:

obtain first measurement data relating to measurements of a plurality of targets on at least one substrate, the measurement data relating to one or more acquisition settings; and

perform an optimization by minimization of a cost function to minimize differences between the first measurement data and simulated measurement data based on a reconstructed parameterization for each of the plurality of targets,

wherein a constraint on the cost function is imposed based on a hierarchical prior.

17. The computer program product of claim 16 , wherein the hierarchical prior encodes prior information regarding a scale of parameters.

18. The computer program product of claim 16 , wherein the hierarchical prior imposes a constraint on differences in parameter values in the reconstructed parameterization from corresponding experimentally measured parameter values obtained from a tool of reference.

19. A metrology apparatus comprising:

a detector; and

the computer program product of claim 16 .

20. A lithographic system comprising:

a lithographic apparatus comprising:

an illumination optical system arranged to illuminate a pattern; and

a projection optical system arranged to project an inspection of the pattern onto a substrate; and

the metrology apparatus according to claim 19 .

Assignments (3)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Sep 13, 2021
From: ONOSE, ALEXANDRU; DIRKS, REMCO; BOSCH, ROGER HUBERTUS ELISABETH CLEMENTINE; JACOBS, SANDER SILVESTER ADELGONDUS MARIE; BUIJNSTERS, FRANK JACO; DE ZWART, SIEBE TJERK; PALHA DA SILVA CLERIGO, ARTUR
To: ASML NETHERLANDS B.V.
Reel/Frame 057458/0406 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Sep 13, 2021
From: ONOSE, ALEXANDRU; DIRKS, REMCO; BOSCH, ROGER HUBERTUS ELISABETH CLEMENTINE; JACOBS, SANDER SILVESTER ADELGONDUS MARIE; BUIJNSTERS, FRANK JACO; DE ZWART, SIEBE TJERK; PALHA DA SILVA CLERIGO, ARTUR; VERHEUL, NICK
To: ASML NETHERLANDS B.V.
Reel/Frame 057458/0435 →
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Sep 13, 2021
From: ONOSE, ALEXANDRU; DIRKS, REMCO; BOSCH, ROGER HUBERTUS ELISABETH CLEMENTINE; JACOBS, SANDER SILVESTER ADELGONDUS MARIE; BUIJNSTERS, FRANK JACO; DE ZWART, SIEBE TJERK; CLERIGO, ARTUR PALHA DA SILVA
To: ASML NETHERLANDS B.V.
Reel/Frame 057583/0189 →
Priority Claims (2)
EP 19162808 · Mar 14, 2019 · regional
EP 19178432 · Jun 5, 2019 · regional
Continuity (1)
Related Publication 20220171290A1 · Jun 2, 2022