IP Library › Granted Patent US 12,475,297
Granted Patent B2
US 12,475,297 · App. 18/503,718 · Granted Nov 18, 2025

System and method for performing process model calibration in a virtual semiconductor device fabrication environment

Inventors: William J. Egan (Framingham, MA); Kenneth B. Greiner (Concord, MA); David M. Fried (Los Gatos, CA); Anshuman Kunwar (Jamaica Plain, MA)
Assignee: Coventor, Inc.
G06F30/398G06F3/04815G06F3/04847G06T19/20G06F2111/10G06T2200/16G06T2219/2004
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 12,475,297
App. No.
18/503,718
Granted
Nov 18, 2025
Kind
B2
Abstract

A virtual fabrication environment for semiconductor device fabrication that includes an analytics module for performing key parameter identification, process model calibration and variability analysis is discussed.

Claims (37)

1 . A non-transitory computer-readable medium holding computing device-executable instructions for performing variability analysis, the instructions when executed causing at least one computing device equipped with at least one processor to:

perform in a virtual fabrication environment a plurality of virtual fabrication runs for a semiconductor device based on a Design of Experiment (DOE) using 2D design data and a process sequence, the plurality of virtual fabrication runs building a plurality of 3D models;

receive, via a user interface of the virtual fabrication environment, a user selection of one or more targets in the plurality of 3D models on which to perform a variability analysis;

display, via the user interface results from the variability analysis, wherein the user interface includes a graph of a distribution of values of the selected one or more targets and an indication of normality of the values of the selected one or more targets;

receive, via the user interface, a selection of a different target in the plurality of 3D models; and

update the variability analysis presented in the user interface to include variability associated with the selected different target.

2 . The medium of claim 1 , wherein the DOE is a Monte Carlo simulation.

3 . The medium of claim 1 , wherein the plurality of virtual fabrication runs numbers approximately 200.

4 . The medium of claim 1 , wherein the results from the variability analysis enable assessment of a precision of sigma.

5 . The medium of claim 1 , wherein results from the variability analysis enable assessment of target data normality.

6 . The medium of claim 1 , wherein the results from the variability analysis are displayed simultaneously for a plurality of targets.

7 . The medium of claim 1 , wherein the selected targets are one or more of a metrology target, structure search target, DTC check target or electrical analysis target.

8 . A computing device-implemented method, the computing device equipped with at least one processor, the method comprising:

performing in a virtual fabrication environment a plurality of virtual fabrication runs for a semiconductor device based on a Design of Experiment (DOE) using 2D design data and a process sequence, the plurality of virtual fabrication runs building a plurality of 3D models;

receiving, via a user interface of the virtual fabrication environment, a user selection of one or more targets in the plurality of 3D models on which to perform a variability analysis; and

displaying, via the user interface results from the variability analysis, wherein the user interface includes a graph of a distribution of values of the selected one or more targets and an indication of normality of the values of the selected one or more targets;

receiving, via the user interface, a selection of a different target in the plurality of 3D models; and

updating the variability analysis presented in the user interface to include variability associated with the selected different target.

9 . The method of claim 8 , wherein the DOE is a Monte Carlo simulation.

10 . The method of claim 8 , wherein the plurality of virtual fabrication runs numbers approximately 200.

11 . The method of claim 8 , wherein the results from the variability analysis enable assessment of a precision of sigma.

12 . The method of claim 8 , wherein results from the variability analysis enable assessment of target data normality.

13 . The method of claim 8 , wherein the results from the variability analysis are displayed simultaneously for a plurality of targets.

14 . The method of claim 8 , wherein the selected targets are one or more of a metrology target, structure search target, DTC check target or electrical analysis target.

15 . A virtual fabrication system, comprising:

a computing device equipped with a processor and configured to generate a virtual fabrication environment, the virtual fabrication environment:

performing a plurality of virtual fabrication runs for a semiconductor device based on a Design of Experiment (DOE) using 2D design data and a process sequence, the plurality of virtual fabrication runs building a plurality of 3D models;

receiving, via a user interface of the virtual fabrication environment, a user selection of one or more targets in the plurality of 3D models on which to perform a variability analysis; and

a display configured to:

display, via the user interface, results from the variability analysis, wherein the user interface includes a graph of a distribution of values of the selected one or more targets and an indication of normality of the values of the selected one or more targets; and

responsive to receiving, via the user interface, a selection of a different target in the plurality of 3D models, update the variability analysis presented in the user interface to include variability associated with the selected different target.

16 . The system of claim 15 , further comprising:

a network interface configured to export results from the variability analysis.

17 . The system of claim 15 , wherein the plurality of virtual fabrication runs numbers approximately 200.

18 . The system of claim 15 , wherein the results from the variability analysis enable assessment of a precision of sigma and/or target data normality.

19 . The system of claim 15 , wherein the results from the variability analysis are displayed simultaneously for a plurality of targets.

20 . The system of claim 15 , wherein the selected targets are one or more of a metrology target, structure search target, DTC check target or electrical analysis target.

Continuity (5)
Continuation 17477472 · Sep 16, 2021
Continuation 16010537 · Jun 18, 2018
Provisional Application 62631022 · Feb 15, 2018
Provisional Application 62521506 · Jun 18, 2017
Related Publication 20240070373A1 · Feb 29, 2024
References Cited (174)
US 5416729A · Leon et al. · 1995 [cited by applicant]
US 5473710A · Jaw et al. · 1995 [cited by applicant]
US 6116766A · Maseeh et al. · 2000 [cited by applicant]
US 7492364B2 · Devarajan et al. · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 7526739B2 · McIlrath · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 8032857B2 · McIlrath · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 8209649B2 · McIlrath · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 8266560B2 · McIlrath · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 8285412B2 · Kyoh · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 8606774B1 · Makadia et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 8691599B2 · Guo et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 8832620B1 · Fried et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 8959464B2 · Greiner et al. · 2015 [cited by applicant]
US 9317632B2 · Faken et al. · 2016 [cited by applicant]
US 9965577B2 · Kamon et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 10242142B2 · Greiner et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 11144701B2 · Egan et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 11861289B2 · Egan et al. · 2024 [cited by applicant]
US 20020037596A1 · Yamaguchi · 2002 [cited by applicant]
US 20050076316A1 · Pierrat et al. · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20050198602A1 · Brankner · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20050240895A1 · Smith et al. · 2005 [cited by applicant]
US 20060054088A1 · Jagawa et al. · 2006 [cited by applicant]
US 20070031745A1 · Ye et al. · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20070035716A1 · Yoshii et al. · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20070100487A1 · Cheng et al. · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20070118349A1 · Jakatdar et al. · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20070198114A1 · Hashima et al. · 2007 [cited by applicant]
US 20080058978A1 · Cain et al. · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20080104562A1 · Ichinose · 2008 [cited by applicant]
US 20090006039A1 · Watanabe · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20090024377A1 · Min · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20090055789A1 · McIlrath · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20090064058A1 · McIlrath · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20090144042A1 · Lorenz et al. · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20090249263A1 · Arimoto · 2009 [cited by applicant]
US 20100005437A1 · McIlrath · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20100180241A1 · Asai · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20110138343A1 · Granik · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20110153271A1 · Tiwary et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20110185323A1 · Hogan et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20110289472A1 · Finkler et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20110314437A1 · McIlrath · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20120119096A1 · Vija · 2012 [cited by examiner]
US 20120129301A1 · Or-Bach et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120239178A1 · Wu et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120248595A1 · Or-Bach et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120264237A1 · Shearn et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120264514A1 · Lee et al. · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20120317528A1 · McIlrath · 2012 [cited by applicant]
US 20130130498A1 · Feustel et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130275937A1 · Joshi et al. · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20130339918A1 · Clark · 2013 [cited by applicant]
US 20140278266A1 · Faken · 2014 [cited by examiner]
US 20140282324A1 · Greiner et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20140282328A1 · Fried et al. · 2014 [cited by applicant]
US 20150195091A1 · Kubota · 2015 [cited by examiner]
US 20170039308A1 · Moroz et al. · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 20180095936A1 · Bonnecaze et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20180365370A1 · Egan et al. · 2018 [cited by applicant]
US 20190065630A1 · Kim et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190163075A1 · Theeuwes et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20190286780A1 · Greiner et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20200356711A1 · Egan et al. · 2020 [cited by applicant]
US 20220019724A1 · Egan et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20220198333A1 · Pack et al. · 2022 [cited by applicant]
US 20230252211A1 · Egan et al. · 2023 [cited by applicant]
CN 103823917A · 2014 [cited by applicant]
CN 103970954A · 2014 [cited by applicant]
CN 105830069A · 2016 [cited by applicant]
CN 109145354A · 2019 [cited by applicant]
GB 2482076A · 2012 [cited by applicant]
JP H0536832A · 1993 [cited by applicant]
JP H07115071A · 1995 [cited by applicant]
JP H08107050A · 1996 [cited by applicant]
JP 2002305253A · 2002 [cited by applicant]
JP 2003324041A · 2003 [cited by applicant]
JP 2003345854A · 2003 [cited by applicant]
JP 2005019524A · 2005 [cited by applicant]
JP 2006178907A · 2006 [cited by applicant]
JP 2006268558A · 2006 [cited by applicant]
JP 2007507889A · 2007 [cited by applicant]
JP 2007535135A · 2007 [cited by applicant]
JP 2008034714A · 2008 [cited by applicant]
JP 2011082562A · 2011 [cited by applicant]
JP 2011113291A · 2011 [cited by applicant]
JP 2016004421A · 2016 [cited by applicant]
JP 2016512641A · 2016 [cited by applicant]
JP 2017037441A · 2017 [cited by applicant]
JP 2017090947A · 2017 [cited by applicant]
JP 2021504743A · 2021 [cited by applicant]
KR 20160110116A · 2016 [cited by applicant]
KR 20220125208A · 2022 [cited by applicant]
TW 200849052A · 2008 [cited by applicant]
TW 200912888A · 2009 [cited by applicant]
TW I342469B · 2011 [cited by applicant]
TW 201500949A · 2015 [cited by applicant]
TW 201500950A · 2015 [cited by applicant]
TW 201539226A · 2015 [cited by applicant]
TW I624764B · 2018 [cited by applicant]
TW 201913849A · 2019 [cited by applicant]
WO WO2011078930A1 · 2011 [cited by applicant]
WO WO2015112979A1 · 2015 [cited by applicant]
WO WO2022015897A1 · 2022 [cited by applicant]
Koehler E, Brown E, Haneuse SJ. On the Assessment of Monte Carlo Error in Simulation-Based Statistical Analyses. Am Stat. May 1, 2009;63(2):155-162. doi: 10.1198/tast.2009.0030. PMID: 22544972; PMCID: PMC3337209. (Year:… [cited by examiner]
Research Gate (“Are 200 replicates per scenario enough for a simulation study?”, published at https://www.researchgate.net/post/Are-200-replicates-per-scenario-enough-for-a-simulation-study as of Jun. 4, 2014 (Year: 201… [cited by examiner]
L. J. Martin and J. Frei, “Application of statistical tools and methods for high density substrate process development [printed circuit board fabrication],” 52nd Electronic Components and Technology Conference 2002. (Ca… [cited by examiner]
Clark et al., “A million wafer, virtual fabrication approach to determine process capability requirements for an industry-standard 5nm BEOL two-level metal flow,” Simulation of Semiconductor Processes and Devices, IEEE,… [cited by applicant]
CN Office Action dated May 12, 2024 in CN Application No. 201810629679.9 with English translation. [cited by applicant]
Conover W J., “Practical Nonparametric Statistics,” Third Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1999, pp. 442-447. [cited by applicant]
Czitrom, “One-factor-at-a-time versus designed experiments,” The American Statistician. May 1, 1999, vol. 53(2), pp. 126-131. [cited by applicant]
Davies R H., et al., “Building 3-D statistical Shape Models by Direct Optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging, vol. 29(4), Apr. 2010, pp. 961-981. [cited by applicant]
Egan J W et al., “Measurement of Carboxyhemoglobin in Forensic Blood Samples Using UV-Visible Spectrometry and Improved Principal Component Regression,” Applied Spectroscopy. Feb. 1, 1999 vol. 53(2), pp. 218-225. [cited by applicant]
Fisher, “Design of Experiments,” Hafner Publishing Company, New York. p. 94, (1971). [cited by applicant]
Genesys 2009.04 User Guide: Yield/Monte Carlo, 2010, pp. 1-14. [cited by applicant]
Greenwood et al., “Sample size required for estimating the standard deviation as a per cent of its true value,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, Jun. 1, 1950 vol. 45(250), pp. 257-260. [cited by applicant]
Guler, S et al., “Bayesian Optimization for Tuning Lithography Processes,” IFAC-PapersOnLine, 2021, vol. 54(7), pp. 827-832. [cited by applicant]
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Jan. 23, 2024 in PCT Application No. PCT/US2023/033955. [cited by applicant]
JMP, Design of Experiments Guide, Version 13. JMP Statistical Discovery From SAS. 708 pages, Sep. 2016. [cited by applicant]
Jones et al., “Definitive screening designs with added two-level categorical factors,” Journal of Quality Technology, Apr. 1, 2013, vol. 45(2), pp. 121-129. [cited by applicant]
Jones et al., “A class of three-level designs for definitive screening in the presence of second-order effects,” Journal of quality Technology, Jan. 1, 2011, vol. 43(1), pp. 1-5. [cited by applicant]
JP Office Action dated Mar. 22, 2023, in application No. JP 2022-103142 with English translation. [cited by applicant]
JP Office Action dated May 21, 2024 in JP Application No. 2023-066796 with English translation. [cited by applicant]
JP Office Action dated May 31, 2022, in application No. JP 2018-115285 with English translation. [cited by applicant]
KR Office Action dated Mar. 14, 2023, in application No. KR 10-2018-0069418 with English translation. [cited by applicant]
KR Office Action dated Sep. 14, 2022, in application No. KR 10-2018-0069418 with English translation. [cited by applicant]
Martinez et al., “Computational Statistics Handbook with MATLAB, Second Edition, Computer Science and Data Analysis Series,” Chapman & Hall/CRC, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, 2008, pp. 126-132. [cited by applicant]
Miller., “Statistical Design and Opt for Amplifiers,” Amplifier Design Guide, Sep. 10, 2008, pp. 1-11. [cited by applicant]
Miller., “Using Statistical Design,” Optimization and Statistical Design , May 27, 2014, pp. 1-31. [cited by applicant]
Montgomery, “Design and Analysis of Experiments,” Eighth Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2013, pp. 11-21, 183-189. [cited by applicant]
Neter et al., “Applied Linear Statistical Models,” Fourth Edition. Irwin, Chicago. 1996, pp. 288-295, 347-352. [cited by applicant]
Rasmussen et al., “Gaussian Processes for Machine Learning,” The MIT Press, www.GaussianProcess.org/gpml, 2006, pp. 1-266 pages. [cited by applicant]
Riffenburgh, “Statistics in Medicine,” Third Edition. Academic Press, Amsterdam, 2012, pp. 150-151. [cited by applicant]
Rousseeuw, “Tutorial to robust statistics,” Journal of Chemometrics. Jan. 1991, vol. 5(1), pp. 1-20. [cited by applicant]
Schropfer et al., “Novel 3D Modeling Methods for Virtual Fabrication and EDA Compatible Design of MEMS Via Parametric Libraries,” J Micromech Microeng. Jun. 2010, vol. 20(6), pp. 1-15. [cited by applicant]
Spallek et al., “Modelling and Simulating the Selective Epitaxial Growth of Silicon under Consideration of Anisotropic growth Rates,” ESSDERC '03, 33rd Conference on European Solid-State Device Research, 2003, pp. 387-3… [cited by applicant]
Synopsys, “Sentaurus Workbench Comprehensive Framework Environment,” Data Sheet. Synopsys, Inc., 2005, www. ynopsys.com. [cited by applicant]
TW Office Action dated Aug. 21, 2023 in Application No. TW112119637 with English translation. [cited by applicant]
TW Office Action dated Feb. 24, 2022, in application No. TW20180120904 with English translation. [cited by applicant]
TW Office Action dated Jul. 31, 2023 in Application No. TW109115374 with English translation. [cited by applicant]
TW Office Action dated May 20, 2024 in TW Application No. 113100510 with English translation. [cited by applicant]
TW Office Action dated Nov. 4, 2022, in application No. TW111136832with English translation. [cited by applicant]
TW Office Action dated Nov. 21, 2023 in TW Application No. 112119637 with English translation. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Advisory Action dated Dec. 4, 2023 in U.S. Appl. No. 16/870,518. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Final office Action dated May 24, 2023 in U.S. Appl. No. 17/477,472. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Final Office Action dated Sep. 25, 2023, in U.S. Appl. No. 16/870,518. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Non-Final Office Action dated Feb. 8, 2023, in U.S. Appl. No. 17/477,472. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Non-Final Office Action dated Jan. 26, 2024 in U.S. Appl. No. 16/870,518. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Non-Final Office Action dated Mar. 27, 2023, in U.S. Appl. No. 16/870,518. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Non-Final Office Action dated Nov. 25, 2020, in U.S. Appl. No. 16/010,537. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Notice of Allowance dated Aug. 7, 2023 in U.S. Appl. No. 17/477,472. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Notice of Allowance dated Jun. 9, 2021 in U.S. Appl. No. 16/010,537. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Notice of Allowance dated Nov. 22, 2023 in U.S. Appl. No. 17/477,472. [cited by applicant]
Xiao et al., “Constructing definitive screening designs using conference matrices,” Journal of Quality Technology, 2012 an 1, vol. 44(1), pp. 2-8. [cited by applicant]
AP Statistics., “Cumulative AP Exam Study Guide,” ilearnacademy.net stat review notes, 2017, pp. 1-8. [cited by applicant]
Autoform_2019., Sensitivity Analysis downloaded from Web.archive.org dated Apr. 3, 2019, 1 page. [cited by applicant]
“Completion Rate,” Science Direct, 2018, pp. 1-8. [cited by applicant]
ECE723_Lec5_2014., Lecture 5: Lithography MAPUA Institute of Technology, 2014, pp. 1-33. [cited by applicant]
International Preliminary Report on Patentability and Written Opinion dated Jan. 26, 2023 in PCT Application No. PCT/US2021/041700. [cited by applicant]
International Search Report and Written Opinion dated Oct. 27, 2021 in PCT Application No. PCT/US2021/041700. [cited by applicant]
JP Office Action dated Nov. 5, 2024 in JP Application No. 2023-066796, with English Translation. [cited by applicant]
Kagaiwalla et al., “Design-Aware Mask Inspection,” IEEE/ACM International Conference on Computer-Aided Design, 2010, vol. 31(5), pp. 1-8. [cited by applicant]
KR Office Action dated Dec. 5, 2024 in KR Application No. 10-2024-0052031, with English Translation. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Advisory Action dated Sep. 16, 2024 in U.S. Appl. No. 16/870,518. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Final Office Action dated Jul. 9, 2024 in U.S. Appl. No. 16/870,518. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Non-Final Office Action dated Nov. 6, 2024 in U.S. Appl. No. 16/870,518. [cited by applicant]
Garnett, Roman “Bayesian Optimization,” Lecture Notes, Mar. 16, 2015, from: https://www.cse.wustl.edu/˜garnett/cse515t/spring_2015/. [cited by applicant]
International Preliminary Report on Patentability and Written Opinion dated Apr. 10, 2025 in PCT Application No. PCT/US2023/033955. [cited by applicant]
TW Office Action and Search Report dated Jun. 4, 2025 in TW Application No. 110125830, with English Translation. [cited by applicant]
Uhrenholt AK., et al., “Efficient Bayesian Optimization for Target Vector Estimation,” Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, 2019, vol. 89, pp. 2661-2670 (10 Pages). [cited by applicant]
U.S. Notice of Allowance dated Apr. 2, 2025 in U.S. Appl. No. 16/870,518. [cited by applicant]
U.S. Appl. No. 19/116,586, inventors Lu Y et al., filed Mar. 28, 2025. [cited by applicant]
KR Decision for Grant and Search Report dated Jun. 25, 2025 in KR Application No. 10-2024-0052031, with English translation. [cited by applicant]
KR Office Action dated Aug. 4, 2025 in KR Application No. 10-2023-7005617, with English Translation. [cited by applicant]
Cited By (1)
US 12,711,299