A method for comparing a back-end quality inspection MAP and a front-end customer-provided MAP

Abstract

The application discloses a method for comparing a post-inspection MAP graph with a pre-inspection customer-provided MAP graph, and the method comprises the following steps: S100, establishing a mapping between a process card number and a file corresponding to the post-inspection MAP graph; S200, providing a storage path of a file corresponding to the pre-inspection customer-provided MAP graph; S300, comparing the file corresponding to the post-inspection MAP graph with the file corresponding to the pre-inspection customer-provided MAP graph according to the mapping and the storage path, and generating a comparison MAP graph file after the comparison. The application discards the method for manually comparing files in the prior art, is more convenient and faster than the prior art, is less prone to errors, and is convenient for an operator to quickly and accurately perform wafer test inspection.

Description

TECHNICAL FIELD

[0001] The present application belongs to the field of wafer testing, and particularly relates to a method for comparing a post-stage quality inspection MAP with a pre-stage customer-provided MAP. BACKGROUND

[0002] The main purpose of wafer testing is to not package the bad chips found in the testing, so as to reduce the packaging cost. In the field of wafer testing, a probe card is a medium between a wafer and a testing machine. The probe card is usually directly placed on a prober and connected to the testing machine by wires. The purpose of the probe card is to provide a connection between the chip and the testing machine, and to complete the wafer testing. The probe card is a customized connector in a general mode, and usually needs to provide a specific probe card for different types of wafers. Figure 1 The related equipment in the wafer testing link and the MAP are shown.

[0003] The wafer testing may involve multiple testing links before and after, and even occur between different testing plants. Before the wafer testing is implemented in the post-stage testing plant, some wafers exist in the pre-stage testing plant (note: the pre-stage testing plant is the pre-stage customer) to provide the MAP file after the testing. Moreover, before the wafer testing is implemented in the post-stage testing plant, the quality inspection MAP of the testing plant also needs to be generated by itself, and compared with the MAP provided by the pre-stage customer. Therefore, for the post-stage testing plant, it also involves the inspection of wafers in the wafer testing quality inspection QC link.

[0004] In the prior art, for the wafer testing quality inspection, the workers rely on manual comparison of the pre-stage customer-provided MAP and the quality inspection MAP. The manual comparison must open the customer-provided MAP, and then the workers search for which die is fail in the pre-stage customer-provided MAP one by one, and then compare with the quality inspection MAP. The problem is that the file of the pre-stage customer-provided MAP does not have specific coordinates, and it is easy to repeatedly check some die. Especially, with the increase of the number of wafers, the manual comparison is extremely prone to error and time-consuming.

[0005] Therefore, there is an urgent need in the art for a technical solution that improves the work efficiency of workers and avoids errors caused by manual operation. SUMMARY

[0006] Therefore, the present application provides a method for comparing a post-stage quality inspection MAP with a pre-stage customer-provided MAP, which comprises the following steps:

[0007] S100, mapping the flow card number and the file corresponding to the post-stage quality inspection MAP;

[0008] S200, providing a storage path of a file corresponding to the MAP graph of the previous customer;

[0009] S300, comparing the file corresponding to the MAP graph of the previous customer and the file corresponding to the MAP graph of the previous customer according to the mapping and the storage path, and generating a comparison MAP graph file after comparison.

[0010] Preferably,

[0011] In step S300, the principle of comparison is to prevent die loss and misplacement.

[0012] Preferably,

[0013] In step S300, the comparison is according to the one-to-one correspondence of the die.

[0014] Preferably,

[0015] In step S300, after comparison, according to the test results of each die in the file corresponding to the MAP graph of the previous customer and in the file corresponding to the MAP graph of the previous customer, logical operation is performed to generate the comparison MAP graph file.

[0016] Preferably,

[0017] In step S300, the comparison is performed in the background.

[0018] Preferably,

[0019] In step S300, the comparison is performed without opening the file corresponding to the MAP graph of the previous customer and the file corresponding to the MAP graph of the previous customer.

[0020] Preferably, the method further comprises the following steps:

[0021] S400, displaying the comparison result in a visual manner.

[0022] Preferably,

[0023] The comparison MAP graph file is in excel file format.

[0024] The present application has the following technical effects:

[0025] Through the above scheme, the present application discards the method of manually comparing the file of the MAP graph of the previous customer and the file of the MAP graph of the previous customer in the prior art, and compared with the prior art, the present application is more convenient and fast, and is not easy to make mistakes, which facilitates the wafer test personnel to quickly and accurately perform wafer test. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

[0026] In order to more clearly illustrate the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present application, the following will briefly introduce the drawings needed to be used in the embodiments. It should be understood that the following drawings only show some of the embodiments of the present application, and therefore should not be regarded as limiting the scope, and for those skilled in the art, other related drawings can also be obtained without creative labor on the basis of these drawings.

[0027] Figure 1 is a working schematic diagram of a wafer test link in the prior art;

[0028] Figure 2 is a schematic diagram of the method described in an embodiment of the present application when executed by the corresponding tool software;

[0029] Figure 3 is a schematic diagram of the method described in an embodiment of the present application when the corresponding tool software outputs an excel file;

[0030] Figure 4 is a schematic diagram of the method described in an embodiment of the present application when the excel file is used to visualize the comparison results. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0031] In order to make the purpose, technical solutions and advantages of the embodiments of the present application more clear, the following will combine the drawings in the embodiments of the present application to make a clear and complete description of the technical solutions of the embodiments of the present application. Obviously, the described embodiments are some of the embodiments of the present application, but not all the embodiments. The components of the embodiments of the present application described and shown in the drawings can be arranged and designed in various different configurations. Figures 1 to 4

[0032] Therefore, the following detailed description of the embodiments of the present application provided in the drawings is not intended to limit the scope of the claimed present application, but only represents selected embodiments of the present application. Based on the embodiments in the present application, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative labor are within the scope of the present application.

[0033] It should be noted that: similar reference numbers and letters represent similar items in the following drawings, and therefore, once an item is defined in one drawing, it does not need to be further defined and explained in the subsequent drawings.

[0034] ​In the description of the present application, it should be noted that if the terms "upper", "lower", "inner", "outer" and the like indicating the orientation or positional relationship are based on the orientation or positional relationship shown in the drawings, or the orientation or positional relationship when the product of the present application is usually placed, and are only for the convenience of describing the present application and simplifying the description, and therefore cannot be understood as indicating or implying that the device or element referred to must have a particular orientation, be constructed and operated in a particular orientation, and therefore cannot be understood as limiting the present application.

[0035] In addition, if the terms "first", "second" and the like appear, they are only used to distinguish the description and cannot be understood as indicating or implying relative importance.

[0036] It should be noted that the features in the embodiments of the present application can be combined with each other without conflict.

[0037] In one embodiment, the present application discloses a method for comparing a back-end quality inspection MAP graph and a front-end customer-supplied MAP graph, the method comprising the following steps:

[0038] S100, establishing a mapping between a flow card number and a file corresponding to the back-end quality inspection MAP graph;

[0039] S200, providing a storage path of a file corresponding to the front-end customer-supplied MAP graph;

[0040] S300, according to the mapping and the storage path, comparing the file corresponding to the quality inspection MAP graph and the file corresponding to the front-end customer-supplied MAP graph, and generating a comparison MAP graph file after comparison.

[0041] For this embodiment, although the file of the front-end customer-supplied MAP graph does not have specific coordinates as known by those skilled in the art, the inventors have innovatively taken advantage of the feature that the file corresponding to the back-end quality inspection MAP graph has coordinates, thereby comparing the file corresponding to the quality inspection MAP graph and the file corresponding to the front-end customer-supplied MAP graph, and generating a comparison MAP graph file containing the comparison result through comparison between the two. In this way, the present application fully utilizes data processing technology to improve the problems caused by manual quality inspection in the prior art.

[0042] Referring to Figure 2 which shows the interface of the method in one embodiment of the present application when executed by the corresponding tool software;

[0043] Preferably,

[0044] In step S300, the principle of comparison is to prevent die missing and misplacement.

[0045] Preferably,

[0046] In step S300, comparison is made according to the one-to-one correspondence of the die.

[0047] Preferably,

[0048] In step S300, after the comparison, according to the test results of each die in the file corresponding to the post-inspection MAP and the file corresponding to the pre-customer MAP, a logical operation is performed to produce the compared MAP file.

[0049] Preferably,

[0050] In step S300, the comparison is performed in the background.

[0051] Preferably,

[0052] In step S300, the comparison is performed without opening the file corresponding to the post-inspection MAP and the file corresponding to the pre-customer MAP.

[0053] Preferably, the method further comprises the following steps:

[0054] S400, the comparison result is displayed in a visual manner.

[0055] Preferably,

[0056] The compared MAP file is in an excel file format.

[0057] In another embodiment, for the aforementioned logical operation,

[0058] The logical operation includes logical AND and logical OR operations, wherein,

[0059] When the post-inspection MAP considers a certain die as fail, a logical AND operation is performed, and the comparison result is fail regardless of whether the pre-customer MAP considers the corresponding die as fail or pass; more preferably, at this time, the bin item is displayed as the corresponding bin item of the inspection MAP, and is visualized in two cases: (1) when the pre-customer MAP considers the corresponding die as fail, the bin item can be visualized as red highlighting by way of example; (2) when the pre-customer MAP considers the corresponding die as fail, the bin item can be visualized as blue highlighting by way of example.

[0060] When the post-inspection MAP considers a certain die as pass, a logical OR operation is performed, and the comparison result is pass regardless of whether the pre-customer MAP considers the corresponding die as fail or pass; more preferably, at this time, the bin item is displayed as the corresponding bin item of the inspection MAP, and: when the pre-customer MAP considers the corresponding die as fail, the bin item can be visualized as blue highlighting by way of example.

[0061] It can be understood that the present application can not only visually display the comparison result, but also can have different visual display modes for different situations in order to effectively distinguish the different MAP charts of the front and rear sections. The reason why the excel file format is preferred as the format of the comparison MAP chart file is that the excel has the following characteristics: the position of each cell can correspond to the coordinates of the MAP chart, the content in the cell can represent the comparison result, and the cell can be highlighted.

[0062] Therefore, further, in another embodiment, after step S300, the method further comprises the following steps:

[0063] S400, in the excel file, the coordinates of the dies of the wafer are established by using the horizontal and vertical coordinates, and the comparison results of each die are filled in the corresponding cells in the excel file according to the coordinates.

[0064] Referring to Figure 3 、 Figure 4 which illustrates the schematic diagram of the method for visualizing the comparison result by the excel file.

[0065] In summary, the method disclosed by the present application discards the manual comparison method of the prior art, and compared with the prior art, the present application is more convenient and faster and is not prone to errors, and facilitates the wafer test and quality inspection of the operating personnel.

[0066] The above is only a specific embodiment of the present application, but the protection scope of the present application is not limited thereto, any change or replacement that can be easily thought of by those skilled in the art within the technical range disclosed by the present application should be covered in the protection scope of the present application. Therefore, the protection scope of the present application should be subject to the protection scope of the claims.

Claims

1. A method for comparing a back-end quality inspection MAP image of a calibration wafer with a front-end customer-supplied MAP image in wafer test quality inspection, the method comprising the following steps: S100, establish a mapping between the process card number and the corresponding file of the back-end quality inspection MAP diagram; wherein, The file corresponding to the post-quality inspection MAP diagram has coordinates; S200: providing a storage path of a file corresponding to a MAP provided by a previous customer; wherein the file corresponding to the MAP provided by the previous customer does not have specific coordinates; S300, comparing the file corresponding to the back-end quality inspection MAP map with the file corresponding to the front-end customer-supplied MAP map according to the mapping and the storage path, and generating a comparison MAP map file after the comparison; In step S300 , the principle of comparison is to prevent die loss and misalignment; In step S300, the dies are compared according to a one-to-one correspondence; In step S300, after comparison, logical operations are performed based on the test results of each die's corresponding file of the subsequent quality inspection MAP and the corresponding file of the preceding customer-supplied MAP, and a comparison MAP file containing the comparison results is generated by comparing the two. The logic operations include logical AND and logical OR operations, wherein: When the back-end quality inspection MAP considers a die to be a fail, a logical AND operation is performed. Regardless of whether the front-end customer supply MAP considers the corresponding die to be a fail or a pass, the comparison result is always a fail. When the back-end quality inspection MAP considers a die to be a pass, a logical OR operation is performed. Regardless of whether the front-end customer supply MAP considers the corresponding die to be a fail or a pass, the comparison result is always a pass.

2. The method according to claim 1, wherein: In step S300, the comparison is performed in the background.

3. The method according to claim 1, wherein: In step S300, the comparison is performed without opening the file corresponding to the back-end quality inspection MAP map and the file corresponding to the front-end customer-supplied MAP map.

4. The method according to claim 1, wherein: The method further comprises the steps of: S400: Display the comparison result in a visual manner.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein: The comparison MAP map file is in Excel file format.

Images