Prior art

As a senior US patent analyst, I will now provide a detailed analysis of the most relevant prior art cited in US patent 8,148,962, "Transient load voltage regulator." The following analysis examines each cited reference for its potential to anticipate the claims of the '962 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

An invention is anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 if a single prior art reference discloses each and every element of a claimed invention, arranged as in the claim.

Analysis of Prior Art for US Patent 8,148,962

Here is an analysis of the prior art references cited in the '962 patent:

1. US Patent 5,867,015 (Corsi et al.)

• Full Citation: US Patent 5,867,015, "Low drop-out voltage regulator with PMOS pass element," filed December 19, 1996, and issued February 2, 1999.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a low drop-out (LDO) voltage regulator utilizing a PMOS pass transistor. It features a feedback control loop to maintain a stable output voltage. The primary focus is on achieving a low voltage difference between the input and output.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: The Corsi '015 patent discloses a voltage regulator with a pass device and a feedback circuit, which are foundational elements of claim 1 of the '962 patent. However, the '962 patent's claims specify a unique architecture for the control circuitry, including a first current supply circuit providing a substantially constant current to a second current path, and a second current supply circuit that provides a variable current to the same path based on both a stable reference voltage and the output voltage. This specific two-current control mechanism for the pass device's gate does not appear to be explicitly disclosed in Corsi et al. Therefore, while relevant to the general field, it is unlikely to anticipate the independent claims of the '962 patent under a strict § 102 analysis.

2. US Patent 6,188,211 (Rincon-Mora et al.)

• Full Citation: US Patent 6,188,211, "Current-efficient low-drop-out voltage regulator with improved load regulation and frequency response," filed May 13, 1998, and issued February 13, 2001.
• Brief Description: This patent discloses an LDO regulator with enhanced current efficiency and frequency response through the use of a dual-loop feedback mechanism. The invention aims to provide a stable output voltage with a rapid response to changes in load.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: Similar to the Corsi patent, Rincon-Mora et al. describe a voltage regulator with a pass transistor and feedback control. The dual-loop feedback system is a more complex arrangement than the broader structure claimed in the '962 patent. The specific two-current source topology that drives the gate of the pass device in the '962 patent is a distinguishing feature. The '211 patent does not appear to disclose this specific current-based control method for the pass transistor. Thus, anticipation under § 102 is unlikely.

3. US Patent 6,653,891 (Hazucha et al.)

• Full Citation: US Patent 6,653,891, "Voltage regulation," filed July 9, 2002, and issued November 25, 2003.
• Brief Description: This patent, which is referenced in the background of the '962 patent, details a voltage regulator that incorporates an auxiliary feedback loop to improve performance under varying load conditions.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: As this patent is cited in the background of the '962 patent as an example of the state of the art, it is presented as a technology that the '962 invention improves upon. The '962 patent's use of a replica transistor and a two-current source driver for the pass device is a distinct architecture. Therefore, the '891 patent provides context for the invention rather than anticipating its claims.

4. US Patent 7,319,314 (Maheshwari et al.)

• Full Citation: US Patent 7,319,314, "Replica regulator with continuous output correction," filed December 22, 2004, and issued January 15, 2008.
• Brief Description: This patent describes a replica regulator that uses a dual difference amplifier stage feedback circuit and a voltage replicator to enhance the stability of the supply voltage.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: This reference is highly relevant as it discloses the use of a "replica" circuit in a voltage regulator. However, the specific implementation in the '314 patent appears different from that of the '962 patent. Claim 2 of the '962 patent specifies a replica transistor in the second current supply circuit with its gate coupled to the gate of the feedback transistor. While Maheshwari et al. use a replica concept, the particular circuit topology and its integration with the two-current source control system as claimed in the '962 patent may not be fully present. A detailed comparison of the circuit diagrams would be necessary, but on its face, it does not appear to be a direct anticipation.

5. US Patent 7,446,515 (Wang)

• Full Citation: US Patent 7,446,515, "Compensating NMOS LDO regulator using auxiliary amplifier," filed August 31, 2006, and issued November 4, 2008.
• Brief Description: This patent details an NMOS LDO regulator that employs an auxiliary amplifier for compensation to improve stability and transient response.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: The Wang '515 patent focuses on a specific compensation technique using an auxiliary amplifier. This approach is distinct from the two-current source control mechanism for the pass device gate as described in the claims of the '962 patent. Therefore, it is unlikely to anticipate the claims of the '962 patent.

6. US Patent Application Publication 2009/0033298 (Kleveland)

• Full Citation: US Patent Application Publication 2009/0033298, "Voltage regulator with a hybrid control loop," filed August 1, 2007, and published February 5, 2009.
• Brief Description: This publication describes a voltage regulator that combines analog feedback circuitry with a digital controller and sense circuits to provide enhanced feedback for varying load conditions.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims: The Kleveland application's focus on a hybrid analog-digital control loop is a significantly different approach from the purely analog circuit described in the claims of the '962 patent. The core of the '962 invention lies in its specific analog circuit topology. Thus, Kleveland is unlikely to anticipate the claims of the '962 patent.

In summary, while the cited prior art references are within the same technical field of voltage regulation, none appear to explicitly disclose the complete combination of elements as claimed in the independent claims of US Patent 8,148,962. The key distinguishing feature of the '962 patent appears to be its specific architecture for controlling the pass device, which utilizes a first constant current source and a second variable current source that are summed into a single path to drive the gate of the pass device, with the second current source's output being dependent on both a stable reference voltage and the regulator's output voltage. This specific arrangement does not seem to be identically present in the cited prior art, making anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 unlikely for the independent claims.