`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMlVHSSIONER FOR PATENTS
`PO. Box 1450
`Alexandria1 Virginia 22313-1450
`www.uspto.gov
`
`
`
`
`
`14/493,558
`
`09/23/2014
`
`NaOtO TADA
`
`PANDP0117US
`
`1079
`
`0434/2017 —MARK D. SARALINO (PAN) m
`7590
`51921
`RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
`NGUYEN, JIMMY H
`1621 EUCLID AVENUE
`19TH FLOOR
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`CLEVELAND, OH 44115
`
`2696
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`04/24/20 1 7
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above—indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e—mail address(es):
`
`ipdocket @rennerott0.c0m
`
`PTOL—90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 14/493,558 TADA ET AL.
`
`
`AIA (First Inventor to File)
`Art Unit
`Examiner
`Office Action Summary
`
`
`JIMMY H. NGUYEN $2213 2696
`-- The MAILING DA TE of this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLY IS SET TO EXPIRE g MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available under the provisions of 37 CFR1. 136( a).
`after SIX () MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, even if timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1 .704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply be timely filed
`
`Status
`
`1)IZI Responsive to communication(s) filed on 1/5/2017.
`El A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/were filed on
`
`2b)|:l This action is non-final.
`2a)|Z| This action is FINAL.
`3)|:I An election was made by the applicant in response to a restriction requirement set forth during the interview on
`
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`
`4)|:| Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quay/e, 1935 CD. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`
`5)IZI Claim(s) 1 and 3-7is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`is/are allowed.
`6)|:I Claim(s)
`
`7)|Z| Claim(s)_1 and3- 7is/are rejected.
`8)|:| Claim(s)_ is/are objected to.
`
`
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`9)|:I Claim((s)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`hit z/thvvvtlsnto. ovI’ atentS/init events/
`
`
`
`h/index.‘s or send an inquiry to PPI-iieedback{®usgtc.00v.
`
`Application Papers
`
`10)I:l The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)I:l The drawing(s) filed on
`is/are: a)I:I accepted or b)|:l objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`
`12)IXI Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`
`a)IZl All
`
`b)|:l Some” c)I:l None of the:
`
`1.IXI Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.|:l Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.|:| Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been received in this National Stage
`
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`** See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`
`
`3) D Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`1) D Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date.
`.
`.
`4) I:I Other'
`2) E InformatIon DIsclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mai| Date
`US. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL—326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mai| Date 20170414
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/493,558
`
`Page 2
`
`Art Unit: 2696
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the
`
`first inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`2.
`
`This Office Action is made in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 01/05/2017.
`
`Claims 1 and 3—7 are currently pending in the application. An action follows below:
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`3.
`
`Applicant's arguments, in the amendment filed 01/05/2017 with respect to the previous
`
`Office Action dated 10/20/2016, have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive as
`
`follows:
`
`(i)
`
`With respect to the rejections to claims 1 and 3—6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
`
`and 112(b), these rejections have been withdrawn in light of the amendment to independent
`
`claim 1. However, see the below new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) to the newly
`
`amended claims.
`
`(ii) With respect to the rejections to claims 1 and 3—6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
`
`being unpatentable over Hsu (US 2007/0146357), Applicant has amended independent claim 1
`
`and argued the Hsu reference failing to teach the newly amended claim 1. Specifically, Applicant
`
`argued “both surfaces of the light guide 150 are clearly vertical”. See page 7 of the amendment.
`
`Examiner respectfully disagrees because Hsu, at Figs. 1 and 3, discloses a light eXit surface 152
`
`having an irregular structure 152a, which comprises a plurality of small inclined surfaces, and
`
`each small inclined surface (of the whole irregular surface of the irregular structure 152a)
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/493,558
`
`Page 3
`
`Art Unit: 2696
`
`individually inclined with respect to a vertical plane, thereby rendering the light eXit surface 152
`
`having the inclined irregular surface inclined with respect to the vertical plane, as a Whole.
`
`Applicant fiarther argues “Hm simply teaches that the second surface Z52 includes
`
`irregular structures to increase the limitlrtottsfltm attire light heart: :‘ej‘itretedjram the second
`
`snaffle-t: 1’52. (See, giant/ogre}; it ,i 002] j), Any optimization attire rectum surface: 152 martial relate
`
`to optimization of the irregular structures; not the incline afthe surface itself?“ See page 8 of the
`
`amendment. Examiner respectfully disagrees because, as discussed above, the irregular
`
`structure 152a comprises the whole irregular surface including a plurality of small inclined
`
`surfaces, thereby optimizing the irregular structure 152a related to the optimization of the Whole
`
`irregular surface or each of the plurality of small inclined surfaces. See the below detailed
`
`rejection.
`
`(iii) With respect to the rejections to claims 1 and 3—5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
`
`being unpatentable over Kerr et al (US 7,236,154), Applicant has amended independent claim 1
`
`and argued the Kerr et al. reference failing to teach the newly amended claim 1. Specifically,
`
`Applicant argued:
`
`“’l"he Examiner admits that Kerr et at. does not teach the recited feature that an angle of the
`
`inclined surface with respect to the vertical plane is set such that a light reception arnonnt of the
`
`illnniinance sensor to the external light incident from the horizontal direction is a product of a
`
`predeteirnined number times alight reception amount of the illuininance sensor to the external light
`
`incident from the predetermined angle direction or the light reception amount of the illnniinance sensor to
`
`the external light incident from the horizontal direction is less than the product of the predetermined
`
`number times the light reception amount of the iilnniinance sensor to the e7‘ternnl light incident from the
`
`predeteirnined angle direction, llowever, the Examiner submits that such a relationship would be obvious."
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/493,558
`
`Page 4
`
`Art Unit: 2696
`
`See page 9 of the amendment. Examiner respectfully disagrees because (i) the features
`
`in the above quoted argument are just introduced after the previous Office Action; therefore,
`
`Examiner didn’t admit that Kerr et al. does not teach the aforementioned features; (ii) see the
`
`below rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) to independent claim 1 below; and (iii) “Kerr is silent t0
`
`the recitedfeature” as indicated on page 16 of the previous Office Action is NOT same as “Kerr
`
`does not teach”; therefore, the Applicant’s above confirmation is not correct.
`
`Applicant further argued:
`
`“However, by the Exairiiner’s very own admission Kerr et al. is silent anti not clear as to what
`
`it teaches, ll‘hei‘e are multiple possibilities and the Examiner has not shown why any possibility would
`
`have been obvious, and particularly the relationship recited in claim i. There clearly is no teaching of
`
`setting the angle ol‘incidence of the inclined surface to effect that of a product of a predetermined
`
`number of tirnes or less as. claimed."
`
`See page 9 of the amendment. Examiner respectfully disagrees because, as discussed in
`
`the previous Office Action and repeated below, while Kerr does not explicitly discuss in detail
`
`the claimed limitations; however, a person of ordinary sill in the art would recognize the claimed
`
`limitations obviously included in the Kerr device, e.g., in one of three cases discussed in the
`
`previous Office Action and repeated below.
`
`Applicant further argued in the paragraph beginning with “Regarding to claim (5,
`
`...” on
`
`pages 9-10 of the amendment. Examiner respectfully disagrees because (i) see the below
`
`rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) to independent claim 1 and claim 6 below; and (ii) in light
`
`of the specification of the instant application from page 8, line 5 to page 9, line 21, an angle of
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/493,558
`
`Page 5
`
`Art Unit: 2696
`
`the light exit surface 41b with respect to the light incident surface 41a is set so that the
`
`difference between light reception sensitivity of the illumination light 15 (or the claimed
`
`external light from the predetermined angle direction) and light reception sensitivity of the test
`
`light 22 (or the claimed external light from the horizontal direction) is “10 or more” or “5 or
`
`less”, i.e., the optimum value of the aforementioned difference and the set angle can be
`
`discovered by involving only routine skill in the art; therefore, a person having ordinary skill in
`
`the art at the time the invention was made would obviously set the angle of the inclined surface
`
`so as to satisfy the particular predetermined number of “5 or less”, as claimed, since it has been
`
`held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill
`
`in the art. See In re Boesch, 617F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
`
`4.
`
`The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 USC. 112(a):
`
`(a) 1N GENERAL.7The specification shall contain a written description of the invention,
`and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to
`enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to
`make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor
`of carrying out the invention.
`
`The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre—AIA 35 USC. 112:
`
`The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and
`process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person
`skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the
`same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
`
`5.
`
`Claims 1 and 3—6 rejected under 35 USC. 112(a) or 35 USC. 112 (pre—AIA), first
`
`paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains
`
`subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/493,558
`
`Page 6
`
`Art Unit: 2696
`
`convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre—AIA the
`
`inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
`
`In regards to claim 1, this claim recites limitations, “an angle of the inclined surface with
`
`rest?emanate_.rrérti.saintanra_.i.§__§_et_sudt_.tliataiialtt.techniques:9.itnineties.ilininitiating.setutzrte
`
`the external ii 'xht incident from the horizontal tlireeti on is 3 treated ot‘ a retleterinined nuniher
`
`
`
`
`
`
`times a light reception amount of the illuiniiiance sensor to the external light incident from the
`
`
`n‘edetermined an le direction or the light rece : tion amount of the iiluminance sensor to the
`
`its.Retinal_.llgm._itttgiElsi!lite311..l‘ltf»..htztflistttlltttl_infill.t'ztt.ifé..lr‘§.t‘:§..llttttt.Elli}...ththlltté‘lall".filth..tlt'ntlfiltéttttittfitl
`
`nutnher times the li
`
`'ht rece ition amount of the ill’uininanee sensor to the external li
`
`
`
`'ht incident
`
`
`
`from the predetermined angle direction” in last 8 lines, which were not described in the
`
`specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the
`
`inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre—AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed,
`
`had possession of the claimed invention.
`
`The original disclosure, specifically the specification at page 9, lines 10—18, discloses:
`
`“In this exemplary embodiment, assume that the case where the difference between
`
`light reception sensitivity of illumination light 15 and light reception sensitivity of test light
`
`22 is 5 times or less becomes the reference for determining whether the brightness adjustment of
`
`image display device 100 can be favorably performed in any environment. in this casew 2:
`
`favorable range of angle A. is approximately from 38 degrees to 57 degrees. Provided that
`
`angle A falls within this range, it is possible to provide light receiving device ie where brightness
`
`adj usttnent of irnage dispia}; device l0!) can he favorably performed hy ii gin, guide portion 4i .”
`
`(Emphasis added.)
`
`The aforementioned disclosure discloses an angle of the inclined surface with respect to
`
`the vertical plane is set such that a difference between a light reception sensitivity (or a light
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/493,558
`
`Page 7
`
`Art Unit: 2696
`
`reception amount) of the illuminance sensor to the external light incident from the horizontal
`
`direction and. a light reception sensitivity ifor a light reception amount) of the illiiniinance sensor
`
`to the external light incident trorn tire predetermined angle direction is 5 times or less. However,
`
`the aforementioned disclosure does not explicitly disclose the above tn'iderlined limitations.
`
`Specifically, the “Claimed” terrn, “a product”, is not even found in the original disclosure.
`
`Accordingly, this claim contains the above underlined limitations which were not described in
`
`the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the
`
`inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre—AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed,
`
`had possession of the claimed invention.
`
`In regards to claims 3—7, these claims are dependent on claim 1 and thus rejected for the
`
`same reason set forth in claim 1 above.
`
`In addition to claim 6, this claim, when read together with independent claim 1, recites
`
`
`limitations, “an angle of the inclined surface with res iect to the vertical
`ilane is set such that a
`
`light rece tion arnonnt oi" the illuminanee sensor to the external light incident from the horizontal
`
`
`
`
`direction is a trotlnet of 5 times a ilF’l‘ii rece tion amount of the illuminanee sensor to the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`external li Tlit incident from the uretietermined angle direction or the. li Tlit recreation amount of
`
`the illinriinanoe sensor to the external light incident from the horizontal direction is less than the
`
`roduet of the 'iredeterinined number times the li int rece ition amount of the il luminance sensor
`
`
`
`
`to the external light incident from the ‘ii‘edetennined anile direction” (see last 8 lines of claim l
`
`and claim 6), which were not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/493,558
`
`Page 8
`
`Art Unit: 2696
`
`convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre—AIA the
`
`inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. See
`
`the discussion in the rejection to claim 1 above.
`
`Notice to Applicant(s)
`
`6.
`
`Further, in order to avoid the unnecessary rejections under 35 USC (a) and/or (112(b)
`
`and/or to clarify the claimed invention, Examiner suggests the Applicant to use the same
`
`names/terms in the specification into the claims.
`
`7.
`
`Examiner notes that the specification is not the measure of invention. Therefore,
`
`limitations contained therein can’t be read into the claims for the purpose of avoiding the prior
`
`art. See In re Sporek, 55 CCPA 743, 386 F.2d 924, 155 USPQ 687 (1968).
`
`8.
`
`Further, the names of the features/elements used in the pending application or pending
`
`claims may be different from the names of the matching features/elements of the prior arts;
`
`however, the matching features/elements of the prior arts contain all characteristics/functions of
`
`the features/elements DEFINED by the pending claims.
`
`9.
`
`Note that in order to avoid confusion, the below citations in the below art rejection(s) are
`
`mere one or more places in the reference to disclose the "claimed" limitation(s) and/or are
`
`directed to one or more of embodiments disclosed by the cited reference(s). In other words, the
`
`“claimed” features/limitations may be read in other places in the reference or other embodiments
`
`of the reference. In order to better understand how the claimed limitations are taught by the
`
`reference(s), a review of the entire reference(s) is suggested by the examiner. Applicant is
`
`reminded a prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/493,558
`
`Page 9
`
`Art Unit: 2696
`
`portions that would lead away from the claimed invention as not all relevant paragraphs may
`
`have been cited in the rejection. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540,
`
`220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. I983), cert. denied, 469 US. 851 (1984).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`10.
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 USC. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness
`
`rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not
`identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed
`invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious
`before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
`which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the
`invention was made.
`
`ll.
`
`Claims 1 and 3—7 are rejected under 35 USC. 103 as being unpatentable over Hsu (US
`
`2007/01 4635 7.)
`
`In regards to claim 1, limitations of this claim are read in the Hsu reference as follows: a
`
`light receiving device (a light receiving device comprising elements 150, I 70 and 190 all shown
`
`in Fig. I) comprising:
`
`an illuminance sensor (an illuminance sensor comprising elements I 70, 190; Fig. I)
`
`which detects illuminance of external light (Fig. I or 3; 7[ [0018]: last 7 lines, disclosing the
`
`illuminance sensor detecting illuminance of external light; also see 7[ [0019]); and
`
`a light guide portion (150; Fig. lor 3) which guides the external light into the illuminance
`
`sensor (Fig. I or 3; 7[ [0018], disclosing a light guide portion 150 guiding the external light into
`
`the illuminance sensor; also see 7[ [0019]), wherein
`
`the light guide portion 150 (see Fig. I or 3) has:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/493,558
`
`Page 10
`
`Art Unit: 2696
`
`a light incident surface (151) through which the external light is introduced into the light
`
`guide portion (Fig. 1 or 3); and
`
`a light exit surface (152) from which the external light introduced into the light guide
`
`portion through the light incident surface exits to the illuminance sensor (Fig. 1 or 3),
`
`at least one of the light incident surface and the light exit surface has an inclined surface
`
`with respect to the vertical plane (Fig. 1 or 3; 7[ [0021]: last 10 lines, disclosing the light exit
`
`surface 152 having an irregular structure 152a having a plurality of small inclined surfaces to
`
`form angles at dijferent parts of the light exit surface 152, and each small inclined surface (of the
`
`whole irregular surface of the irregular structure 152a) individually inclined with respect to a
`
`vertical plane, thereby rendering the light exit surface 152 having the inclined irregular surface
`
`inclined with respect to the vertical plane, as a whole),
`
`the external light introduced into the light guide portion through the light incident surface
`
`contains external light incident on the light incident surface from a predetermined angle direction
`
`with respect to a horizontal direction (Fig. 1 or 3, disclosing the external light from the light
`
`source 0 and incident on the light incident surface 151 from a predetermined angle direction
`
`with respect to a horizontal direction), and
`
`an angle of the inclined surface is set such that a light reception amount of the
`
`illuminance sensor to the external light incident from the predetermined angle direction is
`
`increased (Fig. 3; 7[ [0021], disclosing an angle of the inclined surface set such that a light
`
`reception amount of the illuminance sensor to the external light incident from the predetermined
`
`angle direction, e. g., the predetermined angle larger than 42 degrees, is increased; 7[ [0022],
`
`further disclosing an angle of the inclined surface set such that a light reception amount of the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/493,558
`
`Page ll
`
`Art Unit: 2696
`
`illuminance sensor to the external light incident from the predetermined angle direction, e.g., the
`
`predetermined angle of 89 degrees, is still over 50%).
`
`Hsu is silent to the limitations, (i) “the external light introduced into the light guide
`
`portion through the light incident surface containing the external light incident on the light
`
`incident surface from the horizontal direction” and (ii) “an angle of the inclined surface is set
`
`such that a light reception amount of the illuminance sensor to the external light incident from
`
`the horizontal direction is a product of a predetermined number times a light reception amount of
`
`the illuminance sensor to the external light incident from the predetermined angle direction or the
`
`light reception amount of the illuminance sensor to the external light incident from the horizontal
`
`direction is less than the product of the predetermined number times the light reception amount
`
`of the illuminance sensor to the external light incident from the predetermined angle direction”
`
`of this claim.
`
`Regarding to the above underlined limitation (i), Hsu further discloses at 7[ [0007], last 5
`
`lines: “Thus, the disposition of the cross-section of the receiving end on the housing is largely
`
`aflected. For example, the light pipe must be disposed at the top of the housing for receiving the
`
`light generated by the light source disposed at Top indoors”, i.e., the external light introduced
`
`into the light guide portion through the light incident surface (as disposed in parallel to the
`
`vertical direction/plane), containing the external light incident on the light incident surface from
`
`the horizontal direction. Therefore, While Hsu is silent to “the external light introduced into the
`
`light guide portion through the light incident surface containing the external light incident on the
`
`light incident surface from the horizontal direction”, a person of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`recognize that the Hsu light guiding portion 150 receives the external light introduced into the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/493,558
`
`Page 12
`
`Art Unit: 2696
`
`light guide portion 150 through the light incident surface 151 containing the external light
`
`incident on the light incident surface from the horizontal direction or from the predetermined
`
`angle of zero degree.
`
`Regarding to the above underlined limitation (ii), as discussed above, a person of
`
`ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the Hsu light guiding portion 150 receives a large
`
`amount of the external light incident on the light incident surface 151 from the horizontal
`
`direction or from the predetermined angle of zero degree. Further, Hsu, noting at 7[ [002]],
`
`discloses the Hsu light guiding portion 150 receives less amount of the external light incident on
`
`the light incident surface 151 from the larger predetermined angle. Further, Hsu, noting at (H
`
`[0022], discloses the Hsu light guiding portion 150 receives about 50% of the amount of the
`
`external light from the light source when the external light is incident on the light incident
`
`surface 151 from the large predetermined angle of 89 degrees, i.e., the light reception amount of
`
`the illuminance sensor to the external light incident from the large predetermined angle of 89
`
`degrees is half (50%) of the light reception amount of the illuminance sensor to the external light
`
`incident from the horizontal direction or the light reception amount of the illuminance sensor to
`
`the external light incident from the horizontal direction is a product of a predetermined number
`
`“2 ” times the light reception amount of the illuminance sensor to the external light incident from
`
`the large predetermined angle of 89 degrees. In other words, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would recognize that Hsu device obviously contains a light reception amount of the illuminance
`
`sensor to the external light incident from the horizontal direction being a product of a
`
`predetermined number times the light reception amount of the illuminance sensor to the external
`
`light incident from the predetermined angle direction.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/493,558
`
`Page 13
`
`Art Unit: 2696
`
`Alternatively, as discussed above, the light reception amount of the illuminance sensor to
`
`the external light incident from the large predetermined angle of 89 degrees is half (50%) of the
`
`light reception amount of the illuminance sensor to the external light incident from the horizontal
`
`direction or the light reception amount of the illuminance sensor to the external light incident
`
`from the horizontal direction is less than the product of a predetermined number “3 or more”
`
`times the light reception amount of the illuminance sensor to the external light incident from the
`
`large predetermined angle of 89 degrees. In other words, a person of ordinary skill in the art
`
`would recognize that Hsu device obviously contains a light reception amount of the illuminance
`
`sensor to the external light incident from the horizontal direction being less than the product of a
`
`predetermined number times the light reception amount of the illuminance sensor to the external
`
`light incident from the predetermined angle direction.
`
`Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the Hsu reference
`
`renders this claim obvious.
`
`In regards to claim 3, Hsu discloses a light receiving surface of the illuminance sensor
`
`disposed parallel to a vertical plane (See Fig. I or 3) and the light exit surface 152 including the
`
`inclined surface (see the discussion in the rejection to claim I above).
`
`In regards to claim 4, Hsu discloses a light receiving surface of the illuminance sensor
`
`disposed parallel to a vertical plane (See Fig. I or 3) and the light exit surface 152, instead of
`
`the light incident surface as claimed, including the inclined surface (see the discussion in the
`
`rejection to claim I above.) Accordingly, Hsu obviously discloses all the claimed limitations
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/493,558
`
`Page 14
`
`Art Unit: 2696
`
`except that the light incident surface includes the inclined surface, as presently claimed, or the
`
`light guide portion has a shape so as to have the light incident surface including the inclined
`
`surface, as presently claimed.
`
`However, Applicant discloses that the light guide portions, which have different shapes, a
`
`first light guide portion one having the light eXit surface including the inclined surface as shown
`
`in Fig. 8A, a second light guide portion having the light incident surface including the inclined
`
`surface as shown in Fig. 8B, and a third light guide portion having the light incident surface
`
`including the inclined surface and the light eXit surface also including the inclined surface as
`
`shown in Fig. 8C or 8D, are used for the same purpose of guiding the external light to the
`
`illumination sensor (see Figs. 8A-8D and the corresponding specification of the pending
`
`application) and the particular shape of the light guide portion so as to have the light incident
`
`surface including the inclined surface, as presently claimed, does not solve any other problem,
`
`provides other advantage or is used for any other purpose, i.e., such a modification would have
`
`involved a mere change in the shape of a component. While Hsu may not exemplify particular
`
`shape of the light guide portion so as to have the light incident surface including the inclined
`
`surface, as presently claimed, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
`
`shape the Hsu light guide portion as desired as was judicially recognized in re Dailey, 149 USPQ
`
`47 (CCPA 1976). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
`
`modify the Hsu reference to obtain the invention defined in this claim.
`
`In regards to claim 5, Hsu obviously discloses an image display device (100; Fig. 1)
`
`comprising the light receiving device (a light receiving device comprising elements 150, I 70 and
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/493,558
`
`Page 15
`
`Art Unit: 2696
`
`190 all shown in Fig. 1) according to claim 1 (see the rejection to claim 1 above); and a display
`
`panel (130; Fig. 1) having a screen on which an image is displayed, wherein the light receiving
`
`device adjusts brightness of the display panel (7[ [0018]: last 7 lines).
`
`In regards to claim 6, as discussed in the rejection to claim 1 above, Hsu exemplifies the
`
`case of the predetermined number being “2” or “3”, i.e., the predetermined number being limited
`
`to “5”.
`
`Alternatively for other particular predetermined numbers limited to “5”, Hsu further
`
`discloses the angle of the inclined surface set so as to achieve the guiding effect of the light (7[
`
`[0021]: last 5 lines) and to prevent the problem of the light loss (7[ [0024]: 1-10). While Hsu
`
`does not exemplify the particular predetermined number being limited to “5”, a person having
`
`ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would obviously set the angle of the
`
`inclined surface so as to satisfy the particular predetermined number being limited to 5, since it
`
`has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only
`
`routine skill in the art. See In re Boescli, 617 F.2d 272,205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
`
`In regards to claim 7, Hsu discloses the at least fine of the light incident surface and the
`
`light exit surface inelined at an angle approximately from 38 degrees to 57 degrees relative to the
`
`vertical plane (Figs .5 and 3, as discussed in the rejection is (flaunt i above, shaving each (iftlie
`
`plurality of small inclined surfaces of the light exit surface I 52 individually inclined at an angle
`
`appmximately 5 degrees relative i?) the vertieal giziane, thereby rendering the light exit suijiece
`
`I52 inclined at an angle approximately 45 degrees relative tn the vertical plane, as a whole).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/493,558
`
`Page 16
`
`Art Unit: 2696
`
`1.
`
`Claims 1 and 3—7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerr et al
`
`(US 7,236,154; herein