DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “…at least one pixel s …” where it should instead recite “…at least one pixel…” Appropriate correction is required. Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 recites “…where (xi, yi ) the coordinate position…” where it should instead recite “…where (xi, yi ) is the coordinate position…” Appropriate correction is required. Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 18 recites “ …( x j , x j )…” where Applicant is assumed to have meant “…(x j , y j )…” Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim s 1-3, 6-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. MPEP 2106 III provides a flowchart for the subject matter eligibility test for product and processes. The claim analysis following the flowchart is as follows: Regarding claim 1 : Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes. It recites a system, which is a machine. Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or nature phenomenon? Yes. Claim 1 recites: A system for display, comprising: a display having a plurality of pixels, at least part of the pixels being distorted; and a processor configured to calibrate a distorted pixel by o btaining a coordinate position of the distorted pixel after distortion; o btaining at least one distortion scale parameter of the distorted pixel; d etermining a calibrating window centered at the distorted pixel based on the at least one distortion scale parameter, the calibrating window comprising at least one pixels located along at least one distorted direction; c alculating at least one greyscale value of at least one simulated pixel based on the at least one pixel within the calibrating window and the at least one distortion scale parameter; and c alculating a calibrated greyscale value of the distorted pixel based on the at least one greyscale value of the at least one simulated pixel. O btaining a coordinate position, obtaining a distortion scale parameter, determining a calibrating window, calculating a greyscale value, and calculating a calibrated greyscale value can all be done mentally and/or through mathematical relationships and calculations. A person could look at the distorted pixel and mentally obtain a coordinate position, a distortion scale parameter, a calibrating window, mentally calculate a greyscale value and a calibrated greyscale value. Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. Claim 1 recites a display and a processor, which are generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a processor. Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. As discussed above, the generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a processor. Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Regarding claim 2 , it depends from claim 1 with the additional limitation “ wherein the at least one distortion scale parameter comprises: a first scale HS configured to illustrate a change in distance between the distorted pixel and a first pixel adjacent to the distorted pixel in a first direction after distortion; and a first rotate scale HrS configured to illustrate a change in orientation between the distorted pixel and the first pixel after distortion. ” This is further defining the distortion scale parameter for the mathematical calculation. Therefore, claim 2 recites abstract idea without additional elements. No additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 2 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Regarding claim 3 , it depends from claim 2 with the additional limitation “ wherein a coordinate position of the distorted pixel after distortion is (x0, y0); a coordinate position of the first pixel after distortion is (x1, y1); and the first scale HS is calculated by: HS = x1-x0 the first rotate scale HrS is calculated by: HrS = y1 – y0. ” This is further defining the coordinates and parameters for the mathematical calculations. Therefore, claim 3 recites abstract idea without additional elements. No additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 3 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Regarding claim 6 , it depends from claim 3 with the additional limitation “ wherein the calibrating window comprises a first scope H extending along the first direction, and H = k1 x HS x M + 1 where k1 is a first calibrating coefficient, and M is a downscale unit of distortion of the distorted pixel along the first direction. ” This is a mathematical calculation. Therefore, claim 6 recites abstract idea without additional elements. No additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 6 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Regarding claim 7 , it depends from claim 6 with the additional limitation “ wherein k1 = 2. ” This is further defining the coefficient for the mathematical calculation. Therefore, claim 7 recites abstract idea without additional elements. No additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 7 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Regarding claim 8 , it depends from claim 6 with the additional limitation “ wherein calculating the at least one greyscale value of the at least simulated pixel within the calibrating window comprises: calculating a coordinate position of the at least one simulated pixel along the first direction within the first scope H by: xi = x0 + i yi = y0 + I x HrS where (xi, yi ) the coordinate position of an ith simulated pixel within the first scope H is, and I is an integer other than 0. ” These are mathematical calculations. Therefore, claim 8 recites abstract idea without additional elements. No additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 8 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Regarding claim 9 , it depends from claim 8 with the additional limitation “ wherein calculating the at least one greyscale value of the at least one simulated pixel within the calibrating window comprises: processing linear interpolation based on greyscale values of at least one distorted pixel adjacent to the simulated pixel, wherein a distance between the simulated pixel and the pixels adjacent to the simulated pixel is less than 1. ” This is a mathematical calculation. Therefore, claim 9 recites abstract idea without additional elements. No additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 9 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Regarding claim 10 , it depends from claim 9 with the additional limitation “ wherein the greyscale value of the distorted pixel is calculated based on the at least one greyscale value of the at least one simulated pixel along the first direction within the first scope H. ” This is a mathematical calculation. Therefore, claim 10 recites abstract idea without additional elements. No additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 10 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Regarding claim 11 , it depends from claim 10 with the additional limitation “ wherein the greyscale value of the distorted pixel is an average of the at least one greyscale value of the at least one simulated pixel along the first direction within the first scope H. ” This is a mathematical calculation. Therefore, claim 1 1 recites abstract idea without additional elements. No additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 1 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Regarding claim 12 , it depends from claim 10 with the additional limitation “ wherein the at least one distortion scale parameter comprises: a second scale VS configured to illustrate a change in distance between the distorted pixel and a second pixel adjacent to the distorted pixel in a second direction after distortion; and a second rotate scale VrS configured to illustrate a change in orientation between the distorted pixel and the second pixel after distortion. ” This is further defining the distortion scale parameter for the mathematical calculation. Therefore, claim 12 recites abstract idea without additional elements. No additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 2 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Regarding claim 13 , it depends from claim 12 with the additional limitation “ wherein a coordinate position of the distorted pixel after distortion is (x0, y0); a coordinate position of the second pixel after distortion is (x2, y2) ; and the second scale VS is calculated by: VS = x2 – x0 the second rotate scale VrS is calculated by: VrS = y2 – 0. ” This is further defining the coordinates and parameters for the mathematical calculations. Therefore, claim 1 3 recites abstract idea without additional elements. No additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 3 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Regarding claim 16 , it depends from claim 13 with the additional limitation “ wherein the calibrated window comprises a second scope V extending along the second direction, and V = k2 x VS x N + 1 wherein k2 is a second calibrating coefficient, and N is a downscale unit of distortion of the distorted pixel along the second direction. ” This is a mathematical calculation. Therefore, claim 16 recites abstract idea without additional elements. No additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 6 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Regarding claim 17 , it depends from claim 16 with the additional limitation “ wherein k2 = 2. ” This is further defining the coefficient. Therefore, claim 17 recites abstract idea without additional elements. No additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 7 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Regarding claim 18 , it depends from claim 16 with the additional limitation “ wherein calculating the at least one greyscale value of the at least one simulated pixel within the calibrating window comprises: c alculating a coordinate position of the at least one simulated pixel along the second direction within the second scope V by: x j = x0 + j y j = y0 + j x VrS w here (xj, x j) is the calibrated coordinate position of a jth simulated pixel within the second scope V, and j is an integer other than 0. ” These are mathematical calculations. Therefore, claim 18 recites abstract idea without additional elements. No additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 8 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Regarding claim 19 , it depends from claim 18 with the additional limitation “ wherein calculating the at least one greyscale value of the at least one simulated pixel within the calibrating window comprises: processing linear interpolation based on greyscale values of at least one distorted pixel adjacent to the simulated pixel, wherein a distance between the simulated pixel and the pixel adjacent to the simulated pixel is less than 1. ” This is a mathematical calculation. Therefore, claim 19 recites abstract idea without additional elements. No additional elements are recited to integrate the abstract idea into practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 9 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Regarding claim 20 : Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machin e, manufacture or composition of matter? Yes. It recites a method, which is a process. Step 2A, Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or nature phenomenon? Yes. Claim 20 recites: A method for calibrating a display having a plurality of pixels, at least part of the pixels being distorted, the method comprising: o btaining a coordinate position of a distorted pixel after distortion; o btaining at least one distortion scale parameter of the distorted pixel; d etermining a calibrating window centered at the distorted pixel based on the at least one distortion scale parameter, the calibrated window comprising at least one pixel located along at least one distorted direction; c alculating at least one greyscale value of at least one simulated pixel based on the at least one distorted pixel within the calibrating window and the at least one distortion scale parameter; and c alculating a calibrated greyscale value of the distorted pixel based on the greyscale value of the at least one simulated pixel. The steps can all be done mentally and/or through mathematical relationships and calculations for the same reasons as discussed for claim 1. Step 2A, Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No. Claim 20 recites a display in the preamble, which is a generically recited computer element that do es not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it amount s to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. As discussed above, the generically recited computer element do es not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because it amount s to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Therefore, claim 20 is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Therefore, claims 1-3, 6-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 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, 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . Claim (s) 1 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdulsattar (see citation below) . As per Claim 1, Abdulsattar teaches a system for display, comprising: a display having a plurality of pixels, at least part of the pixels being distorted; and a processor configured to calibrate a distorted pixel ( filter for eliminating different levels of salt-and-pepper noise efficiently without degrading important image details, the filter uses a variable window size, after identifying distorted pixels, if there is at least one or more undistorted pixels are encountered in the processing window, the updated value of the distorted pixel is calculated by the weighted mean of undistorted pixels when a window size is 3x3 and replaced by the mean value of the undistorted pixels with the highest frequency distribution when a window size is larger, sufficiently remove high noise levels, superior denoising capability in terms of visual appearance , Abstract, p. 1) by o btaining a coordinate position of the distorted pixel after distortion ( pixel b x,y at position ( x,y ) in the distorted image B, detect the position of distorted pixels in the matrix B , p. 3, 3 rd -4 th paragraphs). Abdulsattar teaches adapting the processing window size in accordance with the noise level (p. 2, last paragraph). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the window size is equivalent to a distortion scale parameter. Abdulsattar teaches the window size is varied in order to deal with different noise levels. For each identified pixel b x,y in the B noisy , the size of the window is adapted in accordance to the noise level. If none of undistorted pixels is encountered in the processing window, the size of this window is continuously enlarged (p. 3, last paragraph). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the distorted pixel b x,y is in the center of the window, and the size of this window is continuously enlarged if none of undistorted pixels is encountered in the window. Thus, Abdulsattar teaches o btaining at least one distortion scale parameter (window size) of the distorted pixel ( b x,y ) ; d etermining a calibrating window centered at the distorted pixel ( b x,y ) based on the at least one distortion scale parameter (window size) , the calibrating window comprising at least one pixels located along at least one distorted direction (p. 2, last paragraph; p. 3, last paragraph). Abdulsattar teaches a filter has been developed for dealing with salt-and- pepper noise in grey-scale images. The filter consists of noise detection wherein the size of the window is changed in an adaptive manner. According to the local image content, the filter output is calculated as the weighted mean value of undistorted pixels when the window size is 3x3 and calculated as the mean of undistorted pixels with the highest frequency distribution when the window size is greater than 3x3. The filter has an improved restoration capability (Conclusions, p. 9). Since it is a greyscale image, this means that the calculated mean of undistorted pixels is a calculated calibrated greyscale value. Thus, Abdulsattar teaches c alculating at least one greyscale value of at least one simulated pixel based on the at least one pixel within the calibrating window and the at least one distortion scale parameter (window size) ; and c alculating a calibrated greyscale value of the distorted pixel based on the at le a st on e greyscale value of the at least one simulated pixel (Conclusions, p. 9). As per Claim 20, Claim 20 is similar in scope to Claim 1, and therefore is rejected under the same rationale. Claim (s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdulsattar (see citation below) in view of Lee (US009305592B1). As per Claim 2, Abdulsattar is relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 1. However, Abdulsattar does not teach wherein the at least one distortion scale parameter comprises: a first scale HS configured to illustrate a change in distance between the distorted pixel and a first pixel adjacent to the distorted pixel in a first direction after distortion; and a first rotate scale HrS configured to illustrate a change in orientation between the distorted pixel and the first pixel after distortion . However, Lee teaches ISI is interference due to on pixels positioned in (1, 2), (2, 1), (2, 3), and (3, 2). ISI may occur most frequently in the pixel of the position (2, 2) surrounded by the on pixels. ISI due to the neighboring on pixels also occurs in pixels of positions (1, 1), (1, 3), (3, 1), and (3, 3) positioned adjacent to the on pixels. A method for compensating for ISI considering positions of pixels to be compensated and positions of on pixels positioned adjacent to the pixels to be compensated will be disclosed (col. 4, line 59-col. 5, line 3). The plurality of pixels values for compensation are a distorted set of values of a plurality of source pixel values due to the ISI, and wherein each of the pixel values after compensation is determined based on each of the plurality of pixel values for compensation and adjacent pixel values thereof (col. 12, lines 10-15). Thus, Lee teaches a coordinate position of the distorted pixel after distortion is (x0, y0), and a coordinate position of a first pixel adjacent to the distorted pixel after distortion is (x1, y1) (col. 4, line 59-col. 5, line 3). Since Lee teaches compensating for distortion considering positions of pixels to be compensated and positions of pixels positioned adjacent to the pixels to be compensated (col. 4, line 59-col. 5, line 3), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the at least one distortion scale parameter comprises: a first scale HS configured to illustrate a change in distance between the distorted pixel and a first pixel adjacent to the distorted pixel in a first direction (horizontal) after distortion (HS = x1 – x0) ; and a first rotate scale HrS configured to illustrate a change in orientation between the distorted pixel and the first pixel after distortion ( HrS = y1 – y0) (col. 4, line 59-col. 5, line 3; col. 12, lines 10-15) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abdulsattar so that the at least one distortion scale parameter comprises: a first scale HS configured to illustrate a change in distance between the distorted pixel and a first pixel adjacent to the distorted pixel in a first direction after distortion; and a first rotate scale HrS configured to illustrate a change in orientation between the distorted pixel and the first pixel after distortion because Lee suggests that this way, the distorted pixels are compensated in a way that more accurately undistorts the distorted pixels (col. 4, line 59-col. 5, line 3; col. 12, lines 10-15). As per Claim 3, Abdulsattar does not teach wherein a coordinate position of the distorted pixel after distortion is (x0, y0); a coordinate position of the first pixel after distortion is (x1, y1); and the first scale HS is calculated by: HS = x1 – x0 the first rotate scale HrS is calculated by: HrS = y1 – y0. However, Lee teaches ISI is interference due to on pixels positioned in (1, 2), (2, 1), (2, 3), and (3, 2). ISI may occur most frequently in the pixel of the position (2, 2) surrounded by the on pixels. ISI due to the neighboring on pixels also occurs in pixels of positions (1, 1), (1, 3), (3, 1), and (3, 3) positioned adjacent to the on pixels. A method for compensating for ISI considering positions of pixels to be compensated and positions of on pixels positioned adjacent to the pixels to be compensated will be disclosed (col. 4, line 59-col. 5, line 3). The plurality of pixels values for compensation are a distorted set of values of a plurality of source pixel values due to the ISI, and wherein each of the pixel values after compensation is determined based on each of the plurality of pixel values for compensation and adjacent pixel values thereof (col. 12, lines 10-15). Thus, Lee teaches a coordinate position of the distorted pixel after distortion is (x0, y0); a coordinate position of the first pixel after distortion is (x1, y1) (col. 4, line 59-col. 5, line 3). Since Lee teaches compensating for distortion considering positions of pixels to be compensated and positions of pixels positioned adjacent to the pixels to be compensated (col. 4, line 59-col. 5, line 3), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that t he first scale HS is calculated by: HS = x1 – x0 t he first rotate scale HrS is calculated by: HrS = y1 – y0 (col. 4, line 59-col. 5, line 3; col. 12, lines 10-15). This would be obvious for the reasons given in the rejection for Claim 2. Claim (s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abdulsattar (see citation below) and Lee (US009305592B1) in view of Schaffer (US 20160105630A1). As per Claim 4, Abdulsattar and Lee are relied upon for the teachings as discussed above relative to Claim 3. However, Abdulsattar does not teach the first scale HS and the first rotate scale HrS of each distorted pixel. However, Lee teaches this limitation, as discussed in the rejection for Claim 3. However, Abdulsattar and Lee do not teach further comprising a memory configured to store a look-up table, wherein the look-up table is configured to store the first scale HS and the first rotate scale HrS of each distorted pixel. However, Schaffer teaches a memory configured to store a look-up table, wherein the look-up table is configured to store the coordinate position of the distorted pixel after distortion and the coordinate position of the first pixel adjacent to the distorted pixel ( the contribution to a distorted pixel can be calculated and stored in a lookup table together with the coordinates of the appropriate undistorted pixel, algorithm to build the table might be: for each image pixel calculate its distorted coordinates ( xd,yd ), for each calculated distortion coordinate (xd, yd) determine the coordinates of neighbor-points (A, B, C, D), [0134-0137]). Since Lee teaches the first scale HS and the first rotate scale HrS of each distorted pixel, as discussed in the rejection for Claim 3, this teaching of the look-up table from Schaffer can be implemented into the device of Lee so that it comprises a memory configured to store a look-up table, wherein the look-up table is configured to store the first scale HS and the first rotate scale HrS of each distorted pixel. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Abdulsattar and Lee to include a memory configured to store a look-up table, wherein the look-up table is configured to store the first scale HS and the first rotate scale HrS of each distorted pixel because Schaffer suggests that this allows image transformation for distortion correction to be performed in real time, to allow a fast, high quality, real time imaging processing [0048-0049]. As per Claim 5, Abdulsattar does not teach wherein for each distorted frame input into the display, the first scale HS and the first rotate scale HrS of each distorted pixel. However, Lee teaches wherein for each distorted frame input into the display, the first scale HS and the first rotate scale HrS of each distorted pixel are used to compensate for distortion (col. 4, line 59-col. 5, line 3; col. 12, lines 10-15). This would be obvious for reasons given in rejection for Claim 2. However, Abdulsattar and Lee do not teach the first scale HS and the first rotate scale HrS of each distorted pixel are extracted from the look-up table. However, Schaffer teaches wherein for each distorted frame input into the display, the coordinate position of each distorted pixel after distortion and the coordinate position of the first pixel adjacent to each distorted pixel are extracted from the look-up table [0134-0137]. Since Lee teaches wherein for each distorted frame input into the display, the first scale HS and the first rotate scale HrS of each distorted pixel are used to compensate for distortion (col. 4, line 59-col. 5, line 3; col. 12, lines 10-15), this teaching of the look-up table from Schaffer can be implemented into the device of Lee so that for each distorted frame input into the display, the first scale HS and the first rotate scale HrS of each distorted pixel are extracted from the look-up table. This would be obvious for the reasons given in the rejection for Claim 4. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 14-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims , and the limitations in Claims 1 and 8 are amend ed to overcome the objections discussed above. Claims 6-13 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections and in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and the limitations in Claims 1, 8, and 18 are amended to overcome the objection s discussed above. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art taken singly or in combination do not teach or suggest the combination of all the limitations of Claim 6 and base Claim 1 and intervening Claims 2-3, and in particular, do not teach wherein the calibrating window comprises a first scope H extending along the first direction, and H = k1 x HS x M + 1 w here k1 is a first calibrating coefficient, and M is a downscale unit of distortion of the distorted pixel along the first direction. Claims 7-19 depend from Claim 6, and therefore also contain allowable subject matter. Prior Art of Record Abdulsattar , Fatimah; A New Adaptive Filter for Eliminating Salt and Pepper Noise; July 2020; 2 nd International Scientific Conference on AI- Ayen University; Volume 928; p. 1-9; https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/938/4/043002/pdf Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JONI HSU whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7785 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 10am-6:30pm . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Kee Tung can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7794 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. JH /JONI HSU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611