CTNF 18/676,868 CTNF 101971 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 12-151 AIA 26-51 12-51 Status of Claims This communication is in response to the Application Filed on May 29, 2024. Claims 1-15 are pending in this application. Drawings 06-22-06 AIA The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Paragraph [0014] of the specification includes, “systems 104A and 104B”, as well as other paragraphs that follows. These systems are not illustrated to be shown in any of the figures in the drawings dated 5/29/2024 . Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on May 29, 2024 (two) and October 4, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Specification 07-29 AIA The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Element “104”, as illustrated in Fig. 1, is not disclosed in the specification . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 5-6, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by McNamer et al. (US2014/0009462 A1, hereafter, "McNamer") . Regarding claim 1, McNamer discloses an image processing device comprising: a processor (CPU 118, ¶ [0030] ); and a memory storing a program which, when executed by the processor, causes the image processing device to (See McNamer, ¶ [0030], The memory 116 and the CPU 118 may be operable together to implement an image processor 124 for performing image processing) acquire a first image (See McNamer, ¶ [0031], image 200 shows a left image captured by a camera) captured via a first optical system (See McNamer, ¶ [0028], primary image capture device 102) and a second image (See McNamer, ¶ [0031], image 202 shows a right image captured by the camera) captured via a second optical system (See McNamer, ¶ [0028], an auxiliary image capture device 104); detect, as a foreign object region, a region satisfying a predetermined condition in one image out of the first image and the second image (See McNamer, ¶ [0039], Areas may be flagged due to object motion over the course of temporal sampling, improper stereo base during capture, occlusion, the like, or combinations thereof. Examiner considers these as examples, such as occlusion, as “foreign object”; ¶ [0040], identifying problem areas (step 502). For example, an area may be identified from the left or right image. Examiner considers problem areas as “foreign object region” ) ; and correct a pixel value in the foreign object region in the one image by using a pixel value of another image out of the first image and the second image (See McNamer, ¶ [0040], pixels within the region C in the "other" image that correspond to the positions of pixels subset K can then be used to generate the replacement pixels for K in the target image… area of the left image can be identified for copying to the right image and an area of the right image can be identified to be copied on the left image. Once the proper areas have been identified, the pixels in one image are replaced by the pixels on the other image (step 506)). Regarding claim 5, McNamer discloses the image processing device according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined condition includes a condition under which a correlation with the other image is weaker than a threshold value (See McNamer, ¶ [0039], Areas where the disparities of groups of pixels are outside the viewing guidelines or where some metric M* (e.g., color difference, texture difference, gradient distribution, and the like) indicates weak pixel correspondence may be flagged for correction. Examiner considers the metric M* as a “threshold value”) . Regarding claim 6, McNamer discloses the image processing device according to claim 1, wherein in correcting the pixel value in the foreign object region (See McNamer, ¶ [0040], the pixels in one image are replaced by the pixels on the other image (step 506)) , a third image is generated from the other image (See McNamer, ¶ [0061], depth-based image rendering is applied to the "left" input image to generate a new "right" image estimate (step 608). Examiner considers the new “right” image as the “third image” ) , and the one image is corrected to an image obtained by, for each of a plurality of regions in the one image, compositing a pixel value of the one image (See McNamer, ¶ [0040], The pixels within the region C in the "other" image that correspond to the positions of pixels subset K can then be used to generate the replacement pixels for K in the target image. Examiner considers the target image as “the one image” ) and a pixel value of the third image at a compositing ratio determined based on the foreign object region (See McNamer, Fig 5 – 502, 506, and 508; ¶ [0039], Areas may be flagged due to object motion over the course of temporal sampling, improper stereo base during capture, occlusion, the like, or combinations thereof. Examiner considers these as examples, such as occlusion, as “foreign object”; ¶ [0040], identifying problem areas (step 502). For example, an area may be identified from the left or right image. Examiner considers problem areas as “foreign object region” ); ¶ [0040], Once the proper areas have been identified, the pixels in one image are replaced by the pixels on the other image (step 506); ¶ [0061], obeying depth values for pixels that project to the same spot. Examiner considers the depth value as a “compositing ratio” ) . Regarding claim 14, McNamer discloses an image processing method comprising (See McNamer, ¶ [0033], method may be implemented by the image processor 124, or the system 100 and/or computer 106) : acquiring a first image (See McNamer, ¶ [0031], image 200 shows a left image captured by a camera) captured via a first optical system (See McNamer, ¶ [0028], primary image capture device 102) and a second image (See McNamer, ¶ [0031], image 202 shows a right image captured by the camera) captured via a second optical system (See McNamer, ¶ [0028], an auxiliary image capture device 104); detecting, as a foreign object region, a region satisfying a predetermined condition in one image out of the first image and the second image (See McNamer, ¶ [0039], Areas may be flagged due to object motion over the course of temporal sampling, improper stereo base during capture, occlusion, the like, or combinations thereof. Examiner considers these as examples, such as occlusion, as “foreign object”; ¶ [0040], identifying problem areas (step 502). For example, an area may be identified from the left or right image. Examiner considers problem areas as “foreign object region” ) ; and correcting a pixel value in the foreign object region in the one image by using a pixel value of another image out of the first image and the second image (See McNamer, ¶ [0040], pixels within the region C in the "other" image that correspond to the positions of pixels subset K can then be used to generate the replacement pixels for K in the target image… area of the left image can be identified for copying to the right image and an area of the right image can be identified to be copied on the left image. Once the proper areas have been identified, the pixels in one image are replaced by the pixels on the other image (step 506)). Regarding claim 15, McNamer discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium that stores a program, wherein the program causes a computer to execute an image processing method comprising (See McNamer, ¶ [0033], method may be implemented by the image processor 124, or the system 100 and/or computer 106) : acquiring a first image (See McNamer, ¶ [0031], image 200 shows a left image captured by a camera) captured via a first optical system (See McNamer, ¶ [0028], primary image capture device 102) and a second image (See McNamer, ¶ [0031], image 202 shows a right image captured by the camera) captured via a second optical system (See McNamer, ¶ [0028], an auxiliary image capture device 104); detecting, as a foreign object region, a region satisfying a predetermined condition in one image out of the first image and the second image (See McNamer, ¶ [0039], Areas may be flagged due to object motion over the course of temporal sampling, improper stereo base during capture, occlusion, the like, or combinations thereof. Examiner considers these as examples, such as occlusion, as “foreign object”; ¶ [0040], identifying problem areas (step 502). For example, an area may be identified from the left or right image. Examiner considers problem areas as “foreign object region” ) ; and correcting a pixel value in the foreign object region in the one image by using a pixel value of another image out of the first image and the second image (See McNamer, ¶ [0040], pixels within the region C in the "other" image that correspond to the positions of pixels subset K can then be used to generate the replacement pixels for K in the target image… area of the left image can be identified for copying to the right image and an area of the right image can be identified to be copied on the left image. Once the proper areas have been identified, the pixels in one image are replaced by the pixels on the other image (step 506)) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNamer et al. (US20140009462 A1, hereafter, "McNamer") in view of Koo et al. (US 20110109731 A1, hereafter “Koo”) . Regarding claim 2, which claim 1 is incorporated, McNamer fails to teach wherein one of the first image and the second image that has a weaker correlation with a past image than another of the first image and the second image is selected as the one image. Koo teaches wherein one of the first image and the second image that has a weaker correlation with a past image than another of the first image and the second image is selected as the one image (See Koo, ¶ [0022], image data of a previous scene and image data of a current scene may be significantly different from each other; ¶ [0023], The scene transition determining unit 110 determines whether a scene transition occurs between a previous frame and a current frame; ¶ [0025], below a predetermined threshold value (i.e., a difference is large), it may be determined that the previous frame and the current frame are not likely to correspond to the same scene) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McNamer’s reference wherein one of the first image and the second image that has a weaker correlation with a past image than another of the first image and the second image is selected as the one image based on the method of Koo’s reference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the determining unit to make its determination, the better of the two images would be selected to make accurate decisions and align better with a threshold value. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Koo with McNamer to obtain the invention as specified in claim 2. Regarding claim 3, which claim 1 is incorporated, McNamer fails to teach wherein the predetermined condition includes a condition under which a correlation with a past image is weaker than a threshold value. Koo teaches wherein the predetermined condition includes a condition under which a correlation with a past image is weaker than a threshold value (See Koo, ¶ [0025], below a predetermined threshold value (i.e., a difference is large), it may be determined that the previous frame and the current frame are not likely to correspond to the same scene). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McNamer’s reference wherein the predetermined condition includes a condition under which a correlation with a past image is weaker than a threshold value based on the method of Koo’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been as means of minimizing viewer distraction due to erroneous 3D effects as suggested by Koo at ¶ [0006]. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Koo with McNamer to obtain the invention as specified in claim 3 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNamer et al. (US20140009462 A1, hereafter, "McNamer") in view of Saito (US 20090244263 A1, hereafter “Saito”) . Regarding claim 4, which claim 1 is incorporated, McNamer fails to teach wherein the predetermined condition includes a condition under which a distance from a region in which a correlation with a past image is weaker than a threshold value is shorter than a threshold value. Saito teaches wherein the predetermined condition includes a condition under which a distance from a region in which a correlation with a past image is weaker than a threshold value is shorter than a threshold value (See Saito, ¶ [0097], distance between the positions of the regions in real space is more than or equal to a predetermined distance, it is determined that an object is not detected in the estimated region). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McNamer’s reference wherein the predetermined condition includes a condition under which a distance from a region in which a correlation with a past image is weaker than a threshold value is shorter than a threshold value based on the method of Saito’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to accurately detect and distinguish between changes of the external environment as suggested by Saito ¶ [0013]. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Saito with McNamer to obtain the invention as specified in claim 4 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNamer et al. (US20140009462 A1, hereafter, "McNamer") in view of Sutou (US 20140098089 A1, hereafter “Sutou”) . Regarding claim 7 , which claim 6 is incorporated, McNamer fails to teach wherein an evaluation value related to parallax with respect to the other image is acquired for each of a plurality of regions of the one image, and the third image is generated from the other image, based on a plurality of evaluation values corresponding to the plurality of regions. Sutou teaches wherein an evaluation value related to parallax with respect to the other image is acquired for each of a plurality of regions of the one image (See Sutou, ¶ [0051], generates a global parallax map (global disparity map) by detecting the horizontal parallax d1 and the vertical parallax d2 for all of the pixels on the input image), and the third image is generated from the other image, based on a plurality of evaluation values corresponding to the plurality of regions (See Sutou, ¶ [0061], generates the plurality of multi-viewpoint images V.sub.V based on the unified parallax map). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McNamer’s reference wherein an evaluation value related to parallax with respect to the other image is acquired for each of a plurality of regions of the one image based on the method of Sutou’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been for technology capable of stabilizing a parallax (parallax vector) of an occlusion region more simply as suggested by Sutou at ¶ [0004] . Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Sutou with McNamer to obtain the invention as specified in claim 7 . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNamer et al. (US20140009462 A1, hereafter, "McNamer") in view of Hodge (US 11069044 B1, hereafter “Hodge”) and further in view of I et al (US 20230129785 A1, hereafter “I”) . Regarding claim 8, which claim 1 is incorporated, McNamer fails to teach wherein in a case where the foreign object region is detected outside a predetermined region, the one image is corrected to an image in which the foreign object region is invalidated. Hodge teaches wherein in a case where the foreign object region is detected outside a predetermined region (See Hodge, Col 22 line 35-38, detected set of pixels may include pixels that correspond to at least part of the second image layer that are outside of the selection region) , the one image is corrected (See Hodge, Col 12, line 41-42, select a particular area of an image and discard the portions outside the chosen section) [to an image in which the foreign object region is invalidated.] Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McNamer’s reference wherein in a case where the foreign object region is detected outside a predetermined region based on the method of Hodge’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to allow editing of selected regions while avoiding the introduction of artifacts as suggested by Hodge at Col. 2, lines 1-3. However, McNamer and Hodge fail to teach [the one image is corrected] to an image in which the foreign object region is invalidated. I teaches [the one image is corrected] to an image in which the foreign object region is invalidated (See I, Fig 8, ¶ [0073], invalid pixel region 97 is formed by the invalid pixels). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McNamers’s reference where the one image is corrected to an image in which the foreign object region is invalidated based on the method of I’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to detect the position of the object included in the image captured by the other camera as suggested by I at ¶ [0003]. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hodge and I with McNamer to obtain the invention as specified in claim 8. Regarding claim 9, which claim 8 is incorporated, McNamer teaches the predetermined region is a region designated by a user (See McNamer, ¶ [0034], the user can select areas of image to be corrected) . Regarding claim 10 , which claim 8 is incorporated, McNamer fails to teach wherein in a case where the foreign object region is detected outside the predetermined region, the one image is corrected to an image in which a region outside the predetermined region is invalidated. Hodge teaches wherein in a case where the foreign object region is detected outside the predetermined region (See Hodge, Col 22 line 35-38, detected set of pixels may include pixels that correspond to at least part of the second image layer that are outside of the selection region) , the one image is corrected to an image in which a region outside the predetermined region is invalidated (See Hodge, Col 12, line 41-42, select a particular area of an image and discard the portions outside the chosen section) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McNamers’s reference wherein in a case where the foreign object region is detected outside the predetermined region based on the method of Hodge’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to allow editing of selected regions while avoiding the introduction of artifacts as suggested by Hodge at Col. 2, lines 1-3. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hodge and I with McNamer to obtain the invention as specified in claim 10. Regarding claim 11, which claim 8 is incorporated, McNamer fails to teach wherein in a case where the foreign object region is detected outside the predetermined, the one image is corrected to an image in which a region outside a region that includes the predetermined region. Hodge teaches wherein in a case where the foreign object region is detected outside the predetermined region (See Hodge, Col 22 line 35-38, detected set of pixels may include pixels that correspond to at least part of the second image layer that are outside of the selection region), the one image is corrected to an image in which a region outside a region that includes the predetermined region and [that is externally tangent to the foreign object region] is invalidated. (See Hodge, Col 12, line 41-42, select a particular area of an image and discard the portions outside the chosen section) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McNamers’s reference wherein in a case where the foreign object region is detected outside the predetermined region, the one image is corrected to an image in which a region outside a region that includes the predetermined region based on the method of Hodge’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to allow editing of selected regions while avoiding the introduction of artifacts as suggested by Hodge at Col. 2, lines 1-3. However, McNamer and Hodge fail to teach the one image is corrected to an image in which [a region outside a region that includes the predetermined region] and that is externally tangent to the foreign object region is invalidated. I teaches the one image is corrected to an image in which [a region outside a region that includes the predetermined region] and that is externally tangent to the foreign object region is invalidated (See I, ¶ [0075], The invalid pixel region is generated by the invalid pixels, and a fine contour, such as the outer edge). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McNamer’s reference wherein the one image is corrected to an image in which [a region outside a region that includes the predetermined region] and that is externally tangent to the foreign object region is invalidated based on the method of I’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to detect the position of the object included in the image captured by the other camera as suggested by I at ¶ [0003]. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hodge and I with McNamer to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11. Regarding claim 12, which claim 8 is incorporated, McNamer teaches [wherein in a case where the foreign object region is detected outside the predetermined region,] the foreign object region is invalidated by replacing a pixel value of the foreign object region with a predetermined pixel value (See McNamer, ¶ [0040], the pixels in one image are replaced by the pixels on the other image (step 506)). However, McNamer fails to teach wherein in a case where the foreign object region is detected outside the predetermined region, [the foreign object region is invalidated by replacing a pixel value of the foreign object region with a predetermined pixel value.] Hodge teaches wherein in a case where the foreign object region is detected outside the predetermined region (See Hodge, Col 22 line 35-38, detected set of pixels may include pixels that correspond to at least part of the second image layer that are outside of the selection region) , [the foreign object region is invalidated by replacing a pixel value of the foreign object region with a predetermined pixel value.] Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McNamers’s reference wherein in a case where the foreign object region is detected outside the predetermined region, the one image is corrected to an image in which a region outside a region that includes the predetermined region based on the method of Hodge’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to allow editing of selected regions while avoiding the introduction of artifacts as suggested by Hodge at Col. 2, lines 1-3. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hodge and I with McNamer to obtain the invention as specified in claim 12. Regarding claim 13 , which claim 8 is incorporated, McNamer fails to teach wherein in a case where the foreign object region is detected outside the predetermined region, the foreign object region is invalidated by trimming the foreign object region. Hodge teaches wherein in a case where the foreign object region is detected outside the predetermined region (See Hodge, Col 22 line 35-38, detected set of pixels may include pixels that correspond to at least part of the second image layer that are outside of the selection region) , [the foreign object region is invalidated by trimming the foreign object region.] Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McNamers’s reference wherein in a case where the foreign object region is detected outside the predetermined region, the foreign object region is invalidated by trimming the foreign object region based on the method of Hodge’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to allow editing of selected regions while avoiding the introduction of artifacts as suggested by Hodge at Col 2 line 1-3. However, McNamer and Hodge fail to teach [wherein in a case where the foreign object region is detected outside the predetermined region], the foreign object region is invalidated by trimming the foreign object region. I teaches [wherein in a case where the foreign object region is detected outside the predetermined region] , the foreign object region is invalidated by trimming the foreign object region (See I, Fig. 14 and 15, ¶ [0100], gap present between the workpiece 61 and the workpiece 62 disappears in the distance image 93) . Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify McNamers’s reference wherein in a case where the foreign object region is detected outside the predetermined region, the foreign object region is invalidated by trimming the foreign object region based on the method of I’s reference. The suggestion/motivation would have been to detect the position of the object included in the image captured by the other camera as suggested by I at [0003]. Further, one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as described above by known method with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Hodge and I with McNamer to obtain the invention as specified in claim 13 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bae et al. (US 8050492 B2) discloses a method for generating and outputting stereoscopic images by detecting images with left and right cameras and rotating images accordingly for proper viewing. Chou et al. (US 20150215615 A1) discloses a method for calibrating image defection for a device with a first and second lens by calibrating the distance relation for each of the image sets. Ishiga (US 20150264333 A1) discloses a method of generating high-definition stereoscopic color images from a left and right captured image. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jasmin Marcelino Hernandez whose telephone number is (571) 270-0211. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-3pm EST. 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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. 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. /JASMIN MARCELINO HERNANDEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2676 /AMANDEEP SAINI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2662 Application/Control Number: 18/676,868 Page 2 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/676,868 Page 3 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/676,868 Page 5 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/676,868 Page 6 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/676,868 Page 7 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/676,868 Page 8 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/676,868 Page 9 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/676,868 Page 10 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/676,868 Page 11 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/676,868 Page 12 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/676,868 Page 13 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/676,868 Page 14 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/676,868 Page 15 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/676,868 Page 16 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/676,868 Page 17 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/676,868 Page 18 Art Unit: 2676 Application/Control Number: 18/676,868 Page 19 Art Unit: 2676
