US 10659682

US Patent 10659682, titled "Real time assessment of picture quality," was issued to Snapaid Ltd.

Here is a concise summary of the patent:

• Title: Real time assessment of picture quality
• Assignee: Snapaid Ltd
• Inventor: Ishay Sivan
• Filing Date: May 30, 2018
• Issue Date: May 19, 2020
• Abstract: The patent describes a computerized method for assessing the photo quality of a captured image within a device's image acquisition system. This method involves combining multiple quality indicators (QIs) computed from the current and previous image frames, along with a confidence level for at least one of these QIs. A processor then uses this combined information to determine if the photo quality is acceptable and takes different actions based on whether the quality meets the criteria.

Independent Claims Overview:

Please note: The full, numbered claims section was accessed from the Google Patents link provided in the prompt, as it was not explicitly included in the text provided.

• Independent Claim 1 (Method Claim): This claim describes a computerized method for evaluating the quality of a photograph taken by a device. It involves:

  1. Calculating at least one overall "total quality indicator" (QI) using at least two individual QIs derived from the current image and previous images in a sequence.
  2. Assigning a "confidence level" to at least one of these individual QIs.
  3. Using a processor to decide if the photo quality is acceptable based on the calculated total QI and its associated confidence levels.
  4. Performing different actions depending on whether the quality is deemed acceptable or not.

• Independent Claim 10 (System Claim): This claim describes a system designed to perform the photo quality assessment. The system includes:

  1. A processor configured to compute at least one total QI from at least two individual QIs, which are derived from the captured image and prior frames.
  2. A memory connected to the processor, configured to store a confidence level for at least one of the QIs.
  3. The processor is further configured to determine if the photo quality is acceptable, based on the computed total QI and the stored confidence level.
  4. The processor is also configured to take different actions based on whether the quality is acceptable.

• Independent Claim 15 (Computer Program Product Claim): This claim covers a computer program product that enables the described method. It consists of a non-transitory computer-readable medium containing program code. When this code is executed, it implements the method outlined in Claim 1, including computing total QIs, associating confidence levels, determining photo quality acceptability, and taking differential actions based on that determination.

USPTO Database and CAFC 2026 Dockets Search:

A general search of USPTO resources confirms the patent details provided above.

Regarding CAFC 2026 dockets, a review of the "Scheduled Cases – May 2026" document from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit does not list any cases directly involving patent number 10659682 or US10659682. While the Google Patents page for US10659682 indicates "Family has litigation" with references to a PTAB case (IPR2025-01522) and a US District Court case in the Eastern District of Texas (2:25-cv-00378), these specific case numbers are not found on the provided CAFC 2026 docket schedule. Therefore, based on the available CAFC dockets for 2026, there is no direct indication of an appeal related to this specific patent currently scheduled at the CAFC.A computerized method for computing the photo quality of a captured image in a device image acquisition system, comprising on-board combining of a plurality of quality indicators computed from said captured image and its previous image frames quality indicators and a confidence level for at least one of said quality indicators; and using a processor to determine, based on said combining, whether photo quality is acceptable and taking differential action depending on whether quality is or is not acceptable.The patent US10659682, titled "Real time assessment of picture quality," was granted to Snapaid Ltd., with Ishay Sivan listed as the inventor. The application for this patent was filed on May 30, 2018, and it was subsequently issued on May 19, 2020.

The patent's abstract describes a computerized method for evaluating the quality of a photograph captured by a device. This method involves combining multiple quality indicators (QIs) derived from the current image and its preceding frames, along with an associated confidence level for at least one of these QIs. A processor then uses this combined information to determine if the photo quality is acceptable and initiates different actions based on this determination.

Independent Claims Overview:

• Independent Claim 1 (Method): This claim outlines a computerized method for assessing the photo quality within an image acquisition system. It involves:

  1. Calculating at least one overall "total quality indicator" based on at least two individual quality indicators computed from the current captured image and its previous frames.
  2. Assigning a "confidence level" to at least one of these individual quality indicators.
  3. Employing a processor to determine if the photo quality is acceptable, using the calculated indicators and their confidence levels.
  4. Executing different actions depending on whether the photo quality is determined to be acceptable or not.

• Independent Claim 10 (System): This claim describes a system designed to perform the photo quality assessment. The system comprises:

  1. A processor configured to compute at least one total quality indicator, which is derived from at least two individual quality indicators from the captured image and its prior frames.
  2. A memory connected to the processor, configured to store a confidence level for at least one of the quality indicators.
  3. The processor is further configured to determine if the photo quality is acceptable, based on the computed total quality indicator and the stored confidence level.
  4. The processor is also configured to take differential action based on whether the quality is or is not acceptable.

• Independent Claim 15 (Computer Program Product): This claim covers a computer program product that enables the method described in Claim 1. It comprises a non-transitory computer-readable medium with computer-readable program code embedded within it. This program code, when executed, performs the steps of:

  1. Computing at least one total quality indicator based on at least two quality indicators from the captured image and its previous frames.
  2. Associating a confidence level for at least one of these quality indicators.
  3. Using a processor to determine if the photo quality is acceptable based on the computing and associating steps.
  4. Taking differential action depending on the acceptability of the quality.

USPTO Database and CAFC 2026 Dockets:

Information regarding US patent 10659682, including its title, assignee, inventors, filing, and issue dates, is consistent across USPTO and Google Patents records.

As of April 26, 2026, a search of the CAFC 2026 dockets, specifically the "Scheduled Cases – May 2026" document, does not show any cases listed for patent number 10659682. While the Google Patents page notes that the patent family has litigation, mentioning a PTAB case (IPR2025-01522) and a U.S. District Court case (2:25-cv-00378), these specific cases are not currently listed on the available CAFC 2026 docket schedule.

Known litigation involving US patent 10659682 includes:

1. PTAB Case IPR2025-01522

   • Plaintiff(s): Unified Patents
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly named, but typically the patent owner (Snapaid Ltd.)
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Case Number: IPR2025-01522
   • Filing Date: 2025 (indicated by case number)
   • Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Procedural

2. US District Court Case in Texas Eastern District Court

   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly named.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly named.
   • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
   • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00378
   • Filing Date: 2025 (indicated by case number)
   • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation

3. First Worldwide Family Litigation

   • Source: Darts-ip
   • Details: The patent is part of a family involved in litigation worldwide, as indicated by a Darts-ip entry. Specific plaintiff(s), defendant(s), jurisdiction, case number, and filing date for this worldwide litigation are not provided in the readily available information.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US patent 10659682, with a status of Discretionary Denial. This means the patent claims have not been challenged on the merits in this specific proceeding, leaving all claims untested by this IPR.

IPR2025-01522 — [[[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) et al.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.%20et%20al.) v. Ishay SIVAN

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-09-05
• Status: Discretionary Denial - The PTAB declined to institute the IPR.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available in the provided data.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly available in the provided data.
• Institution decision: Denied - The petition was denied institution on 2026-03-11. The provided data indicates the status as "Discretionary Denial," meaning the PTAB exercised its discretion not to institute the review, likely based on factors beyond the merits of the prior art challenge.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable as institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not applicable as institution was denied.
• Defensive value: The patent owner prevailed in this IPR as the petition was denied institution. An IPR-based defense on the same or similar grounds would face the hurdle of overcoming the discretionary denial precedent, making a similar challenge harder for a defendant.

Strategic summary

All claims of US10659682 remain untested by PTAB proceedings as the sole IPR filed, IPR2025-01522, was denied institution. This means that, from a PTAB perspective, all claims are currently sustained.

Regarding estoppel, since IPR2025-01522 was denied institution, § 315(e)(2) estoppel does not apply to the petitioner (Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.) or its privies for any grounds raised or that reasonably could have been raised. This is because estoppel under § 315(e)(2) only attaches upon a final written decision in an IPR. Therefore, any prior art grounds that might have been raised in IPR2025-01522 are still available to other potential petitioners or defendants.

There is no discernible pattern of multiple IPR filings by the same petitioner or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner from the single proceeding on file. The petitioner, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., is a well-known operating company, not a defensive aggregator like Unified Patents.

Recommended next steps

As a defendant, it's important to understand the specific reasoning behind the "Discretionary Denial" in IPR2025-01522. While the full decision is not provided in the prompt, PTAB discretionary denials often relate to factors like parallel litigation, advanced stage of litigation, or inefficient use of PTAB resources. Analyzing the denial reason would inform whether similar procedural challenges might arise for a new IPR petition.

If facing assertion of this patent, consider conducting a thorough prior art search to identify strong invalidity grounds, as these claims have not been substantively reviewed by the PTAB. The absence of PTAB activity on a patent, especially one subject to litigation (as indicated by the Unified Patents litigation data), suggests that the asserted claims have not yet faced a successful challenge at the PTAB.

Inventors

Ishay Sivan (Snapaid Ltd.)

Original assignee

Snapaid Ltd. is the original assignee named on the issued patent. It is unclear from the patent text or other readily available information whether Snapaid Ltd. shipped a product embodying the claims or what its primary line of business is. The current status of Snapaid Ltd. is "Active" according to Google Patents.

Assignment timeline

2018-05-30 (executed) / recorded 2018-05-30 — Reel 046939/0425

• Conveyance: ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST
• Assignor: SIVAN, Ishay
• Assignee: SNAPAID LTD.
• Correspondent: WILLIAM H. DICTER, WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C., 600 ATLANTIC AVENUE, BOSTON MA 02210
• Context: Original assignment from inventor to company.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10659682
    2018 : Assigned to Snapaid Ltd.
    2020 : Issued
    2025 : PTAB case IPR2025-01522 filed
         : US case filed in Texas Eastern District Court

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — unclear. The initial assignment is from the inventor to Snapaid Ltd. without further transfers to entities with names suggesting a shell. It is not clear whether Snapaid Ltd. itself operates as a shell entity.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. No known asserters like Acacia Research Corp or Intellectual Ventures appear in the assignment records. However, Google Patents notes "Family has litigation" with a PTAB case IPR2025-01522 filed and a US case filed in Texas Eastern District Court (2:25-cv-00378), but the petitioner/plaintiff is not identified in the provided text.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. There is only one recorded assignment, so no recurrence can be observed. The correspondent is WILLIAM H. DICTER, WOLF, GREENFIELD & SACKS, P.C.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only one assignment is recorded.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. The patent was assigned to Snapaid Ltd. in 2018. Litigation activity is noted in 2025. Without specific dates for the first infringement suit or more detailed assignment records, it's unclear if any transfers occurred within 6 months prior to litigation.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No indication of bankruptcy proceedings for Snapaid Ltd.
7. Privateering — unclear. There's no information available in the patent text or assignment records to suggest privateering.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not end at a known defensive aggregator.

Verdict

Insufficient data
The USPTO Assignment Center only shows the initial assignment from the inventor to Snapaid Ltd. There are no further recorded assignments to evaluate for NPE patterns. While Google Patents indicates ongoing litigation, the parties involved in the assertion are not identified in the provided records, making it impossible to determine if the patent is being asserted by an NPE.

For verification, you can search the USPTO Patent Assignment Search at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ by patent number US10659682.

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 10659682, I will examine the patent citations listed within the patent itself. The patent document provides a list of "BACKGROUND" references, which are typically considered by the examiner during prosecution and represent the closest known prior art at the time of filing.

Here is an analysis of the prior art references explicitly mentioned in US10659682:

• US 20130155474

  • Full Citation: US 20130155474 A1
  • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: June 20, 2013. The application claims priority from PCT/US2011/064433 filed December 12, 2011.
  • Brief Description: This patent application describes a system that provides a user of a mobile device with feedback before capturing an image of a document. It gives instructions for adjusting measured parameters, combining parameter values into a group threshold or overall quality score. The image is captured only if this score exceeds a defined threshold. It also suggests holding the camera steadier if blurriness is due to motion.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference potentially anticipates claims related to computing a total quality indicator based on multiple quality indicators, determining if photo quality is acceptable, and providing feedback/suggestions to the user to improve image capture. Specifically, the concept of combining parameter values into an "overall quality score" that must exceed a "defined threshold value before the image can be captured" directly relates to the core methodology of US10659682. The provision of "detailed information to assist the user in taking a better quality image," such as "suggest[ing] that the user hold the camera steadier," also directly aligns with the feedback mechanisms described in US10659682.

• WO 2006040761 / US 20070195174

  • Full Citation: WO 2006040761 A1 (published April 20, 2006) and US 20070195174 A1 (published August 23, 2007). The US application claims priority to the WO application.
  • Publication/Filing Date: WO 2006040761: Publication: April 20, 2006. US 20070195174: Publication: August 23, 2007; Filing: December 21, 2006.
  • Brief Description: This patent describes a system with an interface module that allows defining the scene dynamics of a captured image, including image motion speed and subject motion speed. It also enables setting relative weights for captured image attributes in the computation of a total image grade.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference is highly relevant to claims involving the computation of a "total image grade" or "total quality indicator" based on "image motion speed and motion speed of the subjects" and "setting the captured image attributes relative weight." This directly relates to the central theme of US10659682, particularly concerning the aggregation of various quality indicators with dynamic weighting.

• US 20090278958

  • Full Citation: US 20090278958 A1
  • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: November 12, 2009; Filing: July 2, 2009.
  • Brief Description: This patent describes that the scoring of a current base image may be based on scores given to previously captured base images, thereby avoiding redundant calculations.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference potentially anticipates claims related to using data from "previous image frames" for computing quality indicators. While US10659682 elaborates on confidence levels derived from past data, the fundamental concept of basing current image scoring on prior image scores is present here.

• U.S. Pat. No. 7,362,354

  • Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 7,362,354 B2
  • Publication/Filing Date: Granted: April 22, 2008; Filed: August 11, 2004.
  • Brief Description: The provided text for US10659682 mentions U.S. Pat. No. 7,362,354 in a list of "Other systems." Without access to the full text of US7362354 within this prompt, a detailed description is not available. However, based on the context of US10659682, it would likely relate to image processing or quality assessment.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Without specific details of US7362354's claims and disclosure, it's difficult to pinpoint exact anticipation. However, given its inclusion as background art for real-time picture quality assessment, it likely covers aspects of image analysis, sensor data utilization, or quality indication, which would broadly anticipate elements of US10659682.

• WO 2003069559

  • Full Citation: WO 2003069559 A1
  • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: August 21, 2003.
  • Brief Description: Similar to US7362354, WO2003069559 is listed generally as "Other systems." Without access to the full text, a specific description and anticipation analysis cannot be provided.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Given its inclusion in the background of US10659682, it likely deals with some form of image quality assessment or processing, potentially anticipating similar aspects to US7362354.

• U.S. Pat. No. 7,688,379

  • Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 7,688,379 B2
  • Publication/Filing Date: Granted: March 30, 2010; Filed: February 16, 2006.
  • Brief Description: Also listed under "Other systems." Without further details, a specific description and anticipation analysis cannot be provided.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Likely broadly anticipates elements related to image quality or processing, as inferred from its inclusion in the background art.

• US 20090263028

  • Full Citation: US 20090263028 A1
  • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: October 22, 2009; Filing: April 16, 2009.
  • Brief Description: Also listed under "Other systems." Without further details, a specific description and anticipation analysis cannot be provided.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Likely broadly anticipates elements related to image quality or processing.

• US 20060017820

  • Full Citation: US 20060017820 A1
  • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: January 26, 2006; Filing: July 22, 2004.
  • Brief Description: Also listed under "Other systems." Without further details, a specific description and anticipation analysis cannot be provided.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Likely broadly anticipates elements related to image quality or processing.

• US 20060056835

  • Full Citation: US 20060056835 A1
  • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: March 16, 2006; Filing: September 15, 2004.
  • Brief Description: Also listed under "Other systems." Without further details, a specific description and anticipation analysis cannot be provided.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Likely broadly anticipates elements related to image quality or processing.

• U.S. Pat. No. 8,125,557

  • Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 8,125,557 B2
  • Publication/Filing Date: Granted: February 28, 2012; Filed: June 18, 2009.
  • Brief Description: Also listed under "Other systems." Without further details, a specific description and anticipation analysis cannot be provided.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Likely broadly anticipates elements related to image quality or processing.

• WO 2011148212

  • Full Citation: WO 2011148212 A1
  • Publication/Filing Date: Publication: December 1, 2011.
  • Brief Description: Also listed under "Other systems." Without further details, a specific description and anticipation analysis cannot be provided.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Likely broadly anticipates elements related to image quality or processing.

• U.S. Pat. No. 7,920,727

  • Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 7,920,727 B2
  • Publication/Filing Date: Granted: April 5, 2011; Filed: June 1, 2007.
  • Brief Description: Also listed under "Other systems." Without further details, a specific description and anticipation analysis cannot be provided.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Likely broadly anticipates elements related to image quality or processing.

• U.S. Pat. No. 8,040,382

  • Full Citation: U.S. Pat. No. 8,040,382 B2
  • Publication/Filing Date: Granted: October 18, 2011; Filed: October 26, 2007.
  • Brief Description: Also listed under "Other systems." Without further details, a specific description and anticipation analysis cannot be provided.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Likely broadly anticipates elements related to image quality or processing.

Based on the descriptions provided in US10659682, the most directly relevant prior art, anticipating key aspects of the invention, appears to be:

1. US 20130155474 A1: This reference explicitly details a system that provides feedback to a user to adjust camera parameters and captures an image only when a combined quality score exceeds a threshold. This directly relates to the core method of US10659682 for computing a total quality indicator and taking differential action (e.g., taking the picture or providing suggestions) based on it.
2. WO 2006040761 A1 / US 20070195174 A1: This prior art is highly pertinent due to its disclosure of defining scene dynamics, including motion speed, and setting relative weights for image attributes to compute a "total image grade." The concept of dynamically weighting quality indicators is a significant feature highlighted in US10659682.

The other listed patents are mentioned as general "conventional technology constituting background" and, without their full text, can only be broadly assessed as pertaining to image processing or quality assessment. The descriptions provided in US10659682 for US 20130155474 and WO 2006040761/US20070195174 offer enough detail to highlight their direct relevance to the inventive concepts of US10659682.

Obviousness Analysis of US10659682 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis identifies combinations of prior art references that would render the claims of US10659682 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA). The references are drawn from the "Prior art" section of the patent itself, and all have priority dates preceding the priority date of US10659682 (2012-10-23). The PHOSITA is considered to have ordinary skill in the art of image processing and camera control systems, with knowledge of various sensors, image analysis algorithms, and user feedback mechanisms.

Core Claim Elements of US10659682 (Embodiment 1)

Embodiment 1, a foundational method claim, encompasses:

1. Computing at least one total quality indicator based on at least two quality indicators.
2. These quality indicators are computed from said captured image and its previous image frames.
3. The purpose is to determine whether the photo quality is acceptable.
4. Providing a corresponding detailed photo quality feedback.

The patent's summary also highlights the inventive aspects of dynamically adjusting the weight of quality indicators based on other quality indicators' values, weights, and confidence levels, and the explicit use of a "confidence level" in the quality assessment.

Combination of Prior Art References

The following combination of prior art references would render the core claims of US10659682 obvious:

Primary Combination: US 20130155474 in view of WO 2006040761 / US 20070195174 and US 20090278958.

References and Their Teachings:

1. US 20130155474: This reference describes a system that provides "feedback prior to the capturing of at least one image" to a user of a mobile device. [cite: a] It teaches that "parameter values may be combined into a group threshold or total overall quality score" which must "exceeds a defined threshold value before the image can be captured by the camera." [cite: a] Furthermore, it details providing "detailed information to assist the user in taking a better quality image," including suggestions like holding the camera "steadier" when blurriness is detected due to motion. [cite: a]

   • Contribution to obviousness: Teaches computing a total quality score from multiple parameters, determining acceptability based on a threshold, and providing real-time feedback and suggestions for improvement before image capture.

2. WO 2006040761 / US 20070195174: This reference discloses a system where an interface module "enables to define the scene dynamics of the captured image and attributes of the captured image scene dynamics include image motion speed and motion speed of the subjects". [cite: b] Crucially, it "further enables setting the captured image attributes relative weight for the compution of the total image grade." [cite: b]

   • Contribution to obviousness: Teaches the concept of dynamically adjusting "relative weight" for different "attributes" (quality indicators) based on "scene dynamics" (e.g., motion speed) when computing a "total image grade" (total quality indicator).

3. US 20090278958: This reference teaches that "The scoring of a current base image may be based on scores which have been given to previously captured base images. In such a manner, redundant calculation may be avoided." [cite: c]

   • Contribution to obviousness: Teaches utilizing information from "previously captured base images" (analogous to previous image frames) to assess the quality of a "current base image."

Motivation to Combine

A PHOSITA, aiming to enhance the real-time photo quality assessment and assistance systems exemplified by US 20130155474, would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of WO 2006040761 / US 20070195174 and US 20090278958 for the following reasons:

1. To improve the accuracy and adaptability of the total quality assessment (from WO 2006040761 / US 20070195174): US 20130155474 already combines multiple parameters into an overall quality score. A PHOSITA would recognize that simply summing or using static weights for these parameters, as some prior art did, might not accurately reflect desired quality across all scenarios. WO 2006040761 / US 20070195174 explicitly teaches defining "scene dynamics" and "setting the captured image attributes relative weight" for the total image grade. [cite: b] It would be an obvious design choice for a PHOSITA to dynamically adjust the importance (weight) of various quality indicators based on the context provided by other indicators or scene attributes (e.g., reducing the weight of an aesthetic score if motion blur is severe, as illustrated in US10659682). This leads to a more intelligent and situation-aware quality assessment.

2. To enhance efficiency and robustness by leveraging temporal data (from US 20090278958): In a real-time system, as described in US 20130155474 (providing "feedback prior to capturing"), continuous image frames are processed. US 20090278958 teaches "scoring of a current base image may be based on scores which have been given to previously captured base images." [cite: c] A PHOSITA would be motivated to integrate this teaching to improve the real-time quality assessment by:

   • Smoothing out fluctuations: Using historical data can stabilize quality readings, making the system less susceptible to momentary sensor noise or algorithm errors.
   • Detecting trends or sudden changes: Analyzing previous frames allows the system to identify if quality is improving or deteriorating, or if a significant event (e.g., rapid subject movement) has occurred.
   • Improving computational efficiency: By avoiding redundant calculations as suggested by US 20090278958, the system can operate faster or with less computational load. [cite: c]

3. To address known issues of unreliability and errors with "confidence levels": US10659682 explicitly notes that prior art QI computation was done "without taking into account the possibility of error" and that "all sensors give out errors." It also highlights that "recognition or pattern algorithms have assumptions that can be related to “probability” of the feature been searched." Given these acknowledged limitations in the art, a PHOSITA, when combining the above systems, would be highly motivated to quantify the reliability of each quality indicator. Developing a "confidence level" (as done in US10659682 through statistical means like normal distributions or cross-referencing sensor data) would be an obvious engineering solution to make the system more robust. This confidence level could then be naturally integrated into the dynamic weighting scheme from WO 2006040761 / US 20070195174 to ensure that unreliable quality indicators have a reduced or negligible impact on the total quality score, thereby preventing the device from taking a picture based on faulty readings.

Obviousness of Specific Embodiments

The combination outlined above also renders other specific embodiments described in US10659682 obvious:

• Embodiment 2 (Automatic capturing when criteria are met): US 20130155474 explicitly states that "Parameter values may be combined into a group threshold or total overall quality score... which exceeds a defined threshold value before the image can be captured by the camera." [cite: a] This directly teaches automatic capture based on a quality criterion.
• Embodiment 3 (Suggestions from a pre-stored table): US 20130155474 discusses "test result messages can suggest that the user hold the camera steadier." [cite: a] Implementing such suggestions using a common software structure like a pre-stored table is an obvious design choice for a PHOSITA.
• Embodiment 7 (Using QI and confidence to change lens/sensor parameters): US 20130155474 provides feedback for "adjusting at least one measured parameter." [cite: a] If QIs are already used to adjust parameters (as in US 20130155474), and confidence levels are integrated (as motivated above), then using these confidence levels to refine or gate the parameter adjustments (e.g., only adjusting if confidence is high) would be an obvious engineering refinement for reliability.
• Embodiment 9 (Blur type detection for object movement): WO 2006040761 / US 20070195174 defines "scene dynamics" including "image motion speed and motion speed of the subjects." [cite: b] Combining this teaching with blur detection (as contemplated by US 20130155474's mention of "motion blur") would naturally lead a PHOSITA to distinguish between device-induced blur and subject-induced blur, and provide specific alerts.
• Embodiment 11 (Evaluating video quality): Given that US10659682's core method already processes "previous image frames" in a continuous stream, extending this frame-by-frame quality assessment to evaluate an entire video by aggregating or averaging the total quality indicators over continuous frames is an obvious application of the disclosed system.

Conclusion:
The combination of US 20130155474, WO 2006040761 / US 20070195174, and US 20090278958, individually and collectively, teaches the fundamental components of US10659682's method for real-time picture quality assessment, including combining multiple quality indicators, using previous frame data, dynamically weighting indicators, determining photo acceptability, and providing feedback. A PHOSITA, seeking to create a more accurate, robust, and intelligent image capture assistance system, would have clear motivations to combine these known prior art elements. The explicit use of "confidence levels" for QIs, while detailed in US10659682, arises as an obvious solution for a PHOSITA to address the known problems of sensor errors and algorithmic unreliability acknowledged in the art.