US 11252325

US Patent 11252325, titled "Real time assessment of picture quality," was issued to Snapaid Ltd. on February 15, 2022, from an application filed on March 2, 2021. The inventor is Ishay Sivan.

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) derived 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 it is acceptable or not.

Independent Claims Overview:

• Claim 1: This claim describes a computerized method for evaluating the quality of a captured photo within an image acquisition system. The method involves calculating at least one total quality indicator using at least two individual quality indicators. These individual quality indicators are derived from the current captured image and its prior frames. The method uses this total quality indicator to decide if the photo quality is acceptable and provides detailed feedback about the photo's quality.
• Claim 14: This claim is directed to a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium. This medium stores computer-readable program code that, when executed, performs the method of computing photo quality as described in Claim 1.
• Claim 15: This claim describes a system for computing photo quality. The system includes a processor configured to perform the steps of: computing at least one total quality indicator based on at least two quality indicators (which are derived from the current and previous image frames), determining if the photo quality is acceptable using this total quality indicator, and providing detailed photo quality feedback.

Litigation Status:
The patent family of US11252325 has litigation associated with it. A PTAB case (IPR2025-01521) was filed, though it was "Not Instituted - Procedural." Additionally, a US case was filed in the Texas Eastern District Court (case 2:25-cv-00378), and worldwide family litigation has been filed.

There were no specific CAFC 2026 dockets found for patent number 11252325 in the search results.US Patent 11252325, titled "Real time assessment of picture quality," was issued on February 15, 2022. The current assignee is Snapaid Ltd., and the inventor is Ishay Sivan. The application was filed on March 2, 2021.

Abstract:
The patent describes a computerized method for real-time photo quality assessment in a device's image acquisition system. It involves combining multiple quality indicators (QIs) from the current and previous image frames, along with a confidence level for at least one QI. A processor then uses this combined data to determine if the photo quality is acceptable and takes different actions based on this assessment.

Independent Claims Overview:

• Claim 1: This claim outlines a computerized method for determining the photo quality of a captured image. The method involves computing at least one "total quality indicator" by combining at least two individual "quality indicators." These individual quality indicators are derived from the current captured image and its previously captured frames, and are used to assess if the overall photo quality is acceptable. Based on this assessment, the method provides detailed feedback about the photo's quality.
• Claim 14: This claim covers a computer program product. It specifies that the product includes a non-transitory computer-usable or -readable medium. This medium has computer-readable program code embedded within it, which is designed to execute and implement any of the methods described in the patent, specifically referring back to the functionalities of Claim 1.
• Claim 15: This claim describes a system for real-time photo quality assessment. The system comprises a processor that is configured to: 1) calculate at least one total quality indicator from multiple individual quality indicators (derived from current and prior image frames), 2) use this total quality indicator to decide whether the photo quality is acceptable, and 3) provide detailed feedback regarding the photo quality.

Litigation Status:
The patent family of US11252325 is involved in litigation. A PTAB case, IPR2025-01521, was filed, but it was "Not Instituted - Procedural." Additionally, a US case was filed in the Texas Eastern District Court (case 2:25-cv-00378). There is also mention of the first worldwide family litigation being filed. No specific CAFC 2026 dockets for patent 11252325 were found in the performed search.

As a patent attorney, I have identified the following litigation involving US Patent 11252325:

1. Inter Partes Review (IPR) Case:

• Case Number: IPR2025-01521
• Plaintiff(s): Unified Patents (acting as petitioner for IPRs)
• Defendant(s): Snapaid Ltd (Patent Owner)
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
• Filing Date: The case was filed in 2025, specifically, IPR2025-01521 was listed in a January 9, 2026, PTAB decision.
• Outcome/Current Status: Institution of inter partes review was denied. The status is listed as "Not Instituted - Procedural."

2. District Court Litigation:

• Case Number: 2:25-cv-00378
• Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
• Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided snippet.
• Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
• Filing Date: 2025 (specific day and month not provided).
• Outcome/Current Status: The status is "litigation" and "Critical". The Eastern District of Texas is known for hearing a significant number of patent cases.

The search results indicate that IPR2025-01521 was indeed subject to a discretionary denial. This denial was influenced by the PTAB's Fintiv factors, considering parallel district court litigation and the PTAB's willingness to deny institution when the district court is likely to resolve validity issues first. Specifically, Snapaid Ltd. initiated a civil action in the Eastern District of Texas (Case No. 2:25-cv-00378), asserting eight closely related U.S. patents, including US11252325. The PTAB's decision was influenced by the existence of these multiple parallel district court litigations.

The denial of institution in IPR2025-01521 was a "procedural" denial, not a decision on the merits of patentability. This means no claims were invalidated or sustained by the PTAB in this proceeding.

The Director of the USPTO has also taken a more direct role in institution decisions, particularly for discretionary denials, since October 2025, which might be relevant context for this case. The practice changed in early 2025, with an interim bifurcated process where discretionary factors were resolved first, before merits review.

For IPR2025-01521, a Patent Owner's Request for Discretionary Denial was filed by Snapaid, Ltd. This request argued against institution, citing Samsung's decision to pursue IPRs across a single inventive family while district court litigation was proceeding, and highlighted that the Eastern District of Texas would resolve infringement, validity, and damages for all eight patents in April 2027. Samsung had offered a "Sotera+" stipulation, but the PTAB's recent policy changes have made Sotera stipulations less dispositive in preventing discretionary denials.

The status "Discretionary Denial" means the PTAB, exercising its discretion, decided not to institute the IPR. It was not a decision on the patentability of the claims. Therefore, there is no Final Written Decision.

I need to extract the judge panel from a specific decision document for IPR2025-01521, but the search results do not provide the specific institution decision document or panel members by name for IPR2025-01521 itself. However, it's mentioned that Director Squires started making institution determinations after October 17, 2025, in consultation with at least three PTAB judges. The denial for IPR2025-01521 was in March 2026, so it would fall under the Director's new process.

Let's re-evaluate the search results to see if there's any mention of claims challenged or grounds for IPR2025-01521. Result (Patent Owner's Request for Discretionary Denial for IPR2025-01520) mentions "The parallel IPR proceedings are: IPR2025-01519, IPR2025-01521, and IPR2025-01522." and "As the related proceedings involve a single family of U.S. Patents and the reasons for discretionary denial are largely identical, this brief is similar to those filed in the related proceedings." This implies that the petitions likely challenged claims of US11252325 on similar grounds (e.g., §§ 102/103 with prior art patents or printed publications), though specific claims and art are not detailed for IPR2025-01521. For IPR2025-01522, Samsung challenged claims 1-20 of US10659682 (a different patent but in the same family) on §§ 102 or 103 grounds. It is reasonable to infer similar types of challenges for US11252325 in IPR2025-01521.

Since the IPR was denied institution, there will be no judge panel for the trial itself. The decision to deny institution would have been made by the Director, possibly in consultation with PTAB judges.

I will proceed with the available information and state explicitly where specific details are not found in the search results.

Refined Plan:

1. Proceedings overview: Based on one IPR, status "Discretionary Denial."

2. IPR2025-01521 — Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. et al. v. Snapaid Ltd.

   • Type: Inter Partes Review
   • Filed: 2025-09-05
   • Status: Discretionary Denial – The PTAB declined to institute the IPR.
   • Judge panel: The institution decision for IPRs after October 20, 2025, is made by the Director of the USPTO, possibly in consultation with PTAB judges. Specific panel names for the discretionary denial are not publicly available in the search results.
   • Petition grounds: Specific claims and prior art are not explicitly stated in the search results for IPR2025-01521, but it is part of a family of related IPRs challenging patents from Snapaid Ltd., likely on § 102 and/or § 103 grounds.
   • Institution decision: Denied on 2026-03-11 due to discretionary factors, primarily influenced by the ongoing parallel district court litigation (SnapAid, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:25-cv-00378 in E.D. Tex.) and the application of Fintiv factors. The PTAB emphasized that the district court was likely to resolve validity issues first.
   • Final Written Decision: Not applicable; institution was denied.
   • Settlement / termination: Not applicable; institution was denied.
   • Appeal: Not applicable; institution was denied.
   • Defensive value: The patent's claims remain untested by this specific IPR. The denial was procedural, not on the merits, and does not create statutory estoppel against the petitioner for the grounds raised in this IPR.

3. Strategic summary: All claims of US11252325 are still untested by PTAB proceedings. No estoppel for Samsung from this IPR. This is the only PTAB activity found.

4. Recommended next steps: Since the IPR was denied institution, the patent claims are still active and no FWD link is relevant. The next steps should reflect that the patent is still strong against this specific challenge.## Proceedings overview

A single AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US patent 11252325. This Inter Partes Review (IPR) was denied institution on procedural grounds, meaning no claims were invalidated or sustained by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This outcome means the patent claims remain unchallenged by this particular IPR.

IPR2025-01521 — Samsung Electronic Co., Ltd. et al. v. Snapaid Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-09-05
• Status: Discretionary Denial — The PTAB declined to institute the IPR.
• Judge panel: The institution decision for IPRs after October 20, 2025, is made by the Director of the USPTO, potentially in consultation with PTAB judges. Specific panel names for this discretionary denial are not publicly available in the provided search results.
• Petition grounds: Specific claims and prior art challenged in IPR2025-01521 are not explicitly detailed in the provided search results. However, it was part of a group of parallel IPR proceedings filed by Samsung against patents in a family owned by Snapaid Ltd., suggesting challenges likely based on 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and/or 103 using prior art patents or printed publications.
• Institution decision: Denied on 2026-03-11 due to discretionary factors. The PTAB's decision was heavily influenced by the existence of multiple parallel district court litigations, including SnapAid, Ltd. v. [Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.%20et%20al.) (Case No. 2:25-cv-00378 in the Eastern District of Texas), which involved US11252325 and several other related patents. The PTAB's reasoning, guided by Fintiv factors, was that the district court was likely to resolve the validity issues first, weighing against institution.
• Final Written Decision: Not applicable; institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable; institution was denied.
• Appeal: Not applicable; institution was denied.
• Defensive value: This proceeding did not result in any claims of US11252325 being invalidated. The denial was procedural and not a judgment on the merits of patentability. Therefore, the claims of US11252325 remain untested by this IPR, and no statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) applies to the petitioner, Samsung, for the grounds raised in this petition.

Strategic summary

All claims of US11252325 remain untested by PTAB proceedings, as the single IPR filed (IPR2025-01521) was denied institution. The denial was based on the PTAB's discretionary authority, primarily influenced by ongoing parallel district court litigation, rather than on the merits of the patentability challenge. This means the patent owner (Snapaid Ltd.) successfully fended off this IPR challenge.

Regarding estoppel, since IPR2025-01521 was denied institution, no statutory estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) has been created against Samsung (the petitioner) for the grounds it raised or reasonably could have raised. Samsung explicitly reserved the right to assert any grounds of invalidity in the parallel district court litigation if the PTAB declined to institute the IPR. Therefore, all prior-art grounds remain potentially available to Samsung or other defendants in district court litigation.

This is the only PTAB activity identified for US11252325, with Samsung as the petitioner. The patent owner, Snapaid Ltd., actively sought discretionary denial, arguing against fragmented attacks on related patents.

Recommended next steps

• For a defendant facing assertion of US11252325, the outcome of IPR2025-01521 means that the patent's claims have not been narrowed or cancelled by the PTAB. Any infringement theory built on these claims remains viable from a PTAB perspective.
• Given the discretionary denial based on parallel district court litigation, a defendant should carefully review the arguments and prior art presented in Samsung's IPR petition, as these grounds may still be asserted in the district court case (Case No. 2:25-cv-00378, E.D. Tex.).
• It is advisable to obtain and review the specific "Order Denying Institution" for IPR2025-01521 to understand the exact reasoning of the Director's discretionary denial, even if it is a summary notice. Such documents are typically available on the USPTO PTAB E2E system.
• Consider the implications of the PTAB's current stance on discretionary denials (e.g., Fintiv factors and the Director's increased involvement) when evaluating future PTAB challenges.

I'll research the assignment records and ownership chain for US 11252325.

Let me gather more detail on the assignment records, the correspondent, and the Snapaid entity.

Let me try to pin down the specific reel/frame and any additional assignments.

Ownership & Assignment Analysis — US 11252325

Important scope note: The searches I was able to run surfaced the fact and date of the recorded assignment on the Google Patents legal-events feed and the patent's own front-page correspondence data, but they did not surface the Assignment Center reel/frame number or the execution-date field. I flag every place below where a specific reel/frame is missing rather than guessing one. The reader should verify the reel/frame directly at the USPTO Assignment Center and assignment.uspto.gov by searching patent number 11252325.

Inventors

Pattern note: There is one named inventor, so the "all inventors depart within 12 months" fire-sale tell is not applicable. The unusual feature here is the opposite: the sole inventor is the assignee's founder/CEO and never left. There was no inventor-to-company divergence that would signal a distress transfer.

Original assignee

SNAPAID LTD. — an Israeli private company. Address of record evolved: filed/issued as Tel Aviv (Dissentchik 12 St., 6935635 Tel Aviv); by the later continuation US 12,250,452 and the 2025 litigation it is listed at Ness Ziona, Israel. This is a location change, not (per available records) a recorded change-of-name assignment.

• Line of business: mobile/smartphone imaging software — described in its own pleadings and PTAB exhibits as an "early-stage innovator" that developed "proprietary image improvement algorithms" and a real-time picture-quality assessment feature, demonstrated on a SnapAid Android app (user manual attached to a 2015 email; PTAB Ex. 2011–2012).
• Product embodying the claims: Historically yes, partially — a SnapAid Android camera/photo-quality app existed as of 2015. Whether a shipping product exists today is not confirmed by any source retrieved. No current commercial product, App Store listing, or revenue channel was surfaced.
• Current status: Operating/asserting. Not publicly traded — no SEC 10-K/8-K filings exist (private Israeli company), so no SEC privateering/fire-sale trail is available. No bankruptcy, dissolution, or acquisition record was found. Its principal monetization activity as of 2025 is the assertion campaign against Samsung.

Assignment timeline

Only one post-original assignment record is visible in the retrieved legal-events data, and it is the original inventors'-interest assignment to the founder's own company. No post-issuance transfers appear.

• Executed 2021-03-02 (date shown is the recording/assignment event date) / recorded 2021-03-02 — Reel/Frame: NOT VERIFIED (not surfaced in available sources)
  • Conveyance: Assignment — "ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)"
  • Assignor: SIVAN, Ishay (sole inventor)
  • Assignee: SNAPAID LTD.
  • Correspondent: The recorded correspondent of record for the family is May Patents Ltd., c/o Dorit Shem-Tov, P.O.B. 7230, Ramat-Gan 5217102, Israel (patent front-page correspondence address). The same agent appears as "BINDER (SHEM-TOV), Dorit; 11 Shu'alei Shimshon St., P.O.B. 7230, 5217102 Ramat-Gan (IL)" on SnapAid's WO 2015/162605. → Flag: this correspondent recurs across the entire SnapAid family, but she is a prosecution attorney of record, not an attorney appearing on any known Unified Patents / RPX / Patent Progress NPE-assertion list. Recurrence here reflects a single client relationship, not a shell-LLC recording mill.
  • Context: Original assignment — sole inventor assigning his interest to his own company coincident with the 2021-03-02 continuation filing (Appl. No. 17/189,587). Not an acquisition, not a fire-sale, not a securitization.

No other assignment records were surfaced — no transfer to any "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" entity, no security agreement, no merger, no release. The chain terminates at the original assignee.

If Assignment Center in fact shows additional reel/frame entries (e.g., a security interest or a later transfer), the reader must treat the above as incomplete. Based on every retrieved source — Google Patents legal events, the patent front page, PEDS-style front-page data for the sibling patents (US 9,338,348; 9,661,226; 10,009,537; 10,659,682; 10,944,901; 11,671,702; 12,250,452), and the 2025 E.D. Tex. complaint — SnapAid Ltd. has owned all right, title and interest continuously from 2021 to the present.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11252325
    2012 : Priority date Oct 23
    2013 : PCT filed by SnapAid Ltd
    2021 : Ishay Sivan assigns to SnapAid Ltd
         : Continuation 17/189/587 filed
    2022 : Patent US11252325 issued Feb 15
    2025 : SnapAid sues Samsung in E.D. Tex.

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. No assignment to any licensing LLC exists in the record. The patent never left the founder-controlled original assignee, SnapAid Ltd. No "IP / Patents / Licensing / Holdings" suffix, no registered-agent service address, no single-member Delaware/Texas LLC. (Underlying status: original assignee still owns.)

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT (classic list). SnapAid Ltd. does not match Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or any Spangenberg entity. However, SnapAid does appear in the Stanford NPE Litigation Database as a patent asserter, classified category 5, "Individual-inventor-started" (case SnapAid, Ltd. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al, 2:25-cv-00378, E.D. Tex.). This is a directory classification, not a shell-transfer finding.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — UNCLEAR / WEAK. The chain contains only one assignment link, so intra-chain recurrence cannot be assessed. Externally, Dorit Shem-Tov (Binder) / May Patents Ltd., Ramat-Gan recurs as the prosecution agent across the whole SnapAid family (patent front-page correspondence; WO 2015/162605 agent of record). She is not documented on any NPE-assertion attorney list, so per the stated rule (recurrence on an NPE list is the real tell; a single client's prosecution counsel is not) this is not an NPE signal.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. There is a single assignment, executed/recorded 2021-03-02. No chained LLCs, no common-correspondent staging.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT. The only assignment predates the first infringement suit (SnapAid v. Samsung, filed 2025-04-10) by ~4 years. There is no assignment within 6 months before suit; standing rests on the original 2021 inventors'-interest assignment, not a purpose-built pre-suit transfer.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7/11, no sold-in-proceedings record for SnapAid Ltd.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. SnapAid is asserting its own patents in its own name against Samsung; it is not an NPE asserting on behalf of a separate operating sponsor. The narrative in SnapAid's PTAB briefing (2015 NDA with Samsung, failed 2017 license/purchase talks) is the inventor's own infringement story, not an operating company's outsourced enforcement.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. (Unified Patents appears only as a challenger-adjacent/data source in the PTAB context, not as an assignee.)

Verdict

NPE — moderate confidence.

Reasoning: There is no recorded shell-entity transfer, no known NPE-asserter in the chain, and no pre-litigation or cascading assignment — the reel/frame record shows a single 2021-03-02 inventors'-interest assignment (Ishay Sivan → SnapAid Ltd.), and the patent has stayed with the founder-controlled original assignee through the 2025-04-10 E.D. Tex. assertion (SnapAid v. Samsung, 2:25-cv-00378). The moderate-confidence call rests on the weak/accumulating signals that SnapAid is a single-inventor, no-confirmed-current-product entity asserting an 8-patent, identically-titled continuation portfolio against a major manufacturer, and is classified in the Stanford NPE Litigation Database as an "individual-inventor-started" asserter — not on any registration-level shell or repeat-NPE-attorney tell. Because the historically documented SnapAid Android app leaves open a genuine (if dated) operating-company reading, this is deliberately not scored "high confidence."

Because the reel/frame number and the witness/execution-date field were not retrievable in this session, the finding above should be re-verified at the USPTO Assignment Center — search patent 11252325 and confirm the reel/frame, execution date, and that no security agreement or later transfer sits behind the 2021-03-02 entry.

Cross-reference flag: The previously generated sections describe IPR2025-01521's petitioner as Samsung, while the Google Patents page labels the field "Petitioner: Unified Patents PTAB Data." The latter is a data-source attribution, not the petitioner; the PTAB petition documents retrieved (papers 1558467–1558471) consistently describe Samsung's IPR/PGR filings. No conflict with the ownership analysis — the challenger's identity does not affect the assignment chain — but worth reconciling before the litigation section is finalized.

The USPTO website provides a Patent Public Search tool. I will use this tool to search for US Patent 11252325 and its cited prior art.

Most Relevant Prior Art for US Patent 11252325

US Patent 11252325 was published on February 15, 2022, and filed on March 2, 2021. The patent lists several prior art documents. I will now analyze the most relevant ones cited within the patent text and in the "References Cited" section of the Google Patents document.

The patent itself discusses conventional technology constituting background to certain embodiments and explicitly references several publications and patent documents. These are considered highly relevant as they were acknowledged by the applicant during prosecution.

I. Prior Art Discussed in the "Background" Section:

1. US 20130155474 A1

   • Full Citation: US 20130155474 A1 (SIVAN, Ishay) June 20, 2013
   • Publication/Filing Date: Published June 20, 2013. The priority date listed for US11252325 is October 23, 2012, while this reference's publication date is June 20, 2013. However, US11252325 is a continuation of applications tracing back to PCT/IL2013/050856 filed Oct 22, 2013, which claims priority from U.S. Provisional Application No. 61/717,216 filed on Oct 23, 2012. Therefore, this prior art, published in 2013, is pertinent for a §102 analysis.
   • Brief Description: This patent application describes a system that provides feedback to a user of a mobile device prior to capturing an image of a paper document. The feedback includes instructions for adjusting measured parameters, and parameter values can be combined into an overall quality score that must exceed a threshold before the image is captured. It also suggests holding the camera steadier if blurriness is detected due to motion.
   • Potential Anticipated Claims: This reference appears highly relevant to claims involving computing a total quality indicator based on multiple quality indicators, determining if photo quality is acceptable, providing feedback, and potentially delaying image capture until a quality threshold is met. Specifically, elements of claims 1 (computing a total quality indicator, determining acceptability, providing feedback) and 8 (automatically activating capturing once a logical criterion is met) could be anticipated or rendered obvious. The mention of "blurriness ... caused by the user moving the camera" also points to anticipation of elements in claims related to device movement.

2. WO 2006040761 A1 / US 20070195174 A1

   • Full Citation: WO 2006040761 A1 (SIVAN, Ishay) April 20, 2006 (for WO); US 20070195174 A1 (SIVAN, Ishay) August 23, 2007 (for US)
   • Publication/Filing Date: Published April 20, 2006 (WO) / August 23, 2007 (US). These dates are well before the priority date of US11252325.
   • Brief Description: This patent describes a system where an interface module allows defining scene dynamics (e.g., image motion speed, subject motion speed) and attributes of the captured image scene dynamics. It also enables setting relative weights for these attributes in computing a total image grade.
   • Potential Anticipated Claims: This reference is relevant to claims concerning the computation of a total quality indicator from multiple individual quality indicators and the use of weights. Specifically, it could potentially anticipate aspects of claim 1 relating to combining a plurality of quality indicators to compute a total quality indicator, and the idea of assigning weights to different quality indicators. The patent US11252325 specifically distinguishes itself from this prior art by stating, "in this invention, the weight of one indicator will take into account data from other quality indicator/s," implying the prior art has constant or manually changeable weights, which could be a distinguishing feature for the claims.

3. US 20090278958 A1

   • Full Citation: US 20090278958 A1 (JING, Feng et al.) November 12, 2009
   • Publication/Filing Date: Published November 12, 2009. This date is well before the priority date of US11252325.
   • 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 Anticipated Claims: This reference relates to the use of previous image frames' quality indicators in determining the current photo quality. This could potentially anticipate aspects of claim 1 regarding "quality indicators computed from said captured image and its previous image frames."

II. References Cited in the "References Cited" Section (excluding those already described above):

A comprehensive analysis would require examining all cited references. However, based on the prompt's request for "most relevant prior art" and the explicit discussion in the "Background" section, the patents listed there are generally considered highly relevant.

Without specifically going through each of the remaining listed "U.S. Patent Documents" and "Other Publications" in the "References Cited" section of the patent, it's difficult to pinpoint the most relevant without a detailed claim-by-claim analysis. However, based on the abstract and the summary of US11252325, any references dealing with:

• Real-time image quality assessment.
• Combining multiple quality indicators.
• Using sensor data (accelerometers, gyros, autofocus lenses) for quality assessment.
• Providing user feedback or suggestions to improve pictures.
• Automatic image capture based on quality thresholds.
• Consideration of confidence levels for quality indicators.

would be highly relevant. The patent itself highlights the novelty in how weights of indicators are determined and the introduction of "confidence levels." Therefore, prior art lacking these specific features would be less directly anticipatory of the novel aspects claimed in US11252325.

Disclaimer: A definitive determination of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 would require a full claim construction and a meticulous comparison of each claim element against the disclosures of each prior art reference, which is beyond the scope of this brief analysis. The above assessment provides an initial indication of potential relevance.

The following analysis of obviousness for US Patent 11252325 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 considers combinations of prior art references identified in the patent's background section and the motivation a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have to combine them.

The key features of US11252325, as described in its abstract and embodiments, include:

1. A computerized method for computing photo quality in a device image acquisition system. [cite: "Abstract", "Embodiment 1"]
2. On-board combining of a plurality of quality indicators (QIs). [cite: "Abstract", "Embodiment 1"]
3. QIs computed from the captured image and its previous image frames. [cite: "Abstract", "Embodiment 1"]
4. A confidence level for at least one of the QIs. [cite: "Abstract", "Embodiment 1"]
5. Using a processor to determine, based on said combining, whether photo quality is acceptable. [cite: "Abstract", "Embodiment 1"]
6. Taking differential action depending on whether quality is or is not acceptable. [cite: "Abstract", "Embodiment 1"]
7. Notably, the patent emphasizes that the weight of one indicator "will take into account data from other quality indicator/s e.g. their quality indicator value, weight, confidence level... and their previous value, weight and confidence level." [cite: "SUMMARY"]

Prior Art References Considered

The patent lists the following as conventional technology constituting background:

• US 20130155474 (referred to as 'a'): Describes providing feedback to a user of a mobile device prior to image capture, based on measured parameters. These parameters can be combined into an "overall quality score" that must exceed a "defined threshold value before the image can be captured." It also suggests feedback like "hold the camera steadier" for motion blur. [cite: "a. US 20130155474"]
• WO 2006040761/US20070195174 (referred to as 'b'): Discloses a system where an interface module allows defining "scene dynamics" (e.g., image motion speed, subject motion speed) and "setting the captured image attributes relative weight for the compution of the total image grade." [cite: "b. WO 2006040761/US20070195174"]
• US20090278958 (referred to as 'c'): Describes that "The scoring of a current base image may be based on scores which have been given to previously captured base images" to avoid redundant calculations. [cite: "c. US20090278958"]

Obviousness Combination: US 20130155474 + WO 2006040761/US20070195174 + US20090278958

A person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would have been motivated to combine these prior art references to arrive at the claimed invention, particularly by enhancing the robustness and accuracy of real-time image quality assessment.

Teaching of References:

• US 20130155474 provides a core system for real-time image quality assessment on a mobile device, combining multiple quality parameters into an overall score, using a threshold to determine acceptability, and taking differential action by controlling image capture or providing user feedback (e.g., for blur due to camera motion). This teaches elements 1, 2, 5, and 6 of the claimed invention. [cite: "a. US 20130155474"]
• US20090278958 teaches computing scores for a current image based on "scores which have been given to previously captured base images." This directly addresses element 3: using QIs computed from "previous image frames." [cite: "c. US20090278958"]
• WO 2006040761/US20070195174 introduces the concept of dynamically adjusting "relative weight" for different image attributes (QIs) based on "scene dynamics" like motion speed when computing a total image grade. This provides a clear teaching of dynamically weighting QIs in a combined score. [cite: "b. WO 2006040761/US20070195174"]

Motivation to Combine:
A POSITA, seeking to improve the photo quality assessment and feedback system of US 20130155474, would find clear motivation to incorporate the teachings of the other references:

1. US 20130155474 + US20090278958: To make the quality assessment more stable and accurate over time, a POSITA would be motivated to use historical data. US20090278958 explicitly teaches basing current image scores on "previously captured base images" to avoid redundant calculations and provide continuity. [cite: "c. US20090278958"] Integrating this into US 20130155474's system would allow for a more consistent and refined "overall quality score" and feedback, leveraging temporal information inherent in a continuous image stream (frames). [cite: "a. US 20130155474"]
2. Adding WO 2006040761/US20070195174: A POSITA would recognize that not all quality issues are equally important in every scene. The dynamic weighting taught by WO 2006040761/US20070195174, which adjusts "relative weight" based on "scene dynamics" (e.g., motion), offers a way to prioritize certain QIs. [cite: "b. WO 2006040761/US20070195174"] For instance, in a scene with significant motion, the blur quality indicator's weight could be increased, aligning the system's assessment more closely with user expectations for that specific scene. This makes the combined system of US 20130155474 and US20090278958 more intelligent and adaptable.

Addressing the "Confidence Level" and Dynamic Weighting:
The primary distinguishing feature highlighted by US11252325 is the inclusion of a "confidence level" for QIs and the dynamic adjustment of weights based on these confidence levels and other QIs' states. [cite: "SUMMARY"]

However, a POSITA would find it obvious to integrate a measure of reliability or "confidence" into the combined system. The description of US11252325 itself states that "all sensors give out errors" and discusses how "recognition or pattern algorithms have assumptions that can be related to 'probability' of the feature been searched." [cite: "Errors and Probability in Quality Indicators"] This acknowledges that assessing the reliability of input data or algorithm outputs is a known problem.

Given that WO 2006040761/US20070195174 already teaches dynamically adjusting weights based on "scene dynamics" (which are effectively other quality indicators like motion speed) [cite: "b. WO 2006040761/US20070195174"], it would be a logical and obvious engineering step for a POSITA to incorporate the reliability or confidence in these "scene dynamics" measurements into the weighting scheme. For example, if the measurement of "image motion speed" (a scene dynamic) is inherently unreliable (e.g., due to low light or complex patterns), a POSITA would naturally assign a lower "confidence" to that measurement and reduce its influence, or the influence of QIs dependent on it, in the overall quality calculation. This directly leads to the claimed feature that "the weight of one indicator will take into account data from other quality indicator/s e.g. their ... confidence level." [cite: "SUMMARY"]

The patent also describes confidence in the context of inter-sensor consistency, such as when "GPS data say location has changed 3 meters in the last 15 milliseconds, but accelerometer data shows no change... then the GPS data may not be trusted, and confidence in the GPS QI for movement, is low." [cite: "Confidence Level of Quality Indicator"] Cross-referencing disparate sensor data to enhance the reliability of individual measurements is a standard technique in sensor fusion and would be obvious to a POSITA seeking to improve the accuracy of any multi-sensor system.

Therefore, the combination of US 20130155474, US20090278958, and WO 2006040761/US20070195174 would lead a POSITA to a system that combines multiple quality indicators, uses previous frames, and dynamically weights these indicators. The further step of introducing a "confidence level" for these indicators and using it to refine the dynamic weighting, particularly in light of inherent sensor errors and algorithmic uncertainties, would be an obvious improvement to enhance the system's accuracy and robustness.