US 11671702

US Patent 11671702, titled "Real time assessment of picture quality," was issued on June 6, 2023, from an application filed on February 8, 2022, under application number US17/666,585. The patent is assigned to Snapaid Ltd., and the sole inventor is Ishay Sivan.

Abstract:
The patent describes a computerized method for real-time photo quality assessment 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 the quality is or is not acceptable.

Independent Claims Overview:

• Claim 1: This claim details a method for estimating image quality in a device equipped with a camera, motion/location sensor, and processor. The method utilizes four specific quality indicators (QIs) to provide suggestions to the user:

  • QI1 (Device Motion): A value obtained from a motion or location sensor that indicates the device's movement.
  • QI2 (Exposure): A measurement of under- or overexposure in parts of the image or of faces.
  • QI3 (Face Analysis): A value derived from detecting faces in the image and assessing properties like whether faces are looking at the camera, smiling, crying, or their overall detection quality, exposure, or movement.
  • QI4 (Lens Obstruction): A value indicating if the optical lens is obstructed, coupled with an estimated weight for this value.
    Based on these four QIs, the system selects and presents appropriate suggestions from a pre-stored table to help the user improve image quality by adjusting relevant parameters to meet or exceed a specified threshold.

• Claim 11: This claim presents another method for estimating image quality in a device with a camera, a motion sensor (accelerometer, gyroscope, or both), and a processor. This method focuses on two primary quality indicators to offer user suggestions:

  • QI1 (Device Angle): A value reflecting the device's angle relative to the horizon.
  • QI2 (Aesthetic Quality): A value associated with the aesthetic composition of the image.
    If either QI1 or QI2 falls below a certain threshold, the system provides appropriate suggestions from a pre-stored table to the user, guiding them to adjust the device or composition to reach the desired quality threshold.

Litigation Activity:
US Patent 11671702 is involved in litigation. A PTAB case, IPR2025-01520, was filed, though it was "Not Instituted - Procedural." Additionally, a case (2:25-cv-00378) was filed in the Texas Eastern District Court by Snapaid, Ltd. against [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc., asserting patent infringement. This district court case is scheduled for trial in April 2027. Samsung has filed actions with the USPTO challenging the validity of the asserted claims in this litigation, seeking reexamination for several patents, including US11671702. As of November 2025, Samsung sought a stay of the district court litigation pending ex parte reexamination proceedings. The PTAB proceedings related to IPR2025-01520 involve arguments regarding discretionary denial, with SnapAid arguing against institution due to the age of the patent family and Samsung asserting that the '702 patent is a recently issued and independently claimed invention. While the PTAB case IPR2025-01520 was not instituted, other related IPR/PGR petitions were filed by Samsung, challenging five of the eight asserted patents.

As a patent attorney, I have investigated known litigation involving US patent 11671702 based on the provided resources and additional searches.

Here are the known litigation cases:

1. PTAB Inter Partes Review (IPR) Case

   • Case Number: IPR2025-01520
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO
   • Plaintiff(s): Unified Patents
   • Defendant(s): Snapaid Ltd. (Patent Owner)
   • Filing Date: On or around September 2025 (The IPR petition was filed approximately five months after SnapAid served its district court complaint on April 10, 2025).
   • Outcome/Current Status: Not Instituted - Procedural.

2. US District Court Case

   • Case Number: 2:25-cv-00378
   • Jurisdiction: Texas Eastern District Court
   • Plaintiff(s): Snapaid Ltd. (implied, as SnapAid served its district court complaint)
   • Defendant(s): [[Samsung Electronics Co.](/litigations/by-defendant/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.), Ltd.](/litigations/by-plaintiff/Samsung%20Electronics%20Co.%2C%20Ltd.) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (implied, as they are the petitioners in the related IPR challenging SnapAid's patent after being served a complaint)
   • Filing Date: On or before April 10, 2025 (SnapAid served its district court complaint on April 10, 2025).
   • Outcome/Current Status: Litigation is active. The patent document itself indicates the status as "litigation".

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US patent 11671702, which resulted in a discretionary denial. This gives a defendant a mixed defensive posture, as the patent claims were not tested on the merits, but the petitioner failed to institute a review.

IPR2025-01520 — [[[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. Snapaid Ltd.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2025-09-05
• Status: Discretionary Denial — The PTAB declined to institute the IPR.
• Judge panel: Not publicly available for discretionary denials without a full institution decision.
• Petition grounds: Not publicly detailed as the petition was discretionarily denied.
• Institution decision: Denied (Discretionary Denial) — 2026-03-11. The PTAB issued a decision denying institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The specific reasoning for the discretionary denial would be contained within the order, often relating to efficiency, parallel litigation, or other factors under Fintiv or NHK Spring precedents.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Settlement / termination: Not applicable, as institution was denied.
• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal has been initiated as the proceeding was denied institution and did not result in a final written decision on the merits.
• Defensive value: The discretionary denial means the validity of claims in US11671702 was not decided by the PTAB on the merits. While this means the claims technically "survived" the IPR, it doesn't strengthen their patentability against prior art, but rather indicates a procedural victory for the Patent Owner. However, the specific grounds raised in this petition by Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. are likely estopped from being raised again by them or their privies in future proceedings, under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1).

Strategic summary

All claims of US11671702 remain UNTESTED by the PTAB on the merits. The single IPR filed, IPR2025-01520, was discretionarily denied, meaning the PTAB did not proceed to a full review of the patentability of the challenged claims. As such, no claims have been canceled or sustained through an AIA trial at the PTAB.

Regarding estoppel, the petitioner, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., and any parties in privity with them, are estopped from raising in a future proceeding or civil action any ground that was raised or reasonably could have been raised in IPR2025-01520, according to 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1). For other potential defendants not in privity, the prior art grounds that could have been raised in IPR2025-01520 are theoretically still available for new IPR petitions.

There is no discernible pattern of multiple IPRs from the same petitioner or aggressive PTAB appeals by the patent owner at this time. The petitioner, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., is a major operating company, indicating potential assertion of the patent against such entities.

Recommended next steps

For a defendant facing assertion of this patent, the full discretionary denial order for IPR2025-01520 should be reviewed to understand the PTAB's specific reasoning, which may reveal insights into potential future IPR strategies or weaknesses in the patent. The docket for IPR2025-01520 can be accessed via the Unified Patents portal (which cites the PTAB case). Given the discretionary denial, careful consideration should be given to whether a new IPR petition would face similar procedural hurdles, potentially by distinguishing the grounds or addressing the PTAB's stated concerns in the denial decision.

If the patent is currently being asserted, a deeper analysis of the claims and prior art could still reveal strong invalidity arguments that were not fully adjudicated at the PTAB due to the discretionary denial.




https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2025-01520

Inventors

• Ishay Sivan (Snapaid Ltd.)

Original assignee

Snapaid Ltd. is the original assignee. It is unclear whether Snapaid Ltd. shipped a product embodying the claims. Based on publicly available information, Snapaid Ltd.'s primary line of business appears to be related to image processing and quality assessment. Its current status is operating.

Assignment timeline

No assignment records were found for US Patent 11671702 on the USPTO Assignment Center.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11671702
    2012 : Priority date
    2022 : Application filed by Snapaid Ltd
    2023 : Granted to Snapaid Ltd

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present
4. Cascading transfers — not present
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear (Litigation has been filed, but without assignment records, the timing relative to any transfer is unknown.)
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present
7. Privateering — unclear
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present

Verdict

Insufficient data. There are no recorded assignments for US Patent 11671702 on the USPTO Assignment Center. While litigation has been initiated, without any assignment records, it is not possible to determine if any NPE / patent-troll patterns are present in the ownership chain.

USPTO Assignment Center search: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

To identify the most relevant prior art for US Patent 11671702, I will use the patent's own citations as listed in the full patent text. The USPTO's Patent Public Search tool is the authoritative source for this information.

Here are the citations listed in US Patent 11671702, along with their relevant details and potential anticipations.

Patent Citations from US11671702B2:

• US7362354B2

  • Full Citation: US7362354B2 - Method and system for assessing the photo quality of a captured image in a digital still camera
  • Priority Date: 2002-02-12
  • Publication Date: 2008-04-22
  • Brief Description: This patent describes a method and system for assessing the photo quality of a captured image in a digital still camera by calculating multiple image quality parameters and combining them to derive a total quality score.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): US7362354B2 appears to potentially anticipate elements of US11671702's independent claims. Specifically, Claim 1 of US11671702 broadly covers "computing at least one total quality indicator based on at least two quality indicators computed from said captured image and its previous image frames" and "determining whether the photo quality is acceptable." US7362354B2 describes calculating "multiple image quality parameters" and combining them to derive a "total quality score" for a captured image. This could potentially anticipate the general concept of using multiple quality indicators to determine overall photo quality. The specific QIs might differ, but the overarching method of combining multiple parameters for a total quality assessment is similar.

• WO2003069559A2

  • Full Citation: WO2003069559A2 - Assessing the photo quality of a captured image in a digital still camera
  • Priority Date: 2002-02-12
  • Publication Date: 2003-08-21
  • Brief Description: This international publication also focuses on assessing photo quality in digital cameras, building on the concept of evaluating various image parameters.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): Similar to US7362354B2, this publication likely anticipates the fundamental idea of computationally assessing photo quality based on multiple parameters, as broadly claimed in Claim 1 of US11671702. The extent of anticipation would depend on the specific details of the quality indicators and their combination methods described in WO2003069559A2.

• US20130155474A1

  • Full Citation: US20130155474A1 - Systems and methods for automatic image capture on a mobile device
  • Priority Date: 2008-01-18
  • Publication Date: 2013-06-20
  • Brief Description: This patent application describes providing a user of a mobile device with feedback prior to capturing an image of a document, including instructions for adjusting measured parameters. It mentions combining parameter values into an overall quality score that must exceed a threshold before image capture. It also suggests holding the camera steadier to reduce blur.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference directly discusses providing feedback to the user and suggesting improvements to capture a better quality image, which is a core aspect of US11671702's Claim 1. Specifically, the mention of "blurriness may have been the result of motion blur caused by the user moving the camera while taking the image. The test result messages can suggest that the user hold the camera steadier when retaking the image" directly relates to device motion (QI1) and providing suggestions, as found in Claim 1 of US11671702. The concept of an "overall quality score which exceeds a defined threshold value before the image can be captured" also directly relates to the "determine whether photo quality is acceptable" and "taking differential action depending on whether quality is or is not acceptable" aspects of US11671702's claims.

• US20070195174A1 (WO 2006040761)

  • Full Citation: US20070195174A1 - System and a method for improving the captured images of digital still cameras
  • Priority Date: 2004-10-15
  • Publication Date: 2007-08-23
  • Brief Description: This patent describes a system where an interface module enables defining scene dynamics (e.g., image motion speed, subject motion speed) and attributes of the captured image scene dynamics, and allows setting relative weights for these attributes in computing a total image grade.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference appears to anticipate the use of "device motion" (QI1) and "subject movement" (related to QI3 - face/object movement) as quality indicators. The concept of "setting the captured image attributes relative weight for the computation of the total image grade" directly relates to the weighted combination of quality indicators mentioned in the description of US11671702. This could specifically anticipate the combination aspect of Claim 1, particularly where the "combining of a plurality of quality indicators" is performed.

• US20090278958A1

  • Full Citation: US20090278958A1 - Method and an apparatus for detecting a composition adjusted
  • Priority Date: 2008-05-08
  • Publication Date: 2009-11-12
  • Brief Description: This patent describes that the scoring of a current base image may be based on scores given to previously captured base images to avoid redundant calculation.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This reference explicitly mentions using "scores which have been given to previously captured base images" for scoring a "current base image" to "avoid redundant calculation." This could potentially anticipate the "previous image frames quality indicators" aspect of US11671702's Claim 1, particularly the use of historical data for efficiency or improved assessment.

• US8125557B2

  • Full Citation: US8125557B2 - Image evaluation method, image capturing method and digital camera thereof for evaluating and capturing images according to composition of the images
  • Priority Date: 2009-02-08
  • Publication Date: 2012-02-28
  • Brief Description: This patent focuses on evaluating and capturing images based on their composition.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This patent's focus on "evaluating and capturing images according to composition of the images" directly relates to the "aesthetic quality of image based on composition" (QI2) in Claim 11 of US11671702. Therefore, it potentially anticipates the elements of Claim 11 that pertain to aesthetic quality assessment and its use in image capture or feedback.

• US20130188866A1

  • Full Citation: US20130188866A1 - Method to assess aesthetic quality of photographs
  • Priority Date: 2012-01-24
  • Publication Date: 2013-07-25
  • Brief Description: This patent describes a method to assess the aesthetic quality of photographs, potentially providing a non-reference quality indication without suggestions on coordinate change.
  • Potential Anticipation (35 U.S.C. § 102): This document directly addresses assessing "aesthetic quality of photographs," which strongly anticipates the "aesthetic quality of image based on composition" (QI2) element of Claim 11 in US11671702.

Note on 35 U.S.C. § 102:
35 U.S.C. § 102, as it relates to prior art, generally concerns whether an invention was new or known before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For a reference to "anticipate" a claim, it must disclose every limitation of that claim, either explicitly or inherently. The analysis above provides a high-level indication of potential anticipation based on the provided descriptions. A full legal analysis would require a detailed claim construction and a thorough comparison of each claim element to the disclosures of these prior art references.

The current date is April 26, 2026.

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 11671702 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis will identify combinations of prior art references that would render the claims of US Patent 11671702 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) and explain the motivation to combine them. A POSITA in this field would likely have a background in image processing, computer vision, and camera system design, understanding how various sensors and algorithms contribute to image quality.

The independent claims (Claim 1 and Claim 11) of US11671702 focus on combining multiple quality indicators (QIs) and confidence levels to provide real-time feedback and suggestions to a user to improve photo quality. The core inventive step, as described in the patent, lies in the dynamic adjustment of weights and consideration of confidence levels of QIs, allowing for more intelligent and context-aware picture quality assessment and feedback.

Combination 1: US 20130155474 in view of WO 2006040761/US20070195174

• US 20130155474 describes a system that provides user feedback prior to image capture, including instructions for adjusting measured parameters to improve image quality. It combines parameter values into an overall quality score that must exceed a threshold before an image can be captured. The publication explicitly states, "The user can be provided detailed information to assist the user in taking a better quality image of the document. For example, the blurriness may have been the result of motion blur caused by the user moving the camera while taking the image. The test result messages can suggest that the user hold the camera steadier when retaking the image." This directly addresses feedback and suggestions for improvement based on quality issues.

• WO 2006040761/US20070195174 discloses a system where an interface module defines scene dynamics (e.g., image motion speed, subject motion speed) and allows setting relative weights for captured image attributes in computing a total image grade.

Obviousness Argument for Claims 1 and 11:

A POSITA would find it obvious to combine the teachings of US 20130155474 and WO 2006040761/US20070195174 to arrive at the methods of Claims 1 and 11.

• Motivation to Combine: Both references address aspects of image quality assessment and user feedback. US 20130155474 provides the concept of giving feedback and suggestions based on quality parameters to improve a picture before it is taken. WO 2006040761/US20070195174 introduces the idea of using weights for different image attributes in computing a total image grade, specifically mentioning scene dynamics like image motion speed. A POSITA would be motivated to combine these to create a more sophisticated real-time feedback system. By integrating the weighted quality indicators from WO 2006040761/US20070195174 into the feedback mechanism of US 20130155474, the system could provide more nuanced and prioritized suggestions based on the relative importance of different quality factors and the specific scene conditions. For example, if device motion is a critical factor (as weighted by WO 2006040761/US20070195174), the feedback in US 20130155474 could specifically advise "hold the camera steadier."

• How the Combination Addresses Claim 1:

  • QI1 (Device Motion): WO 2006040761/US20070195174 explicitly mentions "image motion speed and motion speed of the subjects" and weights for computing a total image grade. This directly covers obtaining a value responsive to device motion.
  • QI2 (Exposure): While not explicitly detailed as a separate QI in the same way, US 20130155474 discusses "measured parameter" values being combined into an "overall quality score" before an image can be captured, implying various quality aspects, including exposure, would be considered. Exposure is a fundamental photographic parameter, and a POSITA would readily include it.
  • QI3 (Face Analysis): US 20130155474's general feedback mechanism could be extended to include face properties, as face detection and analysis were known in the art.
  • QI4 (Lens Obstruction): This is a specific quality indicator. While not explicitly taught in these references, the general concept of "measuring parameters" and giving feedback on how to improve an image in US 20130155474 would lead a POSITA to consider obvious impediments to image quality like lens obstruction, especially if such an obstruction impacted the overall quality score or parameter values.
  • Suggestions from pre-stored table: US 20130155474 clearly describes providing "detailed information to assist the user in taking a better quality image," including suggestions like "hold the camera steadier." This directly maps to selecting from a pre-stored table of suggestions.

• How the Combination Addresses Claim 11:

  • QI1 (Device Angle to Horizon): While not explicitly called "device angle to horizon," the "interface module further enables to define the scene dynamics of the captured image" in WO 2006040761/US20070195174 implies the capture of relevant camera orientation data that could be used to infer device angle. Combining this with the feedback system of US 20130155474, a POSITA would readily implement a quality indicator for device angle.
  • QI2 (Aesthetic Quality): The "captured image attributes relative weight for the computation of the total image grade" in WO 2006040761/US20070195174 can encompass aesthetic qualities. The subjective nature of "aesthetic quality" could be informed by rule-based systems or user preferences, and a POSITA would understand that different weights could be applied to such attributes.
  • Suggestions for improvement: Both references support providing suggestions to the user for improvement.

Combination 2: US 20090278958 in view of US 20130155474 and WO 2006040761/US20070195174

• US 20090278958 describes 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." This introduces the concept of using historical data (previous image scores) to inform the current image scoring.

Obviousness Argument for Claims 1 and 11 (with historical data):

A POSITA would be motivated to combine the teachings of US 20090278958 with the previous combination (US 20130155474 and WO 2006040761/US20070195174) to enhance the real-time quality assessment.

• Motivation to Combine: The combination of US 20130155474 and WO 2006040761/US20070195174 provides real-time feedback using weighted quality indicators. A POSITA would recognize that incorporating historical data, as taught by US 20090278958, could further refine the quality assessment and feedback process. Using previous image frames and their quality indicators (and confidence levels as introduced in US11671702) would lead to more stable and reliable quality assessments, especially in dynamic environments where single-frame analysis might be prone to errors or fluctuations. This would also enable the system to identify trends or persistent issues, leading to more intelligent and adaptive suggestions. For example, if the device consistently experiences shake in previous frames, the system might offer more persistent or emphatic "hold still" suggestions.

• How the Combination Addresses "previous image frames" and "confidence level":

  • US 20090278958 explicitly teaches using "scores which have been given to previously captured base images." This directly addresses the "previous image frames" aspect of US11671702's claims. While US 20090278958 focuses on avoiding redundant calculations, a POSITA would understand that this historical data could also be leveraged to assess the reliability or "confidence" of current readings. If a current quality indicator drastically deviates from a consistent trend in previous frames, the system could assign a lower confidence level to the current reading. The concept of "confidence level" for quality indicators, while explicitly detailed in US11671702, would be an obvious development for a POSITA seeking to improve the robustness and accuracy of a system that relies on multiple, potentially noisy, sensor inputs and image analyses over time.

General Motivation for a POSITA

Beyond specific combinations, a POSITA would have several general motivations to combine elements from the cited prior art:

• Improving User Experience: The primary goal of all cited prior art is to help users take better pictures. Combining various quality assessment techniques and feedback mechanisms would directly serve this goal.
• Leveraging Available Sensor Data: Modern devices (smartphones, for example) increasingly integrate multiple sensors (accelerometers, gyros, GPS, advanced camera modules). A POSITA would be motivated to utilize all available data to provide a comprehensive and accurate quality assessment, rather than relying on isolated indicators.
• Enhancing Real-Time Performance: The patent emphasizes "real-time assessment." Prior art already hints at this with feedback prior to capture. A POSITA would continuously seek to make these assessments faster and more responsive, which naturally leads to combining efficient algorithms and processing sensor data concurrently.
• Creating More Intelligent Systems: The shift from simple thresholds to weighted combinations and confidence levels reflects a general trend in computer vision and signal processing towards more intelligent, context-aware systems. A POSITA would strive to build a system that can understand not just what is wrong with a picture, but why it's wrong and how confident the system is in its assessment, leading to better suggestions.

The prior art collectively demonstrates that the individual components of US Patent 11671702, such as using multiple quality indicators, weighting them, providing real-time feedback, and considering historical data, were known in the art. The motivation to combine these elements to create a more comprehensive and intelligent real-time photo quality assessment and feedback system would be readily apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art.