No other applications relate.
The invention relates to authentication systems and to a field known as “security printing”.
There is a need to mark certain items to avoid counterfeiting. Marked items can be monetary tools such as banknotes, stamps, checks etc or government documents such as passports, visas etc. They can also be high value commercial items. Sometimes the authenticated items are pharmaceutical, to protect not only the monetary value but also the safety of the users. Most systems need to be verified by machine reading, sometimes through a wrapper or enclosure. One class of solutions uses a small amount of an additive, known as a taggant. The taggant can be detected with a specialized detector but is not visible under normal conditions. The advantage of a taggant is, besides being covert, is that it can be made machine-readable at high speeds. At very small doses it can be very difficult to find and identify, unless the specialized detector is used. The disadvantage of tagging is that it can carry a limited number of combinations, particularly if it has to be machine-readable. This does not allow giving each item a unique identification code or secure serial number (the visible serial number or barcode printed on most items can be easily counterfeit). To make it harder to counterfeit some systems use a random distribution of fibers or patterns, but because they rely on simple optical scanning for reading, a simple photocopy of the image will also read as genuine in most cases.
The invention relies on the random patterns created when a small quantity of a tagging powder, or taggant, is mixed with a material used in an item. The taggant can be dispersed in paper, printing inks, varnishes, paints, adhesives, plastics and even molten metals (as long as a taggant compatible with high temperatures is selected). The taggant is invisible to the eye (even under magnification) but can be made highly visible by creating the right conditions such as illumination with UV light, heating, chemical activation etc. When viewed under those conditions, a unique taggant image is captured from each item and stored in a database. When an item has to be authenticated, the taggant image is captured again and compared to the images stored in the database. Only items that match the database are recognized as genuine items. The degree of matching required does not have to be 100% as some of the taggant may be missing or masked. A preset threshold of matching can be used. Because of the uniqueness of each image, even less than full matching identifies the item with a high level of reliability.
FIG. 1-a to FIG. 1-f show the steps required in creating and identifying a tagged item according to the invention.
While the taggant can be detected by any physical or chemical property, such as light, magnetism, reactivity etc the preferred embodiment uses an optical method of detection. The main advantage of the optical detection method is that the unique image of the taggant distribution can be captured by a simple and inexpensive CCD or CMOS camera. In order to make the taggant invisible (unless the correct detector is used), a very fine powder is used in a very low concentration (down to a few parts per million). Such a powder, particularly if it has a color matching the background color, is very difficult to detect even by forensic methods.
In order to detect and capture the image of the powder it has to be made highly visible. This is achieved by a special detector. Typically, the detector will contain a shroud blocking ambient light or other electromagnetic radiation. Within the detector, a special environment is set up to make the powder highly visible relative to the background. By way of example, the taggant can be a fluorescent powder and the special environment making it highly visible is Ultra Violet (UV) light. Such fluorescent powders are widely used in fluorescent inks and markers, are readily available, stable and inexpensive. Particle size should be in the 5-50 μm range. If a higher level of security is required, the taggant can be a completely optically and chemically inert powder with thermal properties different from those of the background.
When exposed to a pulse of intense light (at almost any part of the spectrum) and viewed with a camera sensitive to the 5 μm 10 μm range of the IR spectrum, the taggant particles will appear brighter or darker than the background, depending on their thermal properties. The light pulse should have duration from 0.1 mS to 50 mS, preferable 1-5 mS, and the viewing should be within a few mS of the pulse. The camera used for viewing can be of the microbolometer type. The light source can be a standard camera electronic flash unit. By way of example, the taggant can be aluminum or stainless steel powder, glass or polystyrene microspheres, or alumina (Al2O3) powder. Materials heating up less than the background will show up as dark dots, materials heating up more will show up as light dots. Particle size should be in the 20-50 μm range. A very similar system used to detect small defects in copper traces is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,340,817 (having the same inventor and assignee as the current application).
Further details on the construction of the detector are given in
The steps needed to practice the invention are shown in
By way of example, the system was set to detect six particles of taggant 3 within the reference frame 2. The coordinates of each particle are sent out as x-y pairs, X1Y1; X2Y2; . . . X6Y6. The best number of particles depends on the size of the database, but a preferred range is from 2 to 100 particles. By way of example, if the camera has a resolution of 600×400 pixels and this is divided into a coarser grid of 256×256, the area of the reference frame 2 is about 100×100 pixels. With 6 particles this allows almost (100×100)^6=10^24 different images. Even accepting partial matches of 5 out of the 6 particles, this allows billions of unique images. At the same time the image storage requirements and data transmission requirements (from the detector to the data base) are minimal, as each one of the six particles is defined by two bytes (XnYn) for a total of only 12 bytes of data—only 12 Gbytes for a billion images.
The authentication process is shown schematically in
In some cases the dependence on a remote database is not desired and the system can be used in a “stand alone” mode. In this mode a code is printed on each item at the time it is read by the detector for the first time. This code is derived from the taggant location and can be as simple as the taggant coordinates XnYn or an encrypted version of it. Each time the item is read for authentication, a code is generated using the same rules and the code is compared to the code printed on the item. If they match, the item is authentic. Even if the code is copied onto a counterfeit item, it will not match the unique taggant distribution. If the code is machine readable, such as a barcode, the complete authentication process can be automated. Any combination of this “stand alone” mode and verification against a database can be used. For example, if the database if not functional, the “stand alone” mode can be used. The advantage of the database is that other information can be attached to each item in the database.
Clearly the high level of security this invention provides does not depend on the taggant used, only on the fact that it is nearly impossible to duplicate the random patterns it generates. Unlike other tagging systems, the security is not compromised even if the taggant is known and available to counterfeiters. What cannot be duplicated is the random distribution. The type of taggant used and method of detecting it is not important. The main reason for making the taggant invisible is in order not to alert anyone that an authentication system is used; when this is not an issue, the system can be simplified by using a visible taggant or applying a random pattern via spraying of paint etc. However, it is always more desirable to mix the taggant into one of the materials forming the item and making the taggant invisible to the human eye.
There have thus been outlined the important features of the invention in order that it may be better understood, and in order that the present contribution to the art may be better appreciated. Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the conception on which this disclosure is based may readily be utilized as a basis for the design of other compositions, elements and methods for carrying out the several purposes of the invention. It is most important, therefore, that this disclosure be regarded as including such equivalent compositions, elements and methods as do not depart from the spirit and scope of the invention.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3581282 | Altman | May 1971 | A |
3636318 | Lindstrom et al. | Jan 1972 | A |
3829661 | Silverman et al. | Aug 1974 | A |
3999042 | Silverman et al. | Dec 1976 | A |
4013894 | Foote et al. | Mar 1977 | A |
4218674 | Brosow et al. | Aug 1980 | A |
4245213 | Kriger | Jan 1981 | A |
4253017 | Whitehead | Feb 1981 | A |
RE31211 | Whitehead | Apr 1983 | E |
4395628 | Silverman et al. | Jul 1983 | A |
4476468 | Goldman | Oct 1984 | A |
4527051 | Stenzel | Jul 1985 | A |
4544836 | Galvin et al. | Oct 1985 | A |
4599509 | Silverman et al. | Jul 1986 | A |
4630845 | Sanner | Dec 1986 | A |
4661983 | Knop | Apr 1987 | A |
4785290 | Goldman | Nov 1988 | A |
4820912 | Samyn | Apr 1989 | A |
4926031 | Stenzel | May 1990 | A |
4982073 | Stenzel | Jan 1991 | A |
5023923 | Sanner et al. | Jun 1991 | A |
5225900 | Wright | Jul 1993 | A |
5235166 | Fernadez | Aug 1993 | A |
5354097 | Tel | Oct 1994 | A |
5396559 | McGrew | Mar 1995 | A |
5434917 | Naccache et al. | Jul 1995 | A |
5601931 | Hoshino et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5602381 | Hoshino et al. | Feb 1997 | A |
5616904 | Fernadez | Apr 1997 | A |
5619025 | Hickman et al. | Apr 1997 | A |
5629070 | Korth | May 1997 | A |
RE35599 | Pease | Sep 1997 | E |
5682103 | Burrell | Oct 1997 | A |
5719939 | Tel | Feb 1998 | A |
5756220 | Hoshino et al. | May 1998 | A |
5862270 | Lopresti et al. | Jan 1999 | A |
6340817 | Gelbart | Jan 2002 | B1 |
6549131 | Cote et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6565002 | Tel | May 2003 | B1 |
20020063744 | Stephens, Jr. | May 2002 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
0 237 815 | Nov 1992 | EP |
0 583 709 | Feb 1994 | EP |
0 656 607 | Jun 1995 | EP |
0 783 160 | Jul 1997 | EP |
08-194791 | Jul 1996 | JP |
09-179924 | Jul 1997 | JP |
WO 9530545 | Nov 1995 | WO |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20050239207 A1 | Oct 2005 | US |