© Alitheon, Inc. 2019-2020. A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material which is subject to copyright protection. The copyright owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, if and when they are made public, but otherwise reserves all copyright rights whatsoever. 37 CFR § 1.71(d).
This application pertains to methods, systems, and software for detecting and measuring changes over time to physical objects, through the use of digital fingerprints.
It is often necessary or desirable to determine whether or not a physical object has changed from a prior state and, in certain cases, to determine how much a physical object has changed from a prior state. The need remains to reliably identify objects, detect and measure changes in the object over time, and from those changes assess authenticity, provenance, quality, condition, and/or degradation over time.
The following is a summary of the present disclosure to provide a basic understanding of some features and context. This summary is not intended to identify key or critical elements of the disclosure or to delineate the scope of the disclosure. Its sole purpose is to present some concepts of the present disclosure in simplified form as a prelude to a more detailed description that is presented later.
In one embodiment, a system comprises a combination of digital fingerprint techniques, processes, programs, and hardware to enable a method of utilizing image “match points” to measure and detect changes in a physical object. In some cases “degradation” or “wear and tear” of the physical object is assessed, while in other applications this disclosure is applicable to measuring intentional changes, such as changes made by additive or subtractive manufacturing processes, which may, for example, involve adding a layer or removing a layer by machining. A system may include a scanner, and a digital fingerprinting process, coupled to an object change computer server. The object change computer server may be coupled to a datastore that stores class digital fingerprints, selected object digital fingerprints collected over time, match measurements, and deterioration metrics.
Additional aspects and advantages of the present disclosure will be apparent from the Detailed Description, which proceeds with reference to the accompanying drawings.
To enable the reader to realize one or more of the above-recited and other advantages and features of the present disclosure, a more particular description follows by reference to specific embodiments thereof which are illustrated in the appended drawings. Understanding that these drawings depict only typical embodiments of the disclosure and are not therefore to be considered limiting of its scope, the present disclosure will be described and explained with additional specificity and detail through the use of the accompanying drawings in which:
It is often necessary or desirable to determine whether or not a physical object has changed from a prior state and, in certain cases, to determine how much a physical object has changed from a prior state. The present disclosure teaches a method of utilizing image “match points” to measure and detect changes in a physical object. While some aspects of the results presented herein may be achieved by examining changes in images that are not changes in match points, existing image-based approaches are significantly less general (for additive as well as subtractive processes, for example), and thus more limited, than the methods taught in this disclosure.
In this disclosure, frequent reference is made to “degradation” or “wear and tear” but the teachings of this disclosure are equally applicable to measuring intentional changes, such as changes made by additive manufacturing processes, which may, for example, involve adding a layer or removing a layer by machining, and any other processes that result in changes to the state of an object.
One aspect of this disclosure is the use of measured changes in a digital fingerprint of an object as a measure of its actual change from its initial conditions, or any prior condition. The techniques are primarily described in relation to measuring wear and tear and determining that an object should be replaced, but the techniques described here also have applicability in measuring the effects of other changes such as the effectiveness of anodizing a surface or an additive manufacturing process in, for example, adding a layer or a feature to an object under construction—or to any occurrence that results in a change in or to the material substance of a physical object. The methods taught in the present disclosure may also be applied to the grading of objects, such as of a coin, based on a degradation of the object from a standard. One application of the taught method is determining when a currency note has degraded to a such degree that it needs to be recycled.
As will be shown, the measured degradation may be from a digital fingerprint created at an earlier stage of the object itself or from a standard representative of the kind (class) of object being measured, or by other means. This standard may be, for example, a particular object, a physical or digital model, or it may be an aggregate of many objects of the same class. The concept of measured degradation will be further elaborated below.
During the creation and/or use of various physical goods, it is often necessary or desirable to determine that a physical good or object has changed from some prior state—and to determine how much it has changed or in what manner it has changed. This disclosure teaches a method for using digital fingerprints to determine and measure various object changes in a wide range of physical objects and under a range of conditions. Examples will be given where the change is one of wear-and-tear, corrosion, ablation, or other essentially subtractive processes—where the surface elements are gradually removed. Equally important are changes to the surface that occur through additive processes, such as a step in an additive manufacturing process, or a person's addition of makeup to his or her face. The additive conditions, the subtractive conditions, and conditions where both addition and subtraction take place at the same time or in succession (e.g. abrasion, corrosion, and patination) are in view of this disclosure.
Wear and tear generally refers to changes in the surface or near-surface conditions that may be seen through electromagnetic interaction. Note that the use of any part of the electromagnetic spectrum is in view of this disclosure, although most of the examples will involve visible light. No particular method of extracting digital fingerprints is required for this disclosure. However, the methods chosen will need to be ones that extract the digital fingerprints from the surface or near-surface features of the material substance of a physical object. In the present disclosure, the term “surface” will mean surface or near-surface.
Wear and tear as defined in this disclosure consists of progressive changes in the surface characteristics of a physical object. The changes may be of many kinds including abrasion, creasing, soiling, aging, oxidizing, physical and/or chemical weathering, or any other progressive change, including intentional changes such as plating. It is not to be implied that changes to an object are necessarily negative or are indications of damage. Some of the embodiments discussed below involve an object “improving” (e.g. bringing the object closer to completion of the manufacturing process). Since digital fingerprints of the type described are derived from surface characteristics of an object, changes in the surface characteristics may be quantified by measuring changes in digital fingerprints of the surface.
In this disclosure, frequent reference will be made to matching a digital fingerprint created at one point in time with a digital fingerprint created at a different point in time and using the degree of match as a component in the system. The matching may be done in various ways. As an example, an embodiment may carry out the matching of a plurality of digital fingerprints by calculating a simple threshold feature vector distance for each point of interest. Those closer than the threshold could be deemed to be a “match”. Other known types of calculations may be employed. See the description of Digital Fingerprinting, below, for more detail.
The technology disclosed herein may differentiate between several types of changes in physical objects (based on the way the points of interest change) and provide a measurement not only of overall change but of different types or categories of changes. Some examples, mentioned elsewhere in this disclosure, include distinguishing and measuring additive and subtractive changes separately. Those examples are given but any kind of change that can be isolated based on digital fingerprinting is in view of the taught system.
While this disclosure is not limited to the use of visible light, most of the examples given use visible light. In most instances, the taught technology enables the use of visible light with no special equipment, which means that the hardware required to run the system may in many cases be consumer-level electronics (e.g. a smart phone). The ability to use relatively inexpensive equipment provides a considerable benefit over current approaches, many of which require specialized and often expensive equipment.
In view in the disclosure is the ability of multiple users at different times and places to contribute to a conceptual map of where (or when, how, why, etc.) changes to an object occur, which may enable a better understanding of the history of the object and for that history to be recorded. For example, the system of
A remote induction process 162 may be provisioned and coupled to the server 110 via the network 160. This enables inducting, i.e., capturing image data of an object from a remote location, and adding the corresponding digital fingerprint of the remote object, to the server 110. The server 110 may store digital fingerprint in a coupled datastore 116, which again may be local or provisioned in the cloud. The object change server 110 can store data in the datastore 116 including digital fingerprint data, to accomplish the functions described herein. For example, the datastore can maintain class digital fingerprints, individual (selected object) digital fingerprints, including multiple versions over time; reference object or digital fingerprints or digital models of an object.
The matching process can be carried out, for example, by an analysis component 144. It may use a query manager 142 to access various records as needed in the datastore 116. Results such as match measurements, deterioration metrics, and object histories and be stored and update in the datastore. In one scenario, a remote user 170 may capture an object image using a smartphone 172. The image data can be used to generate a corresponding digital fingerprint, locally on the phone, or in the user system 170, or a remote induction component 162, or at the server 110. The object digital fingerprint can be stored in the datastore. It can be used to query the datastore to find a matching record from an earlier induction. It can be used to compare to that earlier record, to determine changes, and optionally to update the object history.
Two categories of objects are considered: First, those that are members of a group of similar objects where a substantial portion of the digital fingerprint of an individual object is shared by the similar objects; and second, those objects where there is no such sharing. Whether or not an object shares a “substantial portion” of the digital fingerprint with another may be measured by a threshold value, may be defined by a model or a template, or determined by some other means of measure. Shared or potentially-shared portions of digital fingerprints are, for the purposes of this disclosure, called “background features,” although the name is not critical or to be taken literally. In general (though not exclusively) the background features make different members of the group look similar even at fairly detailed levels of examination. A “fairly detailed level of examination” of a physical object may utilize on the order of 5-10× magnification, although these values are not critical. An example of a set of objects that has significant background features are currency bills. In fact, background features are commonly intentionally-added characteristics in paper currency. For example, in the case of a dollar bill, its background features are consistent enough to distinguish a one-dollar bill from a twenty-dollar bill and would include such components as Washington's face and the numerical “1” at the four corners of the bill.
In more detail, in one embodiment, the Laplacian is used to calculate the curvature at each point on the surface. To do this, the Laplacian requires two things: it needs to know the point at its center and it needs to know how far out to look when calculating it. The latter is the “scale” of the Laplacian. One may pass a Laplacian of a given scale over the surface and choose as the location of the points of interest the local (absolute value of the) maximum of the Laplacian. This is done for various scales. At a given point, as the Laplacian scale goes from very small to very large (over a pre-specified range of scales) there is some scale where its absolute value is largest. That value of the scale is then chosen. The point of interest circle indicates that scale.
The examples and descriptions provided here are not meant to be limiting in any way but rather to provide a clear visual of the kind of object being referred to. The digital fingerprints of currency bills often have points of interest whose locations are shared among many such bills and whose characterizing feature vectors are relatively similar as well. The reason for the similarity is that the object has features which are intentional features common to the group of objects and the digital fingerprinting process is finding those common features. In general, such points of interest are close physically (meaning they are located at the same point on each dollar bill) but vary in characterization (since things like paper fibers and ink bleeds cause the feature vectors of extracted digital features to vary significantly).
Objects that do not have Substantially Similar Background Features
The second category is objects that do not have significant shared background features. Machined part surfaces commonly fall into this category. To the naked eye, machined parts may appear to be extremely similar—for example, different brake pads of the same lot—but when viewed at a resolution that on a dollar bill would show, for example, the background features of George Washington's face, such different parts of the same kind show little or no common features. One reason is that, for example, machined part surfaces may consist primarily of casting or machining marks which show little or no commonality across members of the type of object.
In some embodiments, the image may be displayed in color to provide more information. The dark line is actually in the image. In one example, a first color may be used to display circles that are above a certain strength or threshold value (“strong points of interest”), while a second color may be used to show weaker points of interest, i.e., those below the threshold value. In another example, additional colors, for example, four or five colors, may be applied to points of interest circles in a visual display to show a (quantized) range of strength values. The “strength” of a point of interest is correlated to the ability to find it under different conditions of angle and illumination. The use of visual displays including circles (or other shapes), colors, etc. may help human users to understand the computerized processes at work.
Two different processes for detecting and measuring changes to an object are described in more detail below. Which process to apply depends on the category of objects to be considered. It should be kept in mind that while two distinct categories are described herein, in practice, objects generally fall within a range from one to the other. One example is coin grading, where both addition and subtraction may be equally important. While different approaches are described for the two categories, it is anticipated that for many objects a combination of approaches will be required.
The system taught herein works when the change is negative or subtractive-such as when parts of the surface abrade—as well as when the change is additive. In either case, the match with the reference digital fingerprint will degrade. In the former case, degradation is caused by removal of the surface feature that was characterized as a point of interest in the reference fingerprint. In the latter case, that surface feature has been covered over by an additive process.
In one embodiment of this disclosure, features common to multiple examples of a class of objects are identified and common points of interest are identified and characterized and then used for determining changes in members of that class of objects. At different times in the object's life cycle its digital fingerprint is compared with the digital fingerprint composed of the common points of interest and the change in correspondence to those common points measured and used as a measurement of the change in the object. This is particularly useful when the object being measured was not inducted (i.e. digitally fingerprinted) when new.
One advantage of the approach of using common points is the ability to produce a degradation measuring system that does not require that a particular object (of this kind) be inducted as a reference. Instead of measuring degradation of a particular object from its earlier induction, the degradation in the object's match with a group digital fingerprint comprising the common points is measured. An example of this type of process follows.
Process for a Class of Objects with a Substantial Number of Common Points of Interest
Meaning of “up to invariances”. It was stated above that the common points are in the same (or very similar) locations “up to invariances”. What this means depends on the type of invariance that the processing of the object achieves. Consider a dollar bill as an example. If an image of a dollar bill is always captured in the same orientation and with the same resolution, the common points of the dollar bill class will be in very nearly the same location in each image. If, however, the bill may be imaged in any orientation, the location of the common points is “the same” after correcting for the degree of rotation between member of the class. If the image can be captured at different resolutions, the common points are located in “the same location” up to a change in scale. Similar statements can be made for offset, affine, homography, projective, perspective, rubber sheet, and other variations. A point on one object is considered to be “in the same location” as a point on another object of the same class if, when a matching of digital fingerprints is performed, they are considered to be properly located for a match. In this description, when it is stated that two points on different class members are located in the same place, “up to invariances” should always be understood to be implied.
Now that a set of common points of interest are defined, a “class digital fingerprint” (or simply, “class fingerprint”) can be generated, so that the class fingerprint contains, preferably only, the common points of interest, block 504. The class fingerprint can be used for matching an object to a class (that is, for determining that a particular object is a member of a particular class whose class fingerprint the fingerprint of the object matches within a threshold). That is an important use, but it is not directly relevant to this section of the description. The class fingerprint may have all the points found (including, say, 15 of each located very close to each other), an average of the characteristics of each such point, or any other way of combining them. Significantly, when the process is completed, the outcome will include a set of points, many of which are likely to occur in any example of the object class.
For some applications, the selected set of objects should be objects that are as close as possible to a desired reference state. In many cases the preferred reference state will be “new”, but in the case of an object inducted previously in its life cycle, the reference state might be the same object (that is, the digital fingerprint of the same object) acquired and stored at an initial or earlier induction. As mentioned, the objects are compared with each other and the points of interest that are common to a significant number of them are preserved in a class fingerprint.
One benefit of having background features and using them to create a class fingerprint is that the degree of change of a member of the class may be determined without the individual object having been inducted when it was new. However well or poorly it matches the class fingerprint (compared to how well other items known to be worn out or in good condition matched and/or compared with its previous matches), measures the degree of wear.
Referring again to
The deterioration of the selected member's match to the class fingerprint is used as a measure or metric of its degree of change, see block 526. Determining that the object is worn out may either be done by training—that is, by seeing how much degradation other objects in the class have undergone before a human decides they are worn out—or by a predetermined loss of matching points between the object and the class digital fingerprint, or by some other method. When a sufficiently high level of degradation occurs in a tested object, the object is declared to be worn out. These processes may be realized in software, for example, in an analysis component 144 in the object change server 110 in
Process for a Class of Objects without a Substantial Number of Common Points of Interest
In an embodiment an object is inducted when new (or other known state) and measurement of its change is based on how its own digital fingerprint changes from the originally-inducted one. That digital fingerprint may comprise only those points of interest that occur in this object (and not in similar objects) or it may comprise all points of interest on the object, or, comprise different subsets of such points.
It should be kept in mind that this approach may be used for any object whether or not it belongs to a class that has common points. It is possible the use of common points of interest (in the former embodiment) as well as individual object points of interest in a given application.
When there are few or no “common features” or “background features” creating a class digital fingerprint is impossible, so the approach of the previous section is also impossible. When everything is foreground (or treated as though it were foreground), the object must be inducted when the object is in a known condition, preferably when it is new, although any condition may be acceptable. Change, therefore, is measured as the change from the originally-inducted digital fingerprint. A turbine blade is one example, but this approach works for almost any object, including those with substantial background points or features.
In this case an object is inducted when in a known condition, preferably in “new” condition for measuring degradation, or, as another example, “prior to anodizing” if anodizing will be taking place, and so on. Later, when the object has been worn or anodized or otherwise altered, the object is inducted again to measure the difference in match points from when it was initially inducted.
At block 412, the process continues by comparing the second/next digital fingerprint of the object to a first/next preceding digital fingerprint to form a first/next comparison. Block 414 calls for determining a first/next measure of change of the object between the first/next time and the second/next subsequent time based on the first/next comparison. Block 416 calls for recording the first/next measure of change to accumulate measures of change of the object over time, namely, from the first time to the last (most recent) next time.
A decision 418 determines whether the manufacturing process has completed. If so, the process may terminate, block 422. If not, the illustrated method may provide feedback to the manufacturing process, block 420. That is, it may provide information based on changes to the object during the manufacturing process, for example, if a plating process is specified to continue until a certain measure of change is accomplished, the feedback may indicate that the measure of change has occurred and thus the plating process is completed. Assuming the process is not completed, the method loops back to block 408 to again re-induct the object.
Training
Determining how much measured change is sufficient to, say, remove a bill or turbine blade from service or show that the anodizing process has been successful can be done in various ways, any of which are in view in this disclosure. Two approaches are worth highlighting. First, a degree of change of the test digital fingerprint from the reference one may be set. To use the wear-and-tear example of a turbine blade, when, for example, half the points originally seen are no longer there to match the reference, that level of change may be defined as a prompt to replace the blade. This makes sense because half the points missing is indicative of half the surface having been substantially altered. In category one (the category with a large number of background points) it is indicative that half the points that make the object a dollar bill (or whatever) are missing so it may be time to recycle the bill. Note that the use of “half” here is purely arbitrary. The number of points may be set at any level and by any manner, including manually, as a result of experience, as a result of a training process, or by any other method.
The training process approach involves training the system to determine the action to take based on a given degree of change. Again, the wear and tear surface erosion example will be used, but the example is not meant to be limiting. One way to do the training is to induct a set of objects and follow them through their life cycle, measuring them as time passes until they are ready to be replaced. The degradation score at their points of replacement (or the aggregate or average of such scores) may then be used to define a norm or a standard. A more sophisticated training system may be envisioned where a neural net or other machine learning system is trained with objects at various parts of their life cycles and, after the training cycle is complete, the match of the object to the class digital fingerprint (first category) or to its initial induction (second category) is put into the learning system and the system indicates, for example, how much life is left in the object or that it is time to replace the object. A similar training system may be envisioned for use in additive processes as well.
In addition to the currency bill and turbine blade examples explored above, many other embodiments are possible. The teachings of this disclosure apply wherever measurement of change in the surface features of a physical object is useful.
Plating. In addition to anodizing, mentioned above, other methods of obscuring the surface are in view. The obscuring may be unintentional or intentional. Plating is one example. Depending on how thick the plating is supposed to be, the object may be inducted once or many times in the plating process.
In an embodiment, an object's surface may need to be covered with new material that is too thick to see through. There are two uses for digital fingerprinting here. First, the teachings of this disclosure can be used to determine the progress and effectiveness of such additions. In this case, each time the previous surface “disappears” to some predetermined amount, the object is re-inducted, and a new reference preserved. When that surface in turn partially “disappears”, further induction is performed and so on until the addition process is complete. The second use is to re-induct the part when the new surface is finished so that, going forward, the part's identity can be established. As such, in this embodiment the teachings of this disclosure are used to both ensure the additive process is working correctly and, when that process is finished, to ensure that the system can continue to identify the part as it moves through further manufacturing stages.
Item aging. Aging here is a stand-in term for conditions where the object changes not because it is added to or abraded but simply as a result of the passage of time, its interaction with the environment, its regrowth/regeneration (such as in the case of skin or living material), and so on. In this case, surface points may be added or subtracted by the aging process and the degree of change measured not just in terms of points of interest lost but also points of interest that first appear between inductions.
Coin (and other object) grading. Many objects are graded to determine how closely they conform to a standard object. Coins are examples of this. In general, the more the coin is worn (in the case of circulated coins) or scarred by, say, other coins in a bag (uncirculated coins), the less well they will conform.
Coins are graded somewhat differently depending on their type. Proof coins are (generally) double stamped and stamped with mirrored dies. They are not meant for general circulation. Proof coins are graded from PR-60 to PR-70 (impaired or rubbed proof coins may have a lower grade). Uncirculated regular coins are coins that have never been in general circulation. Uncirculated coin grades run from MS-60 to MS-70, which correspond in quality and amount of degradation to the PR categories for proof coins.
Coins that have been in general circulation are graded in a range from 1 to 59, 50 and up are called “about uncirculated” (AU). 40-49 are “extremely fine” (XF). 20-39 are “very fine” (VF). Below that are “fine” (F), “very good” (VG), “good” (G), “about good” (AG), “fair” (FR), “poor” (P), and “ungradable”. Examples are given below.
Coins fit into the first category of objects with similar background features, described above as coins have a large quantity of shared “background” points. It is clear from the images that degradation from initial conditions depends on both addition (patina, scratch marks) and subtraction (wear marks). The taught system may be used to carry out coin grading by having coins graded by an expert and the digital fingerprint of the coins extracted. A learning system is then programmed based on the grade and the measured change from an ideal example of that coin type. When a coin of that type is to be graded, its digital fingerprint is extracted and additions and subtractions from the standard measured, the results fed through the learning system, and the grade produced.
“Digital fingerprinting” refers to the creation and use of digital records (digital fingerprints) derived from properties of a physical object, which digital records are typically stored in a database. Digital fingerprints maybe used to reliably and unambiguously identify or authenticate corresponding physical objects, track them through supply chains, record their provenance and changes over time, and for many other uses and applications.
Digital fingerprints store information, preferably in the form of numbers or “feature vectors,” that describes features that appear at particular locations, called points of interest, of a two-dimensional (2-D) or three-dimensional (3-D) object. In the case of a 2-D object, the points of interest are preferably on a surface of the corresponding object; in the 3-D case, the points of interest may be on the surface or in the interior of the object. In some applications, an object “feature template” may be used to define locations or regions of interest for a class of objects. The digital fingerprints may be derived or generated from digital data of the object which may be, for example, image data.
While the data from which digital fingerprints are derived is often images, a digital fingerprint may contain digital representations of any data derived from or associated with the object. For example, digital fingerprint data may be derived from an audio file. That audio file in turn may be associated or linked in a database to an object. Thus, in general, a digital fingerprint may be derived from a first object directly, or it may be derived from a different object (or file) linked to the first object, or a combination of the two (or more) sources. In the audio example, the audio file may be a recording of a person speaking a particular phrase. The digital fingerprint of the audio recording may be stored as part of a digital fingerprint of the person speaking. The digital fingerprint (of the person) may be used as part of a system and method to later identify or authenticate that person, based on their speaking the same phrase, in combination with other sources.
Returning to the 2-D and 3-D object examples mentioned above, feature extraction or feature detection may be used to characterize points of interest. In an embodiment, this may be done in various ways. Two examples include Scale-Invariant Feature Transform (or SIFT) and Speeded Up Robust features (or SURF). Both are described in the literature. For example: “Feature detection and matching are used in image registration, object tracking, object retrieval etc. There are number of approaches used to detect and matching of features as SIFT (Scale Invariant Feature Transform), SURF (Speeded up Robust Feature), FAST, ORB etc. SIFT and SURF are most useful approaches to detect and matching of features because of it is invariant to scale, rotate, translation, illumination, and blur.” MISTRY, Darshana et al., Comparison of Feature Detection and Matching Approaches: SIFT and SURF, GRD Journals—Global Research and Development Journal for Engineering|Volume 2|Issue 4|March 2017.
In an embodiment, features may be used to represent information derived from a digital image in a machine-readable and useful way. Features may be point, line, edges, and blob of an image etc. There are areas as image registration, object tracking, and object retrieval etc. that require a system or processor to detect and match correct features. Therefore, it may be desirable to find features in ways that are invariant to rotation, scale, translation, illumination, noisy and blur images. The search of interest points from one object image to corresponding images can be very challenging work. The search may preferably be done such that same physical interest points can be found in different views. Once located, points of interest and their respective characteristics may be aggregated to form the digital fingerprint (generally including 2-D or 3-D location parameters).
In an embodiment, features may be matched, for example, based on finding a minimum threshold distance. Distances can be found using Euclidean distance, Manhattan distance etc. If distances of two points are less than a prescribed minimum threshold distance, those key points may be known as matching pairs. Matching a digital fingerprint may comprise assessing a number of matching pairs, their locations or distance and other characteristics. Many points may be assessed to calculate a likelihood of a match, since, generally, a perfect match will not be found. In some applications an “feature template” may be used to define locations or regions of interest for a class of objects.
Scanning
In this application, the term “scan” is used in the broadest sense, referring to any and all means for capturing an image or set of images, which may be in digital form or transformed into digital form. Images may, for example, be two dimensional, three dimensional, or in the form of a video. Thus a “scan” may refer to an image (or digital data that defines an image) captured by a scanner, a camera, a specially adapted sensor or sensor array (such as a CCD array), a microscope, a smartphone camera, a video camera, an x-ray machine, a sonar, an ultrasound machine, a microphone (or other instruments for converting sound waves into electrical energy variations), etc. Broadly, any device that can sense and capture either electromagnetic radiation or mechanical wave that has traveled through an object or reflected off an object or any other means to capture surface or internal structure of an object is a candidate to create a “scan” of an object. Various means to extract “fingerprints” or features from an object may be used; for example, through sound, physical structure, chemical composition, or many others. The remainder of this application will use terms like “image” but when doing so, the broader uses of this technology should be implied. In other words, alternative means to extract “fingerprints” or features from an object should be considered equivalents within the scope of this disclosure. Similarly, terms such as “scanner” and “scanning equipment” herein may be used in a broad sense to refer to any equipment capable of carrying out “scans” as defined above, or to equipment that carries out “scans” as defined above as part of their function.
More information about digital fingerprinting can be found in various patents and publications assigned to Alitheon, Inc. including, for example, the following: DIGITAL FINGERPRINTING, U.S. Pat. No. 8,6109,762; OBJECT IDENTIFICATION AND INVENTORY MANAGEMENT, U.S. Pat. No. 9,152,862; DIGITAL FINGERPRINTING OBJECT AUTHENTICATION AND ANTI-COUNTERFEITING SYSTEM, U.S. Pat. No. 9,443,298; PERSONAL HISTORY IN TRACK AND TRACE SYSTEM, U.S. Pat. No. 10,037,537; PRESERVING AUTHENTICATION UNDER ITEM CHANGE, U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2017-0243230 A1. These references are incorporated herein by this reference.
The foregoing description, for purpose of explanation, has been described with reference to specific embodiments. However, the illustrative discussions above are not intended to be exhaustive or to limit the disclosure to the precise forms disclosed. Many modifications and variations are possible in view of the above teachings. The embodiments were chosen and described in order to best explain the principles of the disclosure and its practical applications, to thereby enable others skilled in the art to best utilize the disclosure and various embodiments with various modifications as are suited to the particular use contemplated.
The system and method disclosed herein may be implemented via one or more components, systems, servers, appliances, other subcomponents, or distributed between such elements. When implemented as a system, such systems may include an/or involve, inter alia, components such as software modules, general-purpose CPU, RAM, etc. found in general-purpose computers. In implementations where the innovations reside on a server, such a server may include or involve components such as CPU, RAM, etc., such as those found in general-purpose computers.
Additionally, the system and method herein may be achieved via implementations with disparate or entirely different software, hardware and/or firmware components, beyond that set forth above. With regard to such other components (e.g., software, processing components, etc.) and/or computer-readable media associated with or embodying the present disclosure, for example, aspects of the innovations herein may be implemented consistent with numerous general purpose or special purpose computing systems or configurations. Various exemplary computing systems, environments, and/or configurations that may be suitable for use with the innovations herein may include, but are not limited to: software or other components within or embodied on personal computers, servers or server computing devices such as routing/connectivity components, hand-held or laptop devices, multiprocessor systems, microprocessor-based systems, set top boxes, consumer electronic devices, network PCs, other existing computer platforms, distributed computing environments that include one or more of the above systems or devices, etc.
In some instances, aspects of the system and method may be achieved via or performed by logic and/or logic instructions including program modules, executed in association with such components or circuitry, for example. In general, program modules may include routines, programs, objects, components, data structures, etc. that perform particular tasks or implement particular instructions herein. The disclosures may also be practiced in the context of distributed software, computer, or circuit settings where circuitry is connected via communication buses, circuitry or links. In distributed settings, control/instructions may occur from both local and remote computer storage media including memory storage devices.
The software, circuitry and components herein may also include and/or utilize one or more type of computer readable media. Computer readable media can be any available media that is resident on, associable with, or can be accessed by such circuits and/or computing components. By way of example, and not limitation, computer readable media may comprise computer storage media and communication media. Computer storage media includes volatile and nonvolatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information such as computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules or other data. Computer storage media includes, but is not limited to, RAM, ROM, EEPROM, flash memory or other memory technology, CD-ROM, digital versatile disks (DVD) or other optical storage, magnetic tape, magnetic disk storage or other magnetic storage devices, or any other medium which can be used to store the desired information and can accessed by computing component. Communication media may comprise computer readable instructions, data structures, program modules and/or other components. Further, communication media may include wired media such as a wired network or direct-wired connection, however no media of any such type herein includes transitory media. Combinations of the any of the above are also included within the scope of computer readable media.
In the present description, the terms component, module, device, etc. may refer to any type of logical or functional software elements, circuits, blocks and/or processes that may be implemented in a variety of ways. For example, the functions of various circuits and/or blocks can be combined with one another into any other number of modules. Each module may even be implemented as a software program stored on a tangible memory (e.g., random access memory, read only memory, CD-ROM memory, hard disk drive, etc.) to be read by a central processing unit to implement the functions of the innovations herein. Or, the modules can comprise programming instructions transmitted to a general-purpose computer or to processing/graphics hardware via a transmission carrier wave. Also, the modules can be implemented as hardware logic circuitry implementing the functions encompassed by the innovations herein. Finally, the modules can be implemented using special purpose instructions (SIMD instructions), field programmable logic arrays or any mix thereof which provides the desired level performance and cost.
As disclosed herein, features consistent with the disclosure may be implemented via computer-hardware, software and/or firmware. For example, the systems and methods disclosed herein may be embodied in various forms including, for example, a data processor, such as a computer that also includes a database, digital electronic circuitry, firmware, software, or in combinations of them. Further, while some of the disclosed implementations describe specific hardware components, systems and methods consistent with the innovations herein may be implemented with any combination of hardware, software and/or firmware. Moreover, the above-noted features and other aspects and principles of the innovations herein may be implemented in various environments. Such environments and related applications may be specially constructed for performing the various routines, processes and/or operations according to the present disclosure or they may include a general-purpose computer or computing platform selectively activated or reconfigured by code to provide the necessary functionality. The processes disclosed herein are not inherently related to any particular computer, network, architecture, environment, or other apparatus, and may be implemented by a suitable combination of hardware, software, and/or firmware. For example, various general-purpose machines may be used with programs written in accordance with teachings of the present disclosure, or it may be more convenient to construct a specialized apparatus or system to perform the required methods and techniques.
Aspects of the method and system described herein, such as the logic, may also be implemented as functionality programmed into any of a variety of circuitry, including programmable logic devices (“PLDs”), such as field programmable gate arrays (“FPGAs”), programmable array logic (“PAL”) devices, electrically programmable logic and memory devices and standard cell-based devices, as well as application specific integrated circuits. Some other possibilities for implementing aspects include memory devices, microcontrollers with memory (such as EEPROM), embedded microprocessors, firmware, software, etc. Furthermore, aspects may be embodied in microprocessors having software-based circuit emulation, discrete logic (sequential and combinatorial), custom devices, fuzzy (neural) logic, quantum devices, and hybrids of any of the above device types. The underlying device technologies may be provided in a variety of component types, e.g., metal-oxide semiconductor field-effect transistor (“MOSFET”) technologies like complementary metal-oxide semiconductor (“CMOS”), bipolar technologies like emitter-coupled logic (“ECL”), polymer technologies (e.g., silicon-conjugated polymer and metal-conjugated polymer-metal structures), mixed analog and digital, and so on.
It should also be noted that the various logic and/or functions disclosed herein may be enabled using any number of combinations of hardware, firmware, and/or as data and/or instructions embodied in various machine-readable or computer-readable media, in terms of their behavioral, register transfer, logic component, and/or other characteristics. Computer-readable media in which such formatted data and/or instructions may be embodied include, but are not limited to, non-volatile storage media in various forms (e.g., optical, magnetic or semiconductor storage media) though again does not include transitory media. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise, throughout the description, the words “comprise,” “comprising,” and the like are to be construed in an inclusive sense as opposed to an exclusive or exhaustive sense; that is to say, in a sense of “including, but not limited to.” Words using the singular or plural number also include the plural or singular number respectively. Additionally, the words “herein,” “hereunder,” “above,” “below,” and words of similar import refer to this application as a whole and not to any particular portions of this application. When the word “or” is used in reference to a list of two or more items, that word covers all of the following interpretations of the word: any of the items in the list, all of the items in the list and any combination of the items in the list.
Although certain presently preferred implementations of the present disclosure have been specifically described herein, it will be apparent to those skilled in the art to which the present disclosure pertains that variations and modifications of the various implementations shown and described herein may be made without departing from the spirit and scope of the present disclosure. Accordingly, it is intended that the present disclosure be limited only to the extent required by the applicable rules of law.
While the foregoing has been with reference to a particular embodiment of the disclosure, it will be appreciated by those skilled in the art that changes in this embodiment may be made without departing from the principles and spirit of the disclosure, the scope of which is defined by the appended claims.
This application is a Continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 17/189,470, filed Mar. 2, 2021 (ref 680-US-C), which is a Continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 16/780,882, filed Feb. 3, 2020 (ref 680-US), which is a non-provisional of and claims priority, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 119(e), to U.S. Application No. 62/802,177, filed Feb. 6, 2019 (ref 680-P), all of which are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully set forth.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4218674 | Brosow et al. | Aug 1980 | A |
4423415 | Goldman | Dec 1983 | A |
4677435 | Causse et al. | Jun 1987 | A |
4700400 | Ross | Oct 1987 | A |
4883971 | Jensen | Nov 1989 | A |
4921107 | Hofer | May 1990 | A |
5031223 | Rosenbaum et al. | Jul 1991 | A |
5079714 | Manduley et al. | Jan 1992 | A |
5393939 | Nasuta et al. | Feb 1995 | A |
5422821 | Allen et al. | Jun 1995 | A |
5514863 | Williams | May 1996 | A |
5518122 | Tilles et al. | May 1996 | A |
5521984 | Denenberg et al. | May 1996 | A |
5703783 | Allen et al. | Dec 1997 | A |
5719939 | Tel | Feb 1998 | A |
5734568 | Borgendale et al. | Mar 1998 | A |
5745590 | Pollard | Apr 1998 | A |
5883971 | Bolle et al. | Mar 1999 | A |
5923848 | Goodhand et al. | Jul 1999 | A |
5974150 | Kaish et al. | Oct 1999 | A |
6205261 | Goldberg | Mar 2001 | B1 |
6246794 | Kagehiro et al. | Jun 2001 | B1 |
6292709 | Uhl et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6327373 | Yura | Dec 2001 | B1 |
6343327 | Daniels et al. | Jan 2002 | B2 |
6360001 | Berger et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6370259 | Hobson et al. | Apr 2002 | B1 |
6400805 | Brown et al. | Jun 2002 | B1 |
6421453 | Kanevsky et al. | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6424728 | Ammar | Jul 2002 | B1 |
6434601 | Rollins | Aug 2002 | B1 |
6470091 | Koga et al. | Oct 2002 | B2 |
6539098 | Baker et al. | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6549892 | Sansone | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6597809 | Ross et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6643648 | Ross et al. | Nov 2003 | B1 |
6697500 | Woolston et al. | Feb 2004 | B2 |
6741724 | Bruce et al. | May 2004 | B1 |
6768810 | Emanuelsson et al. | Jul 2004 | B2 |
6778703 | Zlotnick | Aug 2004 | B1 |
6805926 | Cote et al. | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6816602 | Coffelt et al. | Nov 2004 | B2 |
6829369 | Poulin et al. | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6937748 | Schneider et al. | Aug 2005 | B1 |
6940391 | Ishikura et al. | Sep 2005 | B1 |
6961466 | Imagawa et al. | Nov 2005 | B2 |
6985925 | Ogawa | Jan 2006 | B2 |
6985926 | Ferlauto et al. | Jan 2006 | B1 |
7016532 | Boncyk et al. | Mar 2006 | B2 |
7031519 | Elmenhurst | Apr 2006 | B2 |
7096152 | Ong | Aug 2006 | B1 |
7120302 | Billester | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7121458 | Avant et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7152047 | Nagel | Dec 2006 | B1 |
7171049 | Snapp | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7204415 | Payne et al. | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7212949 | Bachrach | May 2007 | B2 |
7333987 | Ross et al. | Feb 2008 | B2 |
7343623 | Ross | Mar 2008 | B2 |
7356162 | Caillon | Apr 2008 | B2 |
7379603 | Ross et al. | May 2008 | B2 |
7436979 | Bruce et al. | Oct 2008 | B2 |
7477780 | Boncyk et al. | Jan 2009 | B2 |
7518080 | Amato | Apr 2009 | B2 |
7602938 | Prokoski | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7674995 | Desprez et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7676433 | Ross et al. | Mar 2010 | B1 |
7680306 | Boutant et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7720256 | Desprez et al. | May 2010 | B2 |
7726457 | Maier et al. | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7726548 | Delavergne | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7748029 | Ross | Jun 2010 | B2 |
7822263 | Prokoski | Oct 2010 | B1 |
7834289 | Orbke et al. | Nov 2010 | B2 |
7853792 | Cowburn | Dec 2010 | B2 |
8022832 | Vogt et al. | Sep 2011 | B2 |
8032927 | Ross | Oct 2011 | B2 |
8108309 | Tan | Jan 2012 | B2 |
8162125 | Csulits et al. | Apr 2012 | B1 |
8180174 | Di et al. | May 2012 | B2 |
8180667 | Baluja et al. | May 2012 | B1 |
8194938 | Wechsler et al. | Jun 2012 | B2 |
8316418 | Ross | Nov 2012 | B2 |
8374020 | Katti | Feb 2013 | B2 |
8374399 | Talwerdi | Feb 2013 | B1 |
8374920 | Hedges et al. | Feb 2013 | B2 |
8391583 | Mennie et al. | Mar 2013 | B1 |
8428772 | Miette et al. | Apr 2013 | B2 |
8437530 | Mennie et al. | May 2013 | B1 |
8457354 | Kolar et al. | Jun 2013 | B1 |
8477992 | Paul et al. | Jul 2013 | B2 |
8520888 | Spitzig et al. | Aug 2013 | B2 |
8526743 | Campbell et al. | Sep 2013 | B1 |
8774455 | Elmenhurst et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
8856881 | Mouleswaran et al. | Oct 2014 | B2 |
8959029 | Jones et al. | Feb 2015 | B2 |
9031329 | Farid et al. | May 2015 | B1 |
9058543 | Campbell et al. | Jun 2015 | B2 |
9152862 | Ross et al. | Oct 2015 | B2 |
9170654 | Boncyk et al. | Oct 2015 | B2 |
9213845 | Taraki et al. | Dec 2015 | B1 |
9224196 | Duerksen et al. | Dec 2015 | B2 |
9234843 | Sopori et al. | Jan 2016 | B2 |
9245133 | Durst et al. | Jan 2016 | B1 |
9350552 | Elmenhurst et al. | May 2016 | B2 |
9350714 | Freeman et al. | May 2016 | B2 |
9361507 | Hoyos et al. | Jun 2016 | B1 |
9361596 | Ross et al. | Jun 2016 | B2 |
9424461 | Yuan et al. | Aug 2016 | B1 |
9443298 | Ross et al. | Sep 2016 | B2 |
9558463 | Ross et al. | Jan 2017 | B2 |
9582714 | Ross et al. | Feb 2017 | B2 |
9646206 | Ross et al. | May 2017 | B2 |
9665800 | Kuffner | May 2017 | B1 |
9741724 | Seshadri et al. | Aug 2017 | B2 |
10037537 | Withrow et al. | Jul 2018 | B2 |
10043073 | Ross et al. | Aug 2018 | B2 |
10192140 | Ross et al. | Jan 2019 | B2 |
10199886 | Li et al. | Feb 2019 | B2 |
10275585 | Fadell et al. | Apr 2019 | B2 |
10346852 | Ross et al. | Jul 2019 | B2 |
10398370 | Boshra et al. | Sep 2019 | B2 |
10505726 | Andon et al. | Dec 2019 | B1 |
10540664 | Ross et al. | Jan 2020 | B2 |
10572749 | Bonev et al. | Feb 2020 | B1 |
10572883 | Ross et al. | Feb 2020 | B2 |
10614302 | Withrow et al. | Apr 2020 | B2 |
10621594 | Land et al. | Apr 2020 | B2 |
10740767 | Withrow | Aug 2020 | B2 |
10936838 | Wong | Mar 2021 | B1 |
20010010334 | Park et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20010054031 | Lee et al. | Dec 2001 | A1 |
20020015515 | Lichtermann et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020073049 | Dutta | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020134836 | Cash et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20020168090 | Bruce et al. | Nov 2002 | A1 |
20030015395 | Hallowell et al. | Jan 2003 | A1 |
20030046103 | Amato et al. | Mar 2003 | A1 |
20030091724 | Mizoguchi | May 2003 | A1 |
20030120677 | Vernon | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20030138128 | Rhoads | Jul 2003 | A1 |
20030179931 | Sun | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030182018 | Snapp | Sep 2003 | A1 |
20030208298 | Edmonds | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030219145 | Smith | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20040027630 | Lizotte | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20040101174 | Sato et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20040112962 | Farrall et al. | Jun 2004 | A1 |
20040218791 | Jiang et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040218801 | Houle et al. | Nov 2004 | A1 |
20040250085 | Tattan et al. | Dec 2004 | A1 |
20050007776 | Monk et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050038756 | Nagel | Feb 2005 | A1 |
20050065719 | Khan et al. | Mar 2005 | A1 |
20050086256 | Owens et al. | Apr 2005 | A1 |
20050111618 | Sommer et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050119786 | Kadaba | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050125360 | Tidwell et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050131576 | De et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050137882 | Cameron et al. | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20050160271 | Brundage et al. | Jul 2005 | A9 |
20050169529 | Owechko et al. | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050188213 | Xu | Aug 2005 | A1 |
20050204144 | Mizutani | Sep 2005 | A1 |
20050251285 | Boyce et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050257064 | Boutant et al. | Nov 2005 | A1 |
20050289061 | Kulakowski et al. | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060010503 | Inoue et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060083414 | Neumann et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060109520 | Gossaye et al. | May 2006 | A1 |
20060131518 | Ross et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060165261 | Pira | Jul 2006 | A1 |
20060177104 | Prokoski | Aug 2006 | A1 |
20060253406 | Caillon | Nov 2006 | A1 |
20070036470 | Piersol et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070056041 | Goodman | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070071291 | Yumoto et al. | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070085710 | Bousquet et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070094155 | Dearing | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070211651 | Ahmed et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070211964 | Agam et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070223791 | Shinzaki | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20070230656 | Lowes et al. | Oct 2007 | A1 |
20070263267 | Ditt | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070269043 | Launay et al. | Nov 2007 | A1 |
20070282900 | Owens et al. | Dec 2007 | A1 |
20080005578 | Shafir | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080008377 | Andel et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080011841 | Self et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080013804 | Moon et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080016355 | Beun et al. | Jan 2008 | A1 |
20080128496 | Bertranou et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080130947 | Ross et al. | Jun 2008 | A1 |
20080219503 | Di et al. | Sep 2008 | A1 |
20080250483 | Lee | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080255758 | Graham et al. | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20080272585 | Conard et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080290005 | Bennett et al. | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20080294474 | Furka | Nov 2008 | A1 |
20090028379 | Belanger et al. | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20090057207 | Orbke et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090083850 | Fadell et al. | Mar 2009 | A1 |
20090106042 | Maytal et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
20090134222 | Ikeda | May 2009 | A1 |
20090154778 | Lei et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090157733 | Kim et al. | Jun 2009 | A1 |
20090223099 | Versteeg | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090232361 | Miller | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090245652 | Bastos | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090271029 | Doutre | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20090287498 | Choi | Nov 2009 | A2 |
20090307005 | Omartin et al. | Dec 2009 | A1 |
20100027834 | Spitzig et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100054551 | Decoux | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100070527 | Chen | Mar 2010 | A1 |
20100104200 | Baras et al. | Apr 2010 | A1 |
20100157064 | Cheng et al. | Jun 2010 | A1 |
20100163612 | Caillon | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100166303 | Rahimi | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100174406 | Miette et al. | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100286815 | Zimmermann | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20110026831 | Perronnin et al. | Feb 2011 | A1 |
20110049235 | Gerigk et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110064279 | Uno | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110081043 | Sabol et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110091068 | Stuck et al. | Apr 2011 | A1 |
20110161117 | Busque et al. | Jun 2011 | A1 |
20110188709 | Gupta et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110194780 | Li et al. | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20110235920 | Iwamoto et al. | Sep 2011 | A1 |
20110267192 | Goldman et al. | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110291839 | Cole | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120011119 | Baheti et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120042171 | White et al. | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120089639 | Wang | Apr 2012 | A1 |
20120130868 | Loeken | May 2012 | A1 |
20120177281 | Frew | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120185393 | Atsmon et al. | Jul 2012 | A1 |
20120199651 | Glazer | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120242481 | Gernandt et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120243797 | Di Venuto Dayer et al. | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20120250945 | Peng et al. | Oct 2012 | A1 |
20130110719 | Carter et al. | May 2013 | A1 |
20130162394 | Etchegoyen | Jun 2013 | A1 |
20130202182 | Rowe | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130212027 | Sharma et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130214164 | Zhang et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130236066 | Shubinsky et al. | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20130277425 | Sharma et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20130284803 | Wood et al. | Oct 2013 | A1 |
20140032322 | Schwieger et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140140570 | Ross et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
20140140571 | Elmenhurst et al. | May 2014 | A1 |
20140184843 | Campbell et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140201094 | Herrington et al. | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20140253711 | Balch et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140270341 | Elmenhurst et al. | Sep 2014 | A1 |
20140314283 | Harding | Oct 2014 | A1 |
20140355890 | Highley | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20140380446 | Niu et al. | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20150043023 | Ito | Feb 2015 | A1 |
20150058142 | Lenahan et al. | Feb 2015 | A1 |
20150067346 | Ross et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
20150078629 | Gottemukkula et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
20150086068 | Mulhearn et al. | Mar 2015 | A1 |
20150110364 | Niinuma et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150117701 | Ross et al. | Apr 2015 | A1 |
20150127430 | Hammer | May 2015 | A1 |
20150248587 | Oami et al. | Sep 2015 | A1 |
20150294189 | Benhimane et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
20150309502 | Breitgand et al. | Oct 2015 | A1 |
20150347815 | Dante et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20150347833 | Robinson et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20150371087 | Ross et al. | Dec 2015 | A1 |
20160034913 | Zavarehi et al. | Feb 2016 | A1 |
20160034914 | Gonen et al. | Feb 2016 | A1 |
20160055651 | Oami | Feb 2016 | A1 |
20160057138 | Hoyos et al. | Feb 2016 | A1 |
20160072626 | Kouladjie | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20160117631 | McCloskey et al. | Apr 2016 | A1 |
20160162734 | Ross et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
20160180485 | Avila et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
20160180546 | Kim et al. | Jun 2016 | A1 |
20160189510 | Hutz | Jun 2016 | A1 |
20160203387 | Lee et al. | Jul 2016 | A1 |
20160283808 | Oganezov et al. | Sep 2016 | A1 |
20160300094 | Lu et al. | Oct 2016 | A1 |
20160335520 | Ross et al. | Nov 2016 | A1 |
20170004444 | Krasko et al. | Jan 2017 | A1 |
20170024603 | Misslin | Jan 2017 | A1 |
20170032285 | Sharma et al. | Feb 2017 | A1 |
20170076132 | Sezan et al. | Mar 2017 | A1 |
20170132458 | Short et al. | May 2017 | A1 |
20170153069 | Huang et al. | Jun 2017 | A1 |
20170220901 | Klimovski et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170243230 | Ross et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170243231 | Withrow et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170243232 | Ross et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170243233 | Land et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170249491 | Macintosh et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170251143 | Peruch et al. | Aug 2017 | A1 |
20170253069 | Kerkar et al. | Sep 2017 | A1 |
20170295301 | Liu et al. | Oct 2017 | A1 |
20170300905 | Withrow et al. | Oct 2017 | A1 |
20170344823 | Withrow et al. | Nov 2017 | A1 |
20170344824 | Martin | Nov 2017 | A1 |
20170372327 | Withrow | Dec 2017 | A1 |
20180000359 | Watanabe | Jan 2018 | A1 |
20180012008 | Withrow et al. | Jan 2018 | A1 |
20180018627 | Ross et al. | Jan 2018 | A1 |
20180018838 | Fankhauser et al. | Jan 2018 | A1 |
20180024074 | Ranieri et al. | Jan 2018 | A1 |
20180024178 | House et al. | Jan 2018 | A1 |
20180039818 | Kim et al. | Feb 2018 | A1 |
20180047128 | Ross et al. | Feb 2018 | A1 |
20180053312 | Ross et al. | Feb 2018 | A1 |
20180121643 | Talwerdi et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
20180129860 | Krishnapura et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
20180129861 | Kim et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
20180144211 | Ross et al. | May 2018 | A1 |
20180174586 | Zamora Esquivel et al. | Jun 2018 | A1 |
20180189582 | Lo et al. | Jul 2018 | A1 |
20180218505 | Kim et al. | Aug 2018 | A1 |
20180293370 | Kim et al. | Oct 2018 | A1 |
20180315058 | Withrow et al. | Nov 2018 | A1 |
20180341766 | Anagnostopoulos | Nov 2018 | A1 |
20180341835 | Siminoff | Nov 2018 | A1 |
20180349694 | Ross et al. | Dec 2018 | A1 |
20190026581 | Leizerson | Jan 2019 | A1 |
20190034518 | Liu et al. | Jan 2019 | A1 |
20190034694 | Ross | Jan 2019 | A1 |
20190073533 | Chen et al. | Mar 2019 | A1 |
20190102873 | Wang et al. | Apr 2019 | A1 |
20190102973 | Oyama et al. | Apr 2019 | A1 |
20190130082 | Alameh et al. | May 2019 | A1 |
20190228174 | Withrow et al. | Jul 2019 | A1 |
20190266373 | Hirokawa | Aug 2019 | A1 |
20190279017 | Graham et al. | Sep 2019 | A1 |
20190287118 | Ross et al. | Sep 2019 | A1 |
20190342102 | Hao et al. | Nov 2019 | A1 |
20190354822 | Pic et al. | Nov 2019 | A1 |
20190362186 | Irshad et al. | Nov 2019 | A1 |
20200065569 | Nduka et al. | Feb 2020 | A1 |
20200153822 | Land et al. | May 2020 | A1 |
20200226366 | Withrow et al. | Jul 2020 | A1 |
20200233901 | Crowley et al. | Jul 2020 | A1 |
20200250395 | Ross et al. | Aug 2020 | A1 |
20200257791 | Shannon et al. | Aug 2020 | A1 |
20200296521 | Wexler et al. | Sep 2020 | A1 |
20200311404 | Derakhshani | Oct 2020 | A1 |
20200334689 | Withrow | Oct 2020 | A1 |
20200349379 | Ross | Nov 2020 | A1 |
20200356751 | Matsuda et al. | Nov 2020 | A1 |
20200356772 | Withrow et al. | Nov 2020 | A1 |
20210012081 | Guo et al. | Jan 2021 | A1 |
20210049252 | Ando et al. | Feb 2021 | A1 |
20210158509 | Kwak et al. | May 2021 | A1 |
20210314316 | Ross | Oct 2021 | A1 |
20210375291 | Zeng et al. | Dec 2021 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
104519048 | Apr 2015 | CN |
102006005927 | Aug 2007 | DE |
0439669 | Aug 1991 | EP |
0759596 | Feb 1997 | EP |
1016548 | Jul 2000 | EP |
1016549 | Jul 2000 | EP |
1719070 | Apr 2009 | EP |
2107506 | Oct 2009 | EP |
2166493 | Mar 2010 | EP |
2195621 | Nov 2013 | EP |
2866193 | Apr 2015 | EP |
2257909 | May 2015 | EP |
2869240 | May 2015 | EP |
2869241 | May 2015 | EP |
3208744 | Aug 2017 | EP |
3249581 | Nov 2017 | EP |
3267384 | Jan 2018 | EP |
3270342 | Jan 2018 | EP |
2467465 | Jun 2014 | ES |
2097979 | Nov 1982 | GB |
2446837 | Aug 2008 | GB |
2482127 | Jan 2012 | GB |
61234481 | Oct 1986 | JP |
H07192112 | Jul 1995 | JP |
2005321935 | Nov 2005 | JP |
2007213148 | Aug 2007 | JP |
2008021082 | Jan 2008 | JP |
2010146158 | Jul 2010 | JP |
5278978 | May 2013 | JP |
20010016395 | Mar 2001 | KR |
20120009654 | Feb 2012 | KR |
2005086616 | Sep 2005 | WO |
2006038114 | Apr 2006 | WO |
2007028799 | Mar 2007 | WO |
2007031176 | Mar 2007 | WO |
2007071788 | Jun 2007 | WO |
2007090437 | Aug 2007 | WO |
2007144598 | Dec 2007 | WO |
2009030853 | Mar 2009 | WO |
2009089126 | Jul 2009 | WO |
2009115611 | Sep 2009 | WO |
2010018464 | Feb 2010 | WO |
2010018646 | Feb 2010 | WO |
2012145842 | Nov 2012 | WO |
2013051019 | Apr 2013 | WO |
2013126221 | Aug 2013 | WO |
2013173408 | Nov 2013 | WO |
2015004434 | Jan 2015 | WO |
2016081755 | May 2016 | WO |
2016081831 | May 2016 | WO |
Entry |
---|
“Intrinsic Characteristics for Authentication; AlpVision Advances Security Through Digital Technology”, Authentication News, Sep. 2006, vol. 12, No. 9, 3 pages. |
Bao et al., “Local Feature based Multiple Object Instance Identification using Scale and Rotation Invariant Implicit Shape Model,” 12th Asian Conference on Computer Vision, Singapore, Singapore, Nov. 1-5, 2014, pp. 600-614. |
Beekhof et al., “Secure Surface Identification Codes,” Proceeding of the SPIE 6819: Security Forensics, Steganography, and Watermarking of Multimedia Contents X:68190D, 2008. (12 pages). |
Buchanan et al., “Fingerprinting documents and packaging,” Nature 436 (7050): 475, 2005. |
Cavoukian et al., “Biometric Encryption: Technology for Strong Authentication, Security and Privacy,” 2008, WE, Intl. Fed. Iot Info Processing, vol. 261; Policies and Research in Identity Management; pp. 57-77. |
Di Paola et al., “An Autonomous Mobile Robotic System for Surveillance of Indoor Environments,” International Journal of Advanced Robotic Systems 7(1): 19-26, 2010. |
Drew, M. S., et al. “Sharpening from Shadows: Sensor Transforms for Removing Shadows using a Single Image,” Color and Imaging Conference, vol. 5, Society for Imaging Science and Technology, 2009, pp. 267-271. |
Ebay, “eBay Launches Must-Have iPhone App RedLaser 3.0” https:/www.ebayinc.com/stories/news/ebay-launches-musthave-iphon-app-redlaser30/, Nov. 18, 2011 (Year: 2011), 8 pages. |
Entrupy.com Website History, Wayback Machine https://web.archive.org/web/20160330060808/https://www.entrupy.com/; Mar. 30, 2016 (Year: 2016) 2 pages. |
Farid, “Digital Image Forensics,” Lecture notes, exercises and matlab code, CS 89/189, Darmouth College, Hanover, New Hamoshire, USA, 2013, 199 pages. |
Fischler et al., “Random Sample Consensus: A Paradigm for Model Fitting with Application Image Analysis and Automated Cartography,” Communication of the ACM 24(6): 381-395, 1981. |
Huang et al., “A Novel Binarization Algorithm for Ballistic Imaging Systems,” 3rd International Congress on Image and Signal Processing, Yantai, China, Oct. 16-18, 2010, pp. 1287-1291. |
Huang, et al., “An Online Ballistics Imaging System for Firearm Identification”: 2nd International Conference on Signal Processing Systems, Dalian, China, Jul. 5-7, 2010, vol. 2, pp. 68-72. |
Kartik et al., “Security System with Face Recognition, SMS Alert and Embedded Network Video Monitoring Terminal,” International Journal of Security, Privacy and Trust Management 2(5):9-19, 2013. |
Li, “Image Processing for the Positive Identification of Forensic Ballistics Specimens,” Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of information Fusion, Cairns, Australia, Jul. 8-11, 2003, pp. 1494-1498. |
Li, “Firearm Identification System Based on Ballistics Image Processing,” Congress on Image and Signal Processing, School of Computer and Information Science, Faculty of Computing, Health and Science Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia pp. 149-154. |
Maddern et al., “Illumination Invariant Imaging: Applications in Robust Vision-based Localization, Mapping and Classification for Autonomous Vehicles,” IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation, Hong Kong, May 31-Jun. 7, 2014, 8 pages. |
Matsumoto et al., “Nano-artifact metrics based on random collapse of resist,” Scientific Reports 4:6142, 2014 (5 pages). |
Mistry et al., “Comparison of Feature Detection and Matching Approaches: SIFT and SURF,” Global Research and Development Journal for Engineering, vol. 2, Issue 4, Mar. 2017, 8 pages. |
NCOA Link at http:/ /ribbs.usps.gov/ncoalink/ncoalink_print.htm; dated May 27, 2009; 3 pages. |
Online NCOALink® Processing Acknowledgement Form (PAF) Released by Lorton Data, Jun. 2, 2009, URL=http://us.generation-nt.com/online-ncoalink-processingacknowledgement-form-paf-released-by-press-1567191.html, download date Jun. 25, 2010, 2 pages. |
Rublee et al., “ORB: an eddicient alternative to SIFT or SURF,” IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision, Barcelona, Spain, Nov. 6-13, 2011, 8 pages. |
Schneider et al., “A Robust Content Based Digital Signature for Image Authentication,” Proceeding of the International Conference on Image Processing Lausanne, Switzerland, Sep. 19, 1996, pp. 227-230. |
Sharma et al., “The Fake vs Real Goods Problem: Microscopy and Machine Learning to the Rescue,” KDD 2017 Applied Data Science Paper, Aug. 13-17, 2017, Halifax, NS, Canada, 9 pages. |
Shi et al., “Smart Cameras: Fundamentals and Classification,” Chapter 2, Belbachir (ed.). Smart Cameras, Springer, New York, New York, USA 2010, pp. 19-34. |
Shields, “How To Shop Savvy With Red Laser,” published online on Mar. 22, 2010; https ://i phone .appstomn .net/reviews/lifesty le/how-to-shop-savy-with-redlaser/, downloaded Mar. 22, 2010, 8 pages). |
Smith, “Fireball: A Forensic Ballistic Imaging System: Proceedings of the 31st Annual International Carnahan Conference on Security Technology,” Canberra, Australia, Oct. 15-17, 1997, pp. 64-70. |
Takahashi et al., Mass-produced Parts Traceability System Based on Automated Scanning of “Fingerprint of Things,” 15th IAPR international Conference on Machine Vision Applications, Nagoya, Japan, May 8-12, 2017, 5 pages. |
United States Postal Service Publication 28 “Postal Addressing Standards”, dated Jul. 2008; text plus Appendix A only; 55 pages. |
United States Postal Service, “NCOALink Systems”, http://www.usps.com/ncsc/addressservices/moveupdate/changeaddress.htm, website accessed Jun. 23, 2010, 2 pages. |
Veena et al., “Automatic Theft Security System (Smart Surveillance Camera),” Computer Science & Information Technology 3:75-87, 2013. |
Woods, “Counterfeit-spotting truth machine launches out of Dumbo,” published online on Feb. 11, 2016, downloaded from http://technically/brooklyn/2016/02/11/entrupy-counterfeit-scanner/ on Mar. 20, 2019, 3 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20220139106 A1 | May 2022 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
62802177 | Feb 2019 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 17189470 | Mar 2021 | US |
Child | 17575940 | US | |
Parent | 16780882 | Feb 2020 | US |
Child | 17189470 | US |