Counterfeiting has become a serious problem for both safety and economic reasons. Counterfeits are sometimes identified by digitally capturing images of labels and comparing such captured images to corresponding authentic images. The capturing of such images and the comparisons used by existing techniques consume large amounts of processing power, transmission bandwidth and memory.
Sample input 22 comprises a device configured to provide computing device 24 with digitally captured depictions of samples for which counterfeit identification or determination is desired. According to one example, sample input 22 comprises a digital capture device, such as a digital camera, scanner or other similar device. According to another example, sample input 22 may comprise a communication port, a memory device receiving slot or other data receiving interface to allow computing device 24 to receive such digitally captured depictions of samples.
As shown by
Computing device 24 chooses or selects which of regions 44 are to be used for counterfeit identification. In the example shown, computing device 24 further utilizes a selected region to determine whether a subsequently received digital depiction of the image from a different sample is a counterfeit. Computing device 24 comprises processing unit 50 and persistent storage device or memory 52. Processing units 50 execute series of instructions 54 contained in memories 52. Memories 52 comprise computer-readable-mediums, meaning non-transitory tangible mediums. Memories 52 contain instructions 54. Memories 52 may additionally store data, such as data such as counterfeit analysis thresholds or settings, digital depictions of captured images, prior counterfeit analysis and prior counterfeit results in a data storage portion 56 of memories 52.
Capture module 60 of instructions 54 directs processing units 50 to obtain digitally captured depictions of regions 44 (shown in
Correlation module 62 of instructions 54 directs processing units 50 to carry out step 102 of method 100 shown in
Examples of counterfeit identification performance attributes include, but are not limited to, counterfeit identification accuracy, clustering accuracy and clustering behavior. Counterfeit identification accuracy refers to how well analysis of a particular region 44 using a predetermined set of criteria performs at identifying actual counterfeit images 30 while avoiding false positives-incorrectly identifying authentic images 30 as counterfeits. In some circumstances, no training data or ground truth may be available. In such circumstances, a predictive approach may be taken. Under the predictive approach, historical data is used to identify particular image features, such as image entropy, variance, uniformity of the FFT coefficients across a given range and the like, the statistics of which (mean, variance, skew, kurtosis, range, etc.) historically provide counterfeit accuracy. Correlation module 62 compares and identify features of those regions 44 captured at the first resolution which best match or correlate to the same historical predictive image features of those regions 44 captured at the second higher resolution.
Clustering accuracy refers to how well analysis of a particular region 44 using a predetermined set of criteria performs at grouping images 30 derived from the same source. Such clustering analysis identities those samples 28 which are suspected to originate from the same source. Such clustering (aggregating of related images) identifies sets of samples that should be examined in greater detail and may be used to determine the relative size of each potential counterfeit source. As a result, system 20 identifies those samples 28 or groups of samples 28 which likely originated from larger counterfeiting operations, allowing counterfeit enforcement resources to be better focused on larger counterfeiters.
By way of example shown in
Clustering behavior refers to how closely the clustering or aggregation of images 30 using a particular region 44 at the first resolution using a predetermined set of criteria matches the clustering or aggregation of the same images using the same region at the second resolution. By way of the example shown in
Examples of features or metrics that may be used to identify a counterfeit sample 28 from an authentic sample 28 or to cluster or aggregate samples 28 include, but are not limited to: R (red) channel, G (green) channel, B (blue) Channel, Cyan, C=(G+B−R+255)/3 channel, Magenta, M=(R+B−G=256)/3 channel, Yellow, Y=(R+G−B+255)/3 channel, Hue, Saturation=max (RGB)*(1−min(RGB)/sum (RGB)), Intensity=(R+G+B)/3 and pixel variance (“edge space”), the latter which can be, in one simple implementation, defined as the mean difference (in intensity) between a pixel and its four diagonally closest neighboring pixels. In addition, histogram metrics, such as Mean, Entropy, StdDev (standard deviation), Variance, Kurtosis, Pearson Skew, Moment Skew, 5% Point (value indexing histogram below which 5% of histogram light), 95% Point (value indexing histogram below which 95% of these lies) and 5% to 95% Span, may be used. Projection profile metrics which may be used include Entropy, StdDev, Delta StdDev, Mean, Mean Longest Run, Kurtosis, Skew, Moment Skew, Delta Kurtosis, Delta Pearson Skew, Delta Moment Skew, Lines Per Inch, Graininess, Pct (percentage) In Peak, Delta Mean. For the “Delta” metrics, the difference between consecutive profiles of the projection date are used as the primary statistics.
Selection module 64 of instructions 54 (shown in
According to one example, selection module 64 compares the correlation results for each of a plurality of candidate regions 44 and then selects or chooses those candidate regions having the highest degree of correlation between the results front use of the first resolution of the region 44 and from use of the second higher resolution of the same region 44. For example, selection module 64 may select the one or two regions 44 that exhibit clustering accuracy or clustering behavior at low resolutions most closely matching clustering accuracy or clustering behavior at high resolutions.
According to another example, selection module 64 may select those regions 44 having correlations (the degree to which the results from using region 44 captured at the first resolution match the results from using region 44 captured at the second resolution) that satisfy a predetermined threshold. The predetermined threshold may be a percentage obtained through training/historical/expert input data. In one example, processing units 50 may receive a stream of correlation scores for different candidate regions 44, wherein selection module 64 selects a first region 44 or a first predefined number regions 44 that satisfy the predetermined threshold.
According to one example, the first resolution is a “low” resolution, such as a resolution less than 600 dpi, whereas the second resolution is a “high” resolution of at least 600 dpi. In one example, the “low” resolution and the “high” resolution are predefined and static. According to another example, the first resolution or “low” resolution may be variable. In one example, capture module 60, correlation module 62 and selection module 64 may cooperate to select the first resolution. In particular, instructions 54 may direct processing units 50 to carry out the method 120 shown in
As indicated by step 124 shown in
As indicated in step 126, the selected resolution is later utilized as part of a counterfeit identification process. According to one example, the resolution is selected prior to the selection of a particular region 44 pursuant to step 104 in method 100 shown in
According to another example, the resolution is selected after the particular region 44 is identified in step 104 of method 100. In such an example, a nominal first resolution is chosen and utilized to identify a particular region 44. Once a particular region 44 is identified pursuant to step 104, the selected region 44 is captured at each of the plurality of candidate resolutions, wherein selected region at the chosen resolution (step 124) is then used for subsequent counterfeit determinations.
As shown by
In one example, if the CIPA of the selected region 44 is sufficiently high (sufficiently accurate or otherwise satisfactory), the selected region 44 of the sample 28 being examined for counterfeiting is captured at the first resolution (the nominal first resolution or the selected first resolution pursuant to method 120) and analyzed to determine if the sample 28 is a counterfeit or to determine whether the sample 28 may be grouped or clustered with other samples 28 from the general population. Alternatively, although the candidate regions 44 captured at the first resolution are utilized to select a particular region 44 for use in counterfeit analysis of samples from the general population, such counterfeit analysis of samples 28 from the general population or grouping/clustering of samples 28 from the general population are performed using the selected region or regions captured at the second higher resolution.
The results of the counterfeit determinations are then presented by computing system 24 using output 226. Output 226 comprises a device configured to report the counterfeit determinations. In one example, output 226 may comprise a monitor or display screen. In another example, output 226 may comprise a printing device. In still other examples, other output mechanisms or devices may be utilized to provide the counterfeit determination results such as whether or not a particular sample 28 is a counterfeit or whether or not a particular counterfeit sample originated from a source from which other counterfeit samples originated.
As discussed above, counterfeit identification system 20 selects region 44 from a larger number of regions 44 for use in subsequent counterfeit determinations. Because a portion of the overall area of image 30 is used, rather than the entire area of image 30, less processing power and less storage space are consumed. Because the selection of the particular region 44 or regions 44 for use in subsequent counterfeit determinations is made using digital depictions at lower resolutions, processing, power and storage space is conserved. In one example, the specific resolution used for either selecting the region 44 for subsequent counterfeit determinations or the specific resolution used for making the actual counterfeit determinations is itself chosen based upon the extent to which the CIPA at the lower resolution corresponds to the CIPA at a higher resolution. As a result, the resolution used may be reduced to further reduce processing speed and storage space while avoiding unacceptable sacrifices in performance or accuracy.
As shown by
Computing device 224 is similar to computing device 24 shown and described above with respect to
Remote selector site 224 is in communication with each of capture sites 221 via a network, such as Internet 225. Remote selector site 224 receives images 30 or regions 44 captured at the first lower resolution and selects or identifies the particular region 44 to be used at the local capture sites 221 for subsequent counterfeit determinations.
Remote selector site 224 comprises a processing unit 250 and a persistent storage device or memory 252. Processing unit 250 is identical to processing unit 50. Memory 252 is similar to memory 52 except that memory 252 includes instructions 254 in place of instructions 54. Instructions 254 are similar to instructions 54 except that instructions 254 omit capture module 60 and counterfeit module 66 (since the capturing and the counterfeit determination are performed at the local capture sites 221). Similar to instructions 54, instructions 254 includes correlation module 62 and selection module 64.
According to a first example, correlation module 62 and selection module 64 cooperate to select a region 44 or a set of regions 44 of an image 30 for subsequent counterfeit determinations using regions 44 of an image 30 captured at the first lower resolution and received from a single capture site 221. According to a second example, correlation module 62 and selection module 64 of computing device 224 cooperate to select a region 44 or a set of regions 44 of an image 30 for subsequent counterfeit determinations using regions 44 of an image 30 captured at the first lower resolution and received from multiple capture sites 221. By using captured regions 44 from a plurality of different capture sites 221, system 220 may select regions 44 better suited to identify counterfeit across a larger geographical region.
Although the present disclosure has been described with reference to example examples, workers skilled in the art will recognize that changes may be made in form and detail without departing from the spirit and scope of the claimed subject matter. For example, although different examples may have been described as including features providing benefits, it is contemplated that the described features may be interchanged with one another or alternatively be combined with one another in the described examples or in other alternative examples. Because the technology of the present disclosure is relatively complex, not all changes in the technology are foreseeable. The present disclosure described with reference to the examples and set forth in the following claims is manifestly intended to be as broad as possible. For example, unless specifically otherwise noted, the claims reciting a single particular element also encompass a plurality of such particular elements.
Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
---|---|---|---|---|
PCT/US2011/054522 | 10/3/2011 | WO | 00 | 3/26/2014 |
Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
WO2013/052025 | 4/11/2013 | WO | A |
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
6396941 | Bacus | May 2002 | B1 |
7050502 | Yasunari | May 2006 | B2 |
7127106 | Neil et al. | Oct 2006 | B1 |
7209599 | Simske | Apr 2007 | B2 |
7231076 | Fu et al. | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7272260 | Kakiuchi | Sep 2007 | B1 |
8164809 | Ohkawa | Apr 2012 | B2 |
8243333 | Tamura | Aug 2012 | B2 |
8923552 | Yano | Dec 2014 | B2 |
20020012444 | Hiromitsu | Jan 2002 | A1 |
20030069689 | Ihara | Apr 2003 | A1 |
20030108232 | Yang | Jun 2003 | A1 |
20040136611 | Reiners | Jul 2004 | A1 |
20050128221 | Aratani | Jun 2005 | A1 |
20090225189 | Morin | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20090245573 | Saptharishi | Oct 2009 | A1 |
20100037059 | Sun et al. | Feb 2010 | A1 |
20100110298 | Knee | May 2010 | A1 |
20100265320 | Treado et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20110194731 | BenHimane | Aug 2011 | A1 |
20120243796 | Saito | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20130243274 | Sukegawa | Sep 2013 | A1 |
20140002612 | Morioka | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140002616 | Ohba | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140355892 | Moon | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20140376770 | Nister | Dec 2014 | A1 |
20160063734 | Divakaran | Mar 2016 | A1 |
20160203585 | Welinder | Jul 2016 | A1 |
20160275367 | Eliazar | Sep 2016 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
101231701 | Jul 2008 | CN |
2000200352 | Jul 2000 | JP |
2005267394 | Sep 2005 | JP |
4518139 | Aug 2010 | JP |
10-2001-0021850 | Mar 2001 | KR |
WO-2011005257 | Jan 2011 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Using the optical mouse sensor—Counterfeit coin detector, Marcel Tresanchez et al., ISSN 1424-8220, 2009, pp. 7083-7096. |
Laadjel, M. et al., Palmprint Recongnition Based on Subspace Analysis of Gabor Filter Bank, http://www.igi-global.com/viewtitlesample.aspx?id=47068 (pp. 1-15; vol. 2: Issue: 4), 2010. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20160342857 A1 | Nov 2016 | US |