Copyright © 2019 Alitheon, Inc. 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, but otherwise reserves all copyright rights whatsoever. 37 C.F.R. § 1.71(d) (2017).
This application pertains to methods, systems and software for authenticating composite physical objects using digital fingerprinting and related technologies.
Digital fingerprinting has been used to identify and/or authenticate a physical object. However, for many composite objects, simple matching of one or more random locations on an object does not provide reliable authentication. More sophisticated techniques are needed to reliably authenticate complex physical objects.
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.
A system taught by this disclosure generally comprises a combination of digital fingerprint authentication techniques, processes, programs, and hardware. In an embodiment, a mechanism is provided to “tell” the system what regions of a physical object are important to authentication, what it should find there (i.e. content of the region). In an embodiment, the system may also specify limits on positional variance that, if exceeded, may indicate an altered item.
In an embodiment, a computer-implemented method to authenticate a composite physical object comprises the steps of: selecting a class of objects to which the composite physical object belongs; accessing a stored template provided for authenticating objects of the selected class; identifying all regions of the object specified in the template as required for authentication; scanning at least the identified regions of the physical object to acquire image data for each identified region; processing the acquired image data to extract digital fingerprints of each of the identified regions; based on the digital fingerprints, querying a database of reference objects of the selected class to obtain a matching record; wherein a matching record requires that each and every identified region of the physical object match a corresponding region of the matching record, based on the corresponding digital fingerprints, within a selected tolerance; and determining authenticity of the physical object based on results of the querying step.
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:
Reference will now be made in detail to embodiments of the inventive concept, examples of which are illustrated in the accompanying drawings. The accompanying drawings are not necessarily drawn to scale. In the following detailed description, numerous specific details are set forth to enable a thorough understanding of the inventive concept. It should be understood, however, that persons having ordinary skill in the art may practice the inventive concept without these specific details. In other instances, well-known methods, procedures, components, circuits, and networks have not been described in detail so as not to unnecessarily obscure aspects of the embodiments.
It will be understood that, although the terms first, second, etc. may be used herein to describe various elements, these elements should not be limited by these terms. These terms are only used to distinguish one element from another. For example, a first machine could be termed a second machine, and, similarly, a second machine could be termed a first machine, without departing from the scope of the inventive concept.
It will be further understood that when an element or layer is referred to as being “on,” “coupled to,” or “connected to” another element or layer, it can be directly on, directly coupled to or directly connected to the other element or layer, or intervening elements or layers may be present. In contrast, when an element is referred to as being “directly on,” “directly coupled to,” or “directly connected to” another element or layer, there are no intervening elements or layers present. Like numbers refer to like elements throughout. As used herein, the term “and/or” includes any and all combinations of one or more of the associated listed items.
The terminology used in the description of the inventive concept herein is for the purposes of describing illustrative embodiments only and is not intended to be limiting of the inventive concept. As used in the description of the inventive concept and the appended claims, the singular forms “a,” “an,” and “the” are intended to include the plural forms as well, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. It will also be understood that the term “and/or” as used herein refers to and encompasses any and all possible combinations of one or more of the associated listed objects. It will be further understood that the terms “comprises” and/or “comprising,” when used in this specification, specify the presence of stated features, integers, steps, operations, elements, and/or components, but do not preclude the presence or addition of one or more other features, integers, steps, operations, elements, components, and/or groups thereof.
“Composite” means that there are regions of the object such that authenticating them is necessary or at least contributory to authenticating the entire object. The present disclosure applies to all physical objects that are assemblages or composites and where at least some of the individual components must be authenticated for the object itself to authenticate. Put another way, this disclosure enables reliable authentication of virtually any object where a single region of authentication is inadequate.
“Region” means a portion of the physical object. It may be a component (such as a chip on a printed circuit board), it may be a specific region on a document (e.g. the name field on a passport), or it may be just a portion of the object with no particular content (a piece of the blank paper on a Federal Reserve note). Where “region” is use, it is to be understood in all or any of these contexts.
Various forms of the words “authenticate” and “authentication” are used broadly to describe both authentication and attempts to authenticate which comprise creating a digital fingerprint of the object. Therefore, “authentication” is not limited to specifically describing successful matching of inducted objects or generally describing the outcome of attempted authentications. As one example, a counterfeit object may be described as “authenticated” even if the “authentication” fails to return a matching result. In another example, in cases where unknown objects are “authenticated” without resulting in a match and the authentication attempt is entered into a database for subsequent reference the action described as “authentication” or “attempted authentication” may also, post facto, also be properly described as an “induction”. An authentication of an object may refer to the induction or authentication of an entire object or of a portion of an object.
Digital fingerprinting and scanning are described later.
Object Authentication
This disclosure teaches determining the authenticity (or lack thereof) of physical objects where multiple regions of the object must be authentic for the object (as a whole) to be considered authentic. “Regions” may be physical components like a chip on a printed circuit board or may be regions on a document (such as the photograph in a passport). They can even be somewhat more abstract (such as the semantic content of a will being a “part” of the will). Authentication of the whole thus comprises ensuring that sufficient of certain designated regions of the object are authentic.
In an embodiment, authentication may comprise the steps of:
In one preferred embodiment, some or all of these authentication requirements may be stored in a “template” which may be implemented as one or more records in a database. A computer or digital processor is used to automate the process. Indeed, manual authentication is impossible due to the complexity and volume of data to be processed. For example, there may be 20,000 unique “points of interest” included in a digital fingerprint of an object or even a single region of an object. All of the points of interest may be considered in a matching process. An example of a matching process is described below with regard to
Referring again to
In particular view of the present description are objects where a substitution of a counterfeit region or component for a good one should make the object fail authentication. “Region” here may be, for example, “what is written in a particular location,” “a bit of the background”, or “a physical component”, or any number of other things.
The present disclosure teaches, therefore, a process that generally includes selecting multiple regions, components, or regions of an object, defining what would make each of them authentic, defining which of them must be authentic for the object to be considered authentic, defining the physical and/or content-based relationships of the different regions, digitally fingerprinting the relevant regions, determining (if required) their contents, determining (if required) their positions (physical or logical), comparing all this with the references, and determining whether the object is authentic.
The information about a region may contain its digital fingerprint but may also contain information about the region's content or what is written on it, its physical or logical relationship with the object as a whole or with other regions (this region must be exactly 1.3″ left of and 0.8″ below this other region or this region must be a component of this other region), as well as any relevant metadata. I use the term “region” broadly to mean any division of the object, not just a physically-separable component.
Complex Object Authentication
Relatively complex objects, however, have additional steps involved in authentication. A complex object may have many components, fields, areas, or other divisions that have to agree individually with what was captured at induction. Clearly, to determine whether what is found on the current (or test) object matches its reference in the database, we first must know its purported identity. It is sufficient in many cases to know simply a class to which the test object belongs. This class identity can be used to access a corresponding template to define authentication requirements, and the class helps to limit the scope of querying the reference database. We also have to know what regions must match the reference database for the object to be considered authentic. In an embodiment, these can be identified in the corresponding class template. Authentication then consists of ensuring that the individual regions satisfactorily match the reference for the object. This discussion explains the use of digital fingerprints, positional, and content information to perform that matching.
In general, for objects authenticatable through the teachings of this disclosure, authenticating a random region is not enough to guarantee the object is authentic. This applies, for example, to objects that may be modified illicitly but most of the object left alone. Authentication requires more, under these circumstances, than merely saying there are lots of good digital fingerprint matches. The “right” regions/components/pieces also have to authenticate. The number of such regions may be anything from 1 up.
In some use cases, there may be regions on the object that are not important for authentication purposes. Thus, a label applied somewhere in the manufacturing process that has nothing to do with certifying the object as authentic may be ignored. (On the other hand, a label may be “read” as a convenient way to automatically determine a class of an object.) “Templates” is used broadly to mean any method of selecting (manually or automatically) a region to be authenticated, one not to be, or both. In other words, templates can be positive (this region must authenticate) or negative (don't bother to look here for authentication purposes).
The substrate (for a document, what the text or images are printed on), the printing material, the location, and the contents of what is printed may all need to be established as authentic for the item to be authentic. Varying combinations of these are all in view in this patent.
Most of the documents and financial instruments relevant here either have some kind of direct value (e.g. a Federal Reserve Note) or may grant access to something of value (a passport for entering the country, a will) if it is authentic. The same principles also apply to things like printed circuit boards. In some cases, it may be essential that the areas being authenticated either be so widely spread that counterfeiting is infeasible or, more securely, the authenticated regions are kept confidential. For a Federal Reserve note to be authentic, for example, more than half the note must be authenticated.
Authentication security in general is a combination of (1) Authenticating what could be falsified (both regions and contents, in general); and (2) Making sure all the pieces fit together (i.e. all of them are authentic regions of an inducted original).
Authenticating multiple regions may require more than just matching digital fingerprints. It may also be required that the contents of those regions match the original, that their physical arrangement or positioning on the object or among themselves be consistent with the original, or many other things.
In some use cases, concealing what regions are being used for authentication is advisable to better deter fraud and counterfeiting. It would be used, for example, to authenticate a Federal Reserve note by scattering the authentication regions pseudo-randomly across the bill so that it would be essentially impossible to create, say, a note that was a composite of an authentic note and a counterfeit and not have that detected (fail authentication) by the teachings of this patent.
This section describes several embodiments of the invention. They are descriptive only and not meant to limit the teachings of this patent but merely to show ways in which it could be used.
Currency. In one embodiment a $100 bill that has been cut in half and each half attached to a counterfeit (half) $100 bill is not authentic. Current techniques, including cash handling machines and counterfeit-detecting pens, are fooled by such constructs—both $100 bills will show as authentic. Were we to apply single-region digital fingerprinting to those bills, they also would authenticate (since half the bill is more than enough for a good authentication? In this case, it should not be authenticated, and the teachings of this patent apply. Even though very large regions of the bill would show as genuine, the desired result is that the overall bill should fail. This patent ensures it does by requiring authentication of multiple regions of the bill.
The size of these regions depends on many things, including how small the pieces of a counterfeit bill may be. The number and location of those regions should be sufficiently widely distributed that it is infeasible to do a “cut and paste” and get a counterfeit worth producing. These regions can be chosen manually (perhaps for all bills) or programmatically. Where they are located and their sizes can be chosen for uniform distribution, randomly, through the use of a Latin Hypercube approach, or many other means understood in the art. If they are different for each bill, the template for finding them at authentication can be created or stored in many ways, including indexing it in a database linked to the bill's serial number. That serial number can be acquired in different ways. It can, for example, be read off the bill using optical character recognition or entered manually. Alternatively, the entire bill can be sent to authentication and whatever bill it best matches, that bill becomes the purported identity of the bill and its serial number used. For greater security, the regions used for authentication may be kept confidential. The randomly-chosen approach mentioned above makes this straightforward.
To authenticate the bill, a large percentage of the area of the bill must fall in templated regions that must individually authenticate. Anything in excess of 50% of the area of the bill showing a digital fingerprint match would ensure that two bills cannot be split as discussed above and still yield two authenticatable $100 bills. If the regions are chosen randomly, uniformly, or in a Latin Hypercube arrangement, far less than half the bill need be attempted to authenticate to discover that half has been replaced.
In this example, the content of the regions is not important. Their positioning is based on the template and the regions to be matched clearly must align with the template or they will not be seen, but for this example there is no need to determine whether such a region has been offset from its correct position by more than an allowed amount.
Passports. A passport is not authentic unless the correct information is printed on or affixed to a government-created passport blank. This information comprises a photograph of the person, two name fields, a passport number, the country, the person's birth date, the place of issue, issue date, expiration date, and others. For the passport to be authentic, the blank (background) must be authentic, virtually all the information fields must be shown to have the correct content, and the photograph must be the original.
As discussed previously, there are two kinds of templates in view here. The first, used on the background (the regions of the passport that are printed prior to putting any person-specific information on the passport. To be authentic, a passport must be printed on a government-produced blank. Significant background areas remain after the passport is completed and can be authenticated using the kind of pseudo-random template discussed under currency above.
The other kind of template in use in this embodiment is more standard. It covers regions that must have authentic content in order for the passport to be authentic. Authenticating “content” in each case in the passport means confirming “what the text says” for the textual regions. The photograph can be authenticating by matching its digital fingerprint with the photograph's analog in the reference set, by doing a direct image match, or by other methods known in the art. In addition, it is probably desirable that the textual regions' digital fingerprints, as well as their textual contents, match on the text regions.
Further confidence in authenticity is obtainable—and in view in this patent—if the templated fields are in their correct locations (up to a small error) both on the background and with respect to each other.
Wills. In one embodiment a will needs to be authenticated. To be authentic a will must be an unaltered original signed by the person. To determine that it is the one originally signed by the person, the signature and the paper on which the will is printed must be authenticated. The signature can be authenticated using digital fingerprinting (with a known region location) or by other means known in the art. The paper can be authenticated as with the currency and passport examples. With a multi-page will, each page must be authentic and all pages in the original must be present with no additions.
Wills differ somewhat from previous examples in that all the content must be unchanged. A will signed by the correct person, and on the original paper, but where the contents have been altered, is not an authentic will. Ensuring the content as authentic can be as straightforward as reading the content at authentication and comparing with the original stored in the reference file. It can also be done by requiring that all regions of the document have digital fingerprints that match the original. These or any other way of verifying content are in view in this patent.
Printed circuit boards. In one embodiment a printed circuit board needs to be authenticated. Note that the description here applies to the same items (printed circuit boards) as one embodiment of 0682 and with the same intent—finding replaced components. There are several differences here (as mentioned above), however. One of the most important is that under this patent the system is told which regions are most important while in that one we look for regions on the circuit board that are deficient in matches. The two approaches can also be combined to authenticate a printed circuit board.
The templating required here is just like the templating in the passport for the fields of known location (because the components are supposed to be in a known location). The contents of those regions are their digital fingerprints.
“Identification” and “Authentication”
The current patent deals primarily with authentication (though identifying the object or using some method such as a serial number to identify what object this purports to be is certainly a region of this patent, since you cannot authenticate an object if you don't know what it is supposed to be.
“Identification” means determining what particular object is before us. We must be careful here to distinguish purported identification and real identification. Purported identification is determining which particular object the object before us claims to be. The serial number on a Federal Reserve note or on a passport tell us what particular note or passport the one before us claims to be. But it doesn't actually identify the object. Digital fingerprinting of the object before us and successfully matching that digital fingerprint with one in a reference database collected when provenance was assured is necessary for identification.
In a case where there is no possibility or consequence of the object having been modified, matching any reasonable portion of the digital fingerprint of the current object with that of an object in the reference database is sufficient for identification (whether or not there is a serial number. All the serial number does is tell us which one to check against. Without a serial number, we have to check every item of the same kind as the object before us. So “identification” means determining which item is before us, but it may not determine whether the object is completely authentic (only that the region where the matched digital fingerprint came from is authentic). For something like a unitary machined part, for example, identification as described here is sufficient for authentication.
Matching Points of Interest
Digital Fingerprinting
“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 including providing secure links between physical and digital objects as described above.
In more detail, digital fingerprints typically include 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.
In the context of this description a digital fingerprint is a digital representation of the physical object. It can be captured from features of the surface, the internals, the progression of the object in time, and any other repeatable way that creates a digital fingerprint that can be uniquely and securely assigned to the particular digital object. Though not mentioned herein, secure protection of the physical object, its digital fingerprint, and of the associated digital objects are assumed.
In the context of this document, a digital fingerprint is a natural “digitization” of the object, obtainable unambiguously from the digital object. It is the key to the digital object, providing the link between the physical object and the digital. These digital fingerprints, in order to accomplish the kind of physical-digital linkage desired, must have certain properties. Our approach has these properties, while many other forms of digital fingerprinting do not. Among these properties are:
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 some embodiments, digital fingerprint 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.
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 the context of this description a digital fingerprint is a digital representation of the physical object. It can be captured from features of the surface, the internals, the progression of the object in time, and any other repeatable way that creates a digital fingerprint that can be uniquely and securely assigned to the particular digital object. Though not mentioned herein, secure protection of the physical object, its digital fingerprint, and of the associated digital objects are assumed.
Put another way, a digital fingerprint is a natural “digitization” of the object, obtainable unambiguously from the digital object. It is the key to the digital object, providing the link between the physical object and the digital. These digital fingerprints, in order to accomplish the kind of physical-digital linkage desired, must have certain properties. Among these properties are:
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.
Scanner elements may be discrete or integrated. For example, the scanner may be a camera in a smartphone, and the digital fingerprinting process may be an app on the same smartphone. Alternatively, intermediate data (for example, digital image data) may be transmitted over a network to a remote processor.
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. Attestable trusted scanners should be used to provide images for digital fingerprint creation. Scanner may be a single device or a multitude of devices and scanners working to enforce policy and procedures.
More information about digital fingerprinting is set forth below and 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. Each of these patents and publications is hereby incorporated by this reference.
One of skill in the art will recognize that the concepts taught herein can be tailored to a particular application in many other ways. In particular, those skilled in the art will recognize that the illustrated examples are but one of many alternative implementations that will become apparent upon reading this disclosure. It will be obvious to those having skill in the art that many changes may be made to the details of the above-described embodiments without departing from the underlying principles of the invention. The scope of the present invention should, therefore, be determined only by the following claims.
This application is a division of application Ser. No. 16/656,471, filed Oct. 17, 2019, the disclosure of which is hereby incorporated in its entirety herewith.
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 | 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 | 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 |
10346852 | Ross et al. | Jul 2019 | B2 |
10505726 | Andon et al. | Dec 2019 | B1 |
10540664 | Ross et al. | Jan 2020 | B2 |
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 |
20060043169 | Haertel | Mar 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 |
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 |
20090283583 | Cowburn et al. | Nov 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 |
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 |
20130212027 | Sharma et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130214164 | Zhang et al. | Aug 2013 | A1 |
20130273968 | Rhoads et al. | Oct 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 |
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 | 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 |
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 |
20160300234 | Moss-Pultz et al. | Oct 2016 | A1 |
20160335520 | Ross et al. | Nov 2016 | A1 |
20170004444 | Krasko et al. | 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 | 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 | Feb 2018 | A1 |
20180121643 | Talwerdi 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 |
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 |
20180349694 | Ross et al. | Dec 2018 | A1 |
20190026581 | Leizerson | Jan 2019 | A1 |
20190034518 | Liu et al. | Jan 2019 | A1 |
20190034694 | Ross | Jan 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 |
20200153822 | Land et al. | May 2020 | A1 |
20200226366 | Withrow | Jul 2020 | A1 |
20200233901 | Crowley et al. | Jul 2020 | A1 |
20200250395 | Ross et al. | Aug 2020 | A1 |
20200257791 | Shannon et al. | Aug 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 |
20210375291 | Zeng et al. | Dec 2021 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
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 |
3435287 | Jan 2019 | EP |
3514715 | Jul 2019 | 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 |
---|
Ebay, “eBay Launches Must-Have !Phone App Red Laser 3.0” published Nov. 18, 2011; https://www.ebayinc.com/stories/news/ ebay-launches-must-have-iphone-app-redlaser-30/, downloaded Mar. 21, 2019, 7 pages). |
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. |
European Search Report dated Mar. 15, 2021, for corresponding EP Application No. 20202445.1, 8 pages. |
Farid, “Digital Image Forensics,” Lecture notes, exercises and matlab code, CS 89/189, Darmouth College, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA, 2013, 199 pages. |
Fischler et al., “Random Sample Consensus: A Paradigm for Model Fitting with Applications to 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. |
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 efficient 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. |
Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt, PC—Listing of Related Cases; dated Sep. 16, 2017; 2 pages. |
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-savvy-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. |
United States Postal Services, NCOALink® Systems, dated May 27, 2009, URL=http://ribbs.usps.gov/ncoalink/ncoalink_print.htm, download date Jun. 23, 2010, 3 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. |
Yuetian Xu et al., “Robust object recognition using a cascade of geometric consistency filters”, Applied Imagery Pattern Recognition Workshop (AIPRW), 2009 IEEE, IEEE, Piscataway, NJ, USA, Oct. 14, 2009, pp. 1-8, XP031677352. |
Farid, Ahmed , et al., “Integrated fingerprint verification method using a composite signature-based watermarking technique”, Optical Engineering, The Catholic University of America, (Year: 2007), 6 pages. |
Hensler, J. , et al., “Hybrid Face Recognition Based on Real-time Multi-camera Stereo-Matching”, ICIAP: International Conference on Image Analysis and Processing, 17th International Conference, Naples, Italy, Sep. 9-13, 2013, 10 pages. |
Jain, Anil K, et al., “Biometric Cryptosystems: Issues and Challenges”, Proceedings of the IEEE, IEEE, New York, US, vol. 92, No. 6, Jun. 1, 2004, XP011112757, pp. 948-960. |
Scott, Von Duhn , et al., “Three-View Surveillance Video Based Face Modeling for Recognition”, Biometrics Symposium, 2007, IEEE, PI, Sep. 30, 2007, 6 pages XP031202430. |
Truong, Hieu C, et al., “Royal Canadian Mint/Signoptic Technologies Coin DNA Technology”, World Money Fair (WMF) Berlin Feb. 1-3, 2011, http://www.amisdeleuro.org/upload/1340734488.pptx, 22 pages. |
Zaeri, Naser , “Minutiae-based Fingerprint Extraction and Recognition, 2020 (year 2010)”, 47 pages. |
“Intrinsic Characteristics for Authentication; AlpVision Advances Security Through Digital Technology”, Authentication News, Sep. 2006, vol. 12, No. 9, 3 pages. |
Banafshe Arbab-Zavar et al., “On guided model-based analysis for ear biometrics”, Computer Vision and Image Understanding, Academic Press, US, vol. 115, No. 4, Nov. 24, 2010, pp. 487-502, XP028153838. |
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. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20220138302 A1 | May 2022 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 16656471 | Oct 2019 | US |
Child | 17575409 | US |