Source: https://patents.justia.com/patent/10043073
Timestamp: 2019-05-22 15:27:28
Document Index: 638736015

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 119', 'application no. 61', 'application No. 61', '§ 1', 'art.\n7', 'art.\n24', 'art.\n5393939']

US Patent for Document authentication using extracted digital fingerprints Patent (Patent # 10,043,073 issued August 7, 2018) - Justia Patents Search
Justia Patents Using A SignatureUS Patent for Document authentication using extracted digital fingerprints Patent (Patent # 10,043,073)
Feb 15, 2016 - Alitheon, Inc.
Latest Alitheon, Inc. Patents:
This application is a divisional application of U.S. application Ser. No. 14/531,307, filed Nov. 3, 2014, which is a non-provisional of, and claims priority pursuant to 35 USC § 119(e) to, U.S. provisional application no. 61/898,780 filed Nov. 1, 2013, and to U.S. provisional application No. 61/914,722 filed Dec. 11, 2013. The parent application Ser. No. 14/531,307 is also a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 14/290,653 filed May 29, 2014, which is a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 13/410,753 filed Mar. 2, 2012 (now U.S. Pat. No. 8,774,455) which claims benefit of 61/448,465 filed on Mar. 2, 2011. The parent application Ser. No. 14/531,307 is also a continuation of U.S. application Ser. No. 13/618,362 filed on Sep. 14, 2012 which claims benefit of 61/535,084 filed Sep. 15, 2011. All of the aforementioned applications are hereby incorporated by reference as though fully set forth.
Copyright©2011-2016 RAF Technology, 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 CFR § 1.71(d).
acquiring digital image data of an image of at least a selected authentication region of a document, without printing or adding anything on to the document, and wherein the document has been previously forged or altered at least in the authentication region from its original state;
extracting at least one native feature from the acquired digital image data from the authentication region, wherein the at least one native feature describes physical characteristics of the authentication region without recognizing content such as alpha-numeric characters that may appear in the authentication region;
forming a feature vector to represent the at least one native feature in a compact form;
storing the feature vector in a database record as part of a digital fingerprint of the document in a forgery database for use in detecting forged or altered documents among a class of documents to which the forged or altered document belongs;
repeating the foregoing steps over additional documents that have been forged or altered to add, respectively, additional feature vectors in additional database records as part of additional digital fingerprints of the additional documents to the forgery database, the additional feature vectors representing corresponding native features in the additional documents;
acquiring second digital image data of a portion of a suspect document, wherein the portion of the suspect document corresponds to the authentication region used to build the forgery database;
extracting second features from the second digital image data;
forming a second feature vector to represent the second features in the compact form;
querying the forgery database using the second feature vector to obtain a result based on zero or more stored feature vectors that match the second feature vector, each stored feature vector that matches the second feature vector defining a fraud indicator match;
comparing the number of the fraud indicator matches to a predetermined threshold value to determine a confidence level that the suspect document is forged or altered;
generating a report of the determined confidence level based on the comparison; and
transmitting the report to a user interface.
2. The method of claim 1 wherein the feature vector comprises an array of color or gray scale numeric values corresponding to a sub-region within the selected authentication region.
3. The method of claim 2 wherein the numeric values in the array each comprise a mathematical function combining individual values of a corresponding group of pixels forming the sub-region of the authentication region.
4. The method of claim 3 wherein the mathematical function is selected from a set of functions that includes a sum, maximum, and average of the individual values.
5. The method of claim 3 wherein extracting the at least one native feature includes selecting the authentication region based on a predetermined template that defines at least one authentication region for the class of documents to which the forged or altered documents belong.
6. The method of claim 5 wherein at least one of the digital fingerprints in the forgery database corresponds to an original work of art.
7. The method of claim 3 wherein at least one of the digital fingerprints in the forgery database corresponds to a forged or altered document that comprises a numismatic object.
8. The method of claim 3 wherein at least one of the digital fingerprints in the forgery database corresponds to a government-issued identification document.
10. The method of claim 3 wherein at least one of the digital fingerprints in the forgery database corresponds to a negotiable instrument as defined in the Uniform Commercial Code.
11. The method of claim 3 wherein at least one of the digital fingerprints in the forgery database corresponds to a bill of lading or shipping document.
acquiring digital image data of multiple different regions of a second document;
processing the acquired digital image data of the multiple different regions by extracting multiple features from the multiple different regions;
including the multiple extracted features in a second digital fingerprint; and
comparing the second digital fingerprint to the digital fingerprints in the forgery database by conducting region-by-region matching to detect what, if any, regions have been changed.
an image capture device to acquire digital image data of an image of at least a selected authentication region of a document, without printing or adding anything on to the document, and wherein the document has been previously forged or altered at least in the authentication region from its original state; and
a processor arranged to access the digital image data, the processor coupled to a non-volatile memory storing machine-readable code executable by the processor, wherein the machine-readable code is arranged to cause the processor, upon execution, to: extract at least one native feature from the acquired digital image data from the authentication region, wherein the at least one native feature describes physical characteristics of the authentication region without recognizing content such as alpha-numeric characters that may appear in the authentication region; form a feature vector to represent the at least one native feature in a compact form; store the feature vector in a database record as part of a digital fingerprint of the document in a forgery database for use in detecting forged or altered documents among a class of documents to which the forged or altered document belongs; repeat the foregoing steps over additional documents that have been forged or altered to add, respectively, additional feature vectors in additional database records as part of additional digital fingerprints of the additional documents to the forgery database, the additional feature vectors representing corresponding native features in the additional documents; acquire second digital image data of a portion of a suspect document, wherein the portion of the suspect document corresponds to the authentication region used to build the forgery database; extract second features from the second digital image data; form a second feature vector to represent the second features in the compact form; query the forgery database using the second feature vector to obtain a result based on zero or more stored feature vectors that match the second feature vector, each stored feature vector that matches the second feature vector defining a fraud indicator match; count a number of the fraud indicator matches; compare the number of the fraud indicator matches to a predetermined threshold value to determine a confidence level that the suspect document is forged or altered; generate a report of the determined confidence level based on the comparison; and transmit the report to a user interface.
14. The system of claim 13 wherein the feature vector comprises an array of color or gray scale numeric values corresponding to a sub-region within the selected authentication region.
15. The system of claim 14 wherein the numeric values in the array each comprise a mathematical function combining individual values of a corresponding group of pixels forming the sub-region of the authentication region.
16. The system of claim 15 wherein the mathematical function is selected from a set of functions that includes a sum, maximum, and average of the individual values.
17. The system of claim 13 wherein extracting the at least one native feature includes selecting the authentication region based on a predetermined template that defines at least one authentication region for the class of documents to which the forged or altered documents belong.
18. The system of claim 13 wherein at least one of the digital fingerprints in the forgery database corresponds to a forged or altered document that comprises a numismatic object.
19. The system of claim 13 wherein at least one of the digital fingerprints in the forgery database corresponds to a government-issued identification document.
20. The system of claim 13 wherein the government-issued identification document corresponds to a passport.
21. The system of claim 13 wherein at least one of the digital fingerprints in the forgery database corresponds to a negotiable instrument as defined in the Uniform Commercial Code.
22. The system of claim 13 wherein at least one of the digital fingerprints in the forgery database corresponds to a bill of lading or shipping document.
23. The system of claim 13 wherein at least one of the digital fingerprints in the forgery database corresponds to an original work of art.
24. A manufacture comprising a non-volatile, computer-readable memory, the memory storing instruction to cause a processor to:
access digital image data, the digital image data acquired from at least a selected authentication region of a document;
extract at least one native feature from the acquired image data from the authentication region, wherein the native feature describes physical characteristics of the authentication region without recognizing content such as alpha-numeric characters that may appear in the authentication region;
form a feature vector to represent the at least one native feature in a compact form;
store the feature vector in a database record as part of a digital fingerprint of the document in a forgery database for use in detecting forged or altered documents among a class of documents to which the forged document belongs;
repeat the foregoing steps over additional documents that have been forged or altered to add additional feature vectors to the forgery database, the feature vectors representing corresponding native features in the additional documents;
acquire second digital image data of a portion of a suspect document, wherein the portion of the suspect document corresponds to the authentication region used to build the forgery database; extract second features from the second image data;
form a second feature vector to represent the second features in a compact form;
querying the forgery database using the second feature vector to obtain a result based on zero or more stored feature vectors that match the second feature vector, each stored feature vector that matches the second feature vector defining a defining a fraud indicator match;
count a number of the fraud indicator matches;
compare the number of the fraud indicator matches to a predetermined threshold value to determine a confidence level that the suspect document is forged or altered;
generate a report of the determined confidence level based on the comparison; and
transmit the report to a user interface.
25. The manufacture of claim 24 wherein the feature vector comprises an array of color or gray scale numeric values corresponding to a sub-region within the selected authentication region.
26. The manufacture of claim 25 wherein the numeric values in the array each comprise a mathematical function combining individual values of a corresponding group of pixels forming the sub-region of the authentication region.
27. The manufacture of claim 26 wherein the mathematical function is selected from a set of functions that includes a sum, maximum, and average of the individual values.
28. The manufacture of claim 24 wherein extracting the at least one native feature includes selecting the authentication region based on a predetermined template that defines at least one authentication region for the class of documents to which the forged or altered documents belong.
29. The manufacture of claim 24 wherein at least one of the digital fingerprints in the forgery database corresponds to a forged or altered document that comprises a numismatic object.
30. The manufacture of claim 24 wherein at least one of the digital fingerprints in the forgery database corresponds to a government-issued identification document.
31. The manufacture of claim 24 wherein the government-issued identification document corresponds to a passport.
32. The manufacture of claim 24 wherein at least one of the digital fingerprints in the forgery database corresponds to a negotiable instrument as defined in the Uniform Commercial Code.
33. The manufacture of claim 24 wherein at least one of the digital fingerprints in the forgery database corresponds to a bill of lading or shipping document.
34. The manufacture of claim 24 wherein at least one of the digital fingerprints in the forgery database corresponds to an original work of art.
5393939 February 28, 1995 Nasuta, Jr.
5883971 March 16, 1999 Bolle
5974150 October 26, 1999 Kaish
6424728 July 23, 2002 Ammar
6805926 October 19, 2004 Cote et al.
7016532 March 21, 2006 Boncyk
7212949 May 1, 2007 Bachrach
7356162 April 8, 2008 Caillon
7436979 October 14, 2008 Bruce
7477780 January 13, 2009 Boncyk
7602938 October 13, 2009 Proloski
7674995 March 9, 2010 Desprez
7680306 March 16, 2010 Boutant
7720256 May 18, 2010 Desprez
7726548 June 1, 2010 deLaVergne
7822263 October 26, 2010 Proloski
8022832 September 20, 2011 Vogt
8180174 May 15, 2012 Di Venuto
8180667 May 15, 2012 Baluja
8194938 June 5, 2012 Wechsler
8391583 March 5, 2013 Mennie
8428772 April 23, 2013 Miette
8477992 July 2, 2013 Paul
8520888 August 27, 2013 Spitzig
8526743 September 3, 2013 Campbell
8774455 July 8, 2014 Elmenhurst
9031329 May 12, 2015 Farid
9058543 June 16, 2015 Campbell
9152862 October 6, 2015 Ross
9245133 January 26, 2016 Durst et al.
9646206 May 9, 2017 Ross et al.
20010054031 December 20, 2001 Lee
20020015515 February 7, 2002 Lichtermann
20020168090 November 14, 2002 Bruce
20030120677 June 26, 2003 Vernon
20030179931 September 25, 2003 Sun
20030208298 November 6, 2003 Edmonds
20040027630 February 12, 2004 Lizotte
20040112962 June 17, 2004 Farrall
20040218791 November 4, 2004 Jiang
20040218801 November 4, 2004 Houle
20050065719 March 24, 2005 Khan
20050086256 April 21, 2005 Owens
20050131576 June 16, 2005 DeLeo
20050188213 August 25, 2005 Xu
20050257064 November 17, 2005 Boutant
20060010503 January 12, 2006 Inoue et al.
20060083414 April 20, 2006 Neumann
20060131518 June 22, 2006 Ross
20060253406 November 9, 2006 Caillon
20070085710 April 19, 2007 Bousquet
20070094155 April 26, 2007 Dearing
20070263267 November 15, 2007 Ditt
20070282900 December 6, 2007 Owens
20080011841 January 17, 2008 Self
20080219503 September 11, 2008 DiVenuto
20080250483 October 9, 2008 Lee
20080255758 October 16, 2008 Graham
20080272585 November 6, 2008 Conard
20090028379 January 29, 2009 Belanger
20090106042 April 23, 2009 Maytal
20090157733 June 18, 2009 Kim
20090245652 October 1, 2009 Bastos dos Santos
20090271029 October 29, 2009 Doutre
20090307005 December 10, 2009 O'Martin
20100027834 February 4, 2010 Spitzig
20100070527 March 18, 2010 Chen
20100104200 April 29, 2010 Baras et al.
20100163612 July 1, 2010 Caillon
20100166303 July 1, 2010 Rahimi
20100174406 July 8, 2010 Miette
20110026831 February 3, 2011 Perronnin
20110091068 April 21, 2011 Stuck
20110188709 August 4, 2011 Gupta
20110194780 August 11, 2011 Lie
20110235920 September 29, 2011 Iwamoto
20120042171 February 16, 2012 White
20120185393 July 19, 2012 Atsmon
20120250945 October 4, 2012 Peng
20130284803 October 31, 2013 Wood
20140140570 May 22, 2014 Ross
20140140571 May 22, 2014 Elmenhurst
20140184843 July 3, 2014 Campbell
20140270341 September 18, 2014 Elmenhurst
20150067346 March 5, 2015 Ross
20150078629 March 19, 2015 Gottemukkula
20150086068 March 26, 2015 Mulhearn
20150117701 April 30, 2015 Ross
20150294189 October 15, 2015 Benhimane et al.
20150309502 October 29, 2015 Breitgand et al.
20160335520 November 17, 2016 Ross
20170243230 August 24, 2017 Ross
20170243231 August 24, 2017 Ross
20170243232 August 24, 2017 Ross
20170243233 August 24, 2017 Ross
20170300905 October 19, 2017 Withrow et al.
20170344823 November 30, 2017 Withrow et al.
20170372327 December 28, 2017 Withrow
20180012008 January 11, 2018 Withrow et al.
20180018627 January 18, 2018 Ross et al.
20180024074 January 25, 2018 Ranieri et al.
20180024178 January 25, 2018 House et al.
20180047128 February 15, 2018 Ross et al.
20180053312 February 22, 2018 Ross et al.
10 2006 005 927 August 2007 DE
759596 February 1997 EP
1016548 July 2000 EP
1719070 April 2006 EP
2195621 June 2010 EP
2866193 April 2015 EP
2 257 909 May 2015 EP
3 249 581 November 2017 EP
2006/038114 April 2006 WO
2007/031176 March 2007 WO
2007/090437 August 2007 WO
2009/030853 March 2009 WO
2012/145842 November 2010 WO
2013/126221 August 2013 WO
2015/004434 January 2015 WO
Clifton Smith; “Fireball: A Forensic Ballistic Imaging System”; Security Science, Edith Cowan University; IEEE; 1997.
Huang, et al., “An Online Ballistics Imaging System for Firearm Identification”; 2010 2nd International Conference on Signal Processing Systems (ICSPS).
Leng, et al., “A Novel Binarization Algorithms for Ballistics Imaging Systems”; 2010 3rd International Congress on Image and Signal Processing (CISP2010).
Li; “Firearm Identification System Based on Ballistics Image Processing”; 2008 Congress on Image and Signal Processing.
NCOA Link at http://ribbs.usps.gov/ncoalink/ncoalink_print.htm; dated May 27, 2009; 3 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.
Schwabe Williamson & Wyatt, PC, “Listing of Related Cases”, Apr. 29, 2016; 2 pages.
Farid, “Digital Image Forensics”, Dartmouth CS 89/189, Sprint 2013; 199 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,” Proceedings 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.
Fischler et al., “Random Sample Consensus: A Paradigm for Model Fitting with Applications to Image Analysis and Automated Cartography,” Communications of the ACM 24(6):381-395, 1981.
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.
Matsumoto et al., “Nano-artifact metrics based on random collapse of resist,” Scientific Reports 4:6142, 2014. (5 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,” Proceedings of the International Conference on Image Processing, Lausanne, Switzerland, Sep. 19, 1996, pp. 227-230.
Takahashi et al., “Mass-produced Parts Traceability System Based on Automated Scanning of “Fingerprint of Things”,” 15IAPR International Conference on Machine Vision Applications, Nagoya, Japan, May 8-12, 2017, 5 pages.
Patent Publication Number: 20160162734
Assignee: Alitheon, Inc. (Redmond, WA)
Inventors: David Ross (Redmond, WA), Brian Elmenhurst (Redmond, WA), Mark Tocci (Redmond, WA), John Forbes (Redmond, WA), Heather Wheelock Ross (Redmond, WA)
Application Number: 15/044,034
International Classification: G06K 9/00 (20060101); B07C 5/342 (20060101); G06K 9/32 (20060101); G06F 17/30 (20060101); H04L 9/32 (20060101); G06K 9/46 (20060101); G06K 9/52 (20060101); G06T 7/60 (20170101); G06T 7/90 (20170101); G06Q 50/32 (20120101);