Digital Image Comparison for Identity Document Authentication

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

There is a need for a simple and effective method for individuals to verify the authenticity of identity documents, such as identity cards and passports, which is not as complex as official verification processes, and must be easily implementable by the document holder.

Innovation Solution

A method involving the comparison of digital test images with digital reference images, where areas of interest are identified and subsets are selected and compared, with optional geometric transformations and fingerprint calculations, using a communicating object like a mobile phone with an optical sensor, to determine if the images come from the same source without transmitting the full image file.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If the full digital image file is transmitted between the communicating object and the server, then the authentication can be performed, but the security is compromised because the reference image or source can be reconstructed if the communication is intercepted

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveauthentication accuracyVSAvoidsecurity risk from interception
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The patent extracts only the necessary authentication information (fingerprint of a subset of pixels) from the full image and transmits only this extracted data between the communicating object and server. This allows authentication to proceed without transmitting the complete reference image, thereby preventing reconstruction of the source if communication is intercepted.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #2Taking out (Extraction)

Solution Approach 2:

The patent introduces an intermediary cryptographic hash function (fingerprint calculation) that transforms the full image into a condensed representation. This intermediary form enables authentication while preventing direct reconstruction of the original image from transmitted data.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Ease of operation

If the authentication sequence is predictable, then the authentication process is simpler, but the security is weakened because a third party can intercept and replicate the authentication

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveauthentication simplicityVSAvoidauthentication security
Core Design Contradiction:
Ease of operationVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent makes the authentication process dynamic by randomly selecting different subsets of pixels and applying different geometric transformations (rotation, scaling, cropping) for each authentication attempt. This ensures that even if a third party intercepts one authentication sequence, they cannot replicate it because the next sequence will be different.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements periodic re-authentication with varying parameters, where each authentication cycle uses a different randomly selected subset and transformation. This periodic variation with changing parameters prevents replay attacks while maintaining a relatively simple authentication flow.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #19Periodic action

3Measurement precision

If a large subset of pixels is selected for comparison, then the authentication accuracy is higher, but the communication bandwidth and processing time increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveauthentication accuracyVSAvoidauthentication processing time
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies partial action by selecting only a subset of pixels from the full image for authentication comparison. This subset is sufficient to determine authenticity while significantly reducing the amount of data that needs to be processed and transmitted, thereby balancing accuracy with efficiency.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

4Adaptability or versatility

If geometric transformations (rotation, scaling, cropping) are applied to the subset, then the authentication becomes more robust against different orientations, but the complexity of the comparison process increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveorientation independenceVSAvoidimage processing complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent changes geometric parameters (rotation angle, scale factor, crop position) of the selected pixel subset before comparison. By transforming the subset into a standardized form, the system achieves orientation independence while keeping the comparison process manageable through consistent transformation application.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

Data Source

PatentEP3210166B1Method of comparing digital images
Publication Date: 2020.04.29 SURYS
  • EP3210166B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP3210166B1 patent drawingFigure 2~4

AI summary

The invention relates to a method of comparing a test image (IMGT) with a reference image (IMGR), comprising: identifying (100) at least two zones of interest (IZ1, IZ2, IZ3, IZ4) in the reference image. It is essentially characterized in that it consists in: selecting (110) in a random manner one at least of the zones of interest identified in the reference image, selecting (120) a subset (SAR) of the reference image, said subset comprising at least one pixel of said selected zone of interest, selecting (130) at least one subset (SAT) of the test image, said subset of the test image corresponding to said subset of a reference image, and comparing (140) said subset of the test image (SAT) with the corresponding subset (SAR) of the reference image, the method comprising optionally furthermore a step consisting in authenticating (141) said test image as a function of the result of the comparison.