Instrument Validation System Using Element Segmentation

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Current systems face challenges in accurately evaluating the authenticity of instruments, often resulting in false positives and failing to provide substantial information on why an instrument is deemed valid or invalid, leading to inefficiencies in protecting user data from unauthorized activity.

Innovation Solution

A system that receives an instrument and associated data, compares it to a user profile of previously processed valid instruments, and generates a user interface highlighting matching or non-matching elements to refine the evaluation process, using machine learning for dynamic and static element analysis.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Measurement precision

If an initial evaluation system is used to identify unauthorized instruments, then the system can detect potential threats, but it produces false positives and lacks detailed information on why instruments are deemed valid or invalid

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveaccuracy of instrument validationVSAvoidlack of information on validation reasons
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSLoss of information

Solution Approach 1:

The system segments the validation process into multiple independent analysis components, each evaluating specific instrument elements (visual features, data fields, metadata). This segmentation allows detailed tracking of which specific elements contribute to validation decisions, providing transparency while maintaining accuracy.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements feedback loops where validation results and reasoning are fed back into the evaluation process. The detailed information about matching and non-matching elements is returned to users, enabling them to understand validation decisions and provide corrections that improve future evaluations.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

2Reliability

If a detailed comparison system is implemented to provide insights on instrument validity, then false positives are reduced, but the system complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvereduction of false positivesVSAvoidsystem complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The complex validation system is divided into modular comparison components, each handling specific aspects (visual pattern matching, data field verification, metadata analysis). This modular architecture reduces overall system complexity while enabling detailed comparisons that minimize false positives.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs partial comparisons initially, focusing on key discriminative features. Only when initial screening is inconclusive does the system engage in more extensive detailed comparisons, balancing reliability improvements with computational complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

3Measurement precision

If multiple previously processed instruments are compared to evaluate authenticity, then validation accuracy improves, but the processing time increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvevalidation accuracyVSAvoidprocessing time
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs preliminary actions by pre-processing and indexing key features of previously validated instruments before actual validation occurs. This preparation enables faster comparison during the actual validation process, maintaining high accuracy while reducing processing time.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The system compares only the most relevant previously processed instruments rather than all available instruments. It prioritizes comparisons with instruments that have similar characteristics, achieving high validation accuracy with reduced processing time by avoiding unnecessary comparisons.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Data Source

PatentUS11398101B2Item validation and image evaluation system
Publication Date: 2022.07.26 BANK OF AMERICA CORP
  • US11398101B2 patent drawing
  • US11398101B2 patent drawing
  • US11398101B2 patent drawing

AI summary

Systems for item validation and image evaluation are provided. In some examples, a system may receive an instrument and associated data. The instrument may be received and a user profile may be retrieved. The user profile may include a plurality of previously processed instruments that have been determined to be valid and/or authentic. The instrument may be compared to the plurality of previously processed instruments to determine whether one or more elements of the instrument being evaluated match one or more corresponding elements of the plurality of previously processed instruments. Matching or non-matching elements may be identified. In some examples, one or more user interfaces may be generated displaying the instruments and including any highlighting or enhancements identifying matching or non-matching elements.