Masked Biometric Code Generation for Stable Bitwise Comparison

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Biometric systems face challenges in achieving stable and repeatable binary codes under non-ideal conditions, leading to high false rejection and acceptance rates, and require high-quality data capture environments, which limits their usability in common-use cases.

Innovation Solution

A method and system for generating a masked biometric code using a validity mask to create a stable and repeatable code from biometric data, allowing bitwise comparison and reducing false rejection and acceptance rates, even under varying capture conditions.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If biometric systems use traditional binary code comparison methods, then they can achieve simple implementation, but they produce high false rejection and acceptance rates under non-ideal conditions

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvefalse rejection and acceptance ratesVSAvoidcode stability and repeatability
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The biometric code is segmented into multiple individual bit positions, each independently evaluated for stability. The system divides the code into stable bits (that repeat consistently) and unstable bits (that vary under non-ideal conditions), allowing selective processing of each segment to improve overall reliability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

Different processing approaches are applied to different parts of the biometric code. Stable bits are processed with strict matching requirements, while unstable bits are processed with more flexible matching criteria. This local differentiation optimizes the balance between security and acceptance rates.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

2Reliability

If biometric systems require high-quality data capture environments, then they can achieve stable and repeatable codes, but they limit usability in common-use cases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvecode stability and repeatabilityVSAvoidusability in varying capture conditions
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The system dynamically adjusts its processing based on the quality and stability of the captured biometric data. It identifies which bits are stable and which are unstable in real-time, adapting the matching criteria accordingly. This allows the system to maintain reliability across varying capture conditions without requiring controlled environments.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system changes the parameters of code comparison based on the stability characteristics of the captured data. By modifying matching thresholds and criteria dynamically, it achieves stable code comparison results even when capture conditions vary, thereby improving adaptability to common-use scenarios.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Adaptability or versatility

If biometric systems use distance metrics such as Hamming distance, then they can accommodate non-ideal conditions, but they cannot reproduce a strictly individual binary code required for cryptography

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvetolerance to non-ideal conditionsVSAvoidcode uniqueness and exact reproducibility
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The code is segmented into stable and unstable bit positions. For cryptographic applications requiring exact reproducibility, the system uses only the stable bits that can be exactly reproduced. The unstable bits are handled separately with tolerance, allowing the system to satisfy both cryptographic requirements and non-ideal condition tolerance.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

Different quality requirements are applied to different parts of the code. Stable bits are processed with exact matching for cryptographic precision, while unstable bits are processed with distance metrics for tolerance to non-ideal conditions. This local quality differentiation resolves the contradiction between precision and adaptability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

4Reliability

If biometric systems store encrypted biometric data for comparison, then they can maintain security, but they create vulnerability to hacking of stored data

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedata securityVSAvoidvulnerability to hacking
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

The system extracts and removes the vulnerable stored biometric data from the system. Instead of storing encrypted biometric templates for comparison, it uses a method that generates comparison codes on-demand from the captured biometric data, eliminating the stored data that could be hacked while maintaining security through the stable code generation process.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #2Taking out (Extraction)

Data Source

PatentEP4358560B1System and method for producing a unique stable biometric code for a biometric hash
Publication Date: 2025.07.23 GLOBAL BIONIC OPTICS PTY LTD
  • EP4358560B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP4358560B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP4358560B1 patent drawingFigure 3A~3C

AI summary

Biometric data such as iris, facial, or fingerprint data may be obtained from a user. A public code may be generated from the biometric data, but does not obtain any of the biometric data or information that can be used to identify the user. The public code includes information that can be used to extract from the biometric data a biometric code that is suitable for bitwise comparison. Neither the underlying biometric data nor information from which the biometric data may be determined is stored as only the public code and the actual biometric feature of the user is required to generate the biometric code.