EP3400584B1 - Vérification de l'intégrité d'un document de valeur - Google Patents

Vérification de l'intégrité d'un document de valeur Download PDF

Info

Publication number
EP3400584B1
EP3400584B1 EP16819440.5A EP16819440A EP3400584B1 EP 3400584 B1 EP3400584 B1 EP 3400584B1 EP 16819440 A EP16819440 A EP 16819440A EP 3400584 B1 EP3400584 B1 EP 3400584B1
Authority
EP
European Patent Office
Prior art keywords
value
characteristic
feature
measurement
document
Prior art date
Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
Active
Application number
EP16819440.5A
Other languages
German (de)
English (en)
Other versions
EP3400584A1 (fr
Inventor
Wolfgang Rauscher
Erich KERST
Thomas Happ
Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.)
Giesecke and Devrient Currency Technology GmbH
Original Assignee
Giesecke and Devrient Currency Technology GmbH
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by Giesecke and Devrient Currency Technology GmbH filed Critical Giesecke and Devrient Currency Technology GmbH
Publication of EP3400584A1 publication Critical patent/EP3400584A1/fr
Application granted granted Critical
Publication of EP3400584B1 publication Critical patent/EP3400584B1/fr
Active legal-status Critical Current
Anticipated expiration legal-status Critical

Links

Images

Classifications

    • G—PHYSICS
    • G07—CHECKING-DEVICES
    • G07D—HANDLING OF COINS OR VALUABLE PAPERS, e.g. TESTING, SORTING BY DENOMINATIONS, COUNTING, DISPENSING, CHANGING OR DEPOSITING
    • G07D7/00—Testing specially adapted to determine the identity or genuineness of valuable papers or for segregating those which are unacceptable, e.g. banknotes that are alien to a currency
    • G07D7/20—Testing patterns thereon
    • G07D7/2016—Testing patterns thereon using feature extraction, e.g. segmentation, edge detection or Hough-transformation
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G07—CHECKING-DEVICES
    • G07D—HANDLING OF COINS OR VALUABLE PAPERS, e.g. TESTING, SORTING BY DENOMINATIONS, COUNTING, DISPENSING, CHANGING OR DEPOSITING
    • G07D7/00—Testing specially adapted to determine the identity or genuineness of valuable papers or for segregating those which are unacceptable, e.g. banknotes that are alien to a currency
    • G07D7/06—Testing specially adapted to determine the identity or genuineness of valuable papers or for segregating those which are unacceptable, e.g. banknotes that are alien to a currency using wave or particle radiation
    • G07D7/12—Visible light, infrared or ultraviolet radiation
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G07—CHECKING-DEVICES
    • G07D—HANDLING OF COINS OR VALUABLE PAPERS, e.g. TESTING, SORTING BY DENOMINATIONS, COUNTING, DISPENSING, CHANGING OR DEPOSITING
    • G07D7/00—Testing specially adapted to determine the identity or genuineness of valuable papers or for segregating those which are unacceptable, e.g. banknotes that are alien to a currency
    • G07D7/06—Testing specially adapted to determine the identity or genuineness of valuable papers or for segregating those which are unacceptable, e.g. banknotes that are alien to a currency using wave or particle radiation
    • G07D7/12—Visible light, infrared or ultraviolet radiation
    • G07D7/1205—Testing spectral properties
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G07—CHECKING-DEVICES
    • G07D—HANDLING OF COINS OR VALUABLE PAPERS, e.g. TESTING, SORTING BY DENOMINATIONS, COUNTING, DISPENSING, CHANGING OR DEPOSITING
    • G07D7/00—Testing specially adapted to determine the identity or genuineness of valuable papers or for segregating those which are unacceptable, e.g. banknotes that are alien to a currency
    • G07D7/16—Testing the dimensions
    • G07D7/162—Length or width
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G07—CHECKING-DEVICES
    • G07D—HANDLING OF COINS OR VALUABLE PAPERS, e.g. TESTING, SORTING BY DENOMINATIONS, COUNTING, DISPENSING, CHANGING OR DEPOSITING
    • G07D7/00—Testing specially adapted to determine the identity or genuineness of valuable papers or for segregating those which are unacceptable, e.g. banknotes that are alien to a currency
    • G07D7/20—Testing patterns thereon
    • G07D7/202—Testing patterns thereon using pattern matching
    • G07D7/205—Matching spectral properties
    • B—PERFORMING OPERATIONS; TRANSPORTING
    • B42—BOOKBINDING; ALBUMS; FILES; SPECIAL PRINTED MATTER
    • B42D—BOOKS; BOOK COVERS; LOOSE LEAVES; PRINTED MATTER CHARACTERISED BY IDENTIFICATION OR SECURITY FEATURES; PRINTED MATTER OF SPECIAL FORMAT OR STYLE NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR; DEVICES FOR USE THEREWITH AND NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR; MOVABLE-STRIP WRITING OR READING APPARATUS
    • B42D25/00—Information-bearing cards or sheet-like structures characterised by identification or security features; Manufacture thereof
    • B42D25/20—Information-bearing cards or sheet-like structures characterised by identification or security features; Manufacture thereof characterised by a particular use or purpose
    • B42D25/29—Securities; Bank notes
    • B—PERFORMING OPERATIONS; TRANSPORTING
    • B42—BOOKBINDING; ALBUMS; FILES; SPECIAL PRINTED MATTER
    • B42D—BOOKS; BOOK COVERS; LOOSE LEAVES; PRINTED MATTER CHARACTERISED BY IDENTIFICATION OR SECURITY FEATURES; PRINTED MATTER OF SPECIAL FORMAT OR STYLE NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR; DEVICES FOR USE THEREWITH AND NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR; MOVABLE-STRIP WRITING OR READING APPARATUS
    • B42D25/00—Information-bearing cards or sheet-like structures characterised by identification or security features; Manufacture thereof
    • B42D25/30—Identification or security features, e.g. for preventing forgery
    • B42D25/328—Diffraction gratings; Holograms
    • B—PERFORMING OPERATIONS; TRANSPORTING
    • B42—BOOKBINDING; ALBUMS; FILES; SPECIAL PRINTED MATTER
    • B42D—BOOKS; BOOK COVERS; LOOSE LEAVES; PRINTED MATTER CHARACTERISED BY IDENTIFICATION OR SECURITY FEATURES; PRINTED MATTER OF SPECIAL FORMAT OR STYLE NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR; DEVICES FOR USE THEREWITH AND NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR; MOVABLE-STRIP WRITING OR READING APPARATUS
    • B42D25/00—Information-bearing cards or sheet-like structures characterised by identification or security features; Manufacture thereof
    • B42D25/30—Identification or security features, e.g. for preventing forgery
    • B42D25/36—Identification or security features, e.g. for preventing forgery comprising special materials
    • B42D25/373—Metallic materials
    • G—PHYSICS
    • G07—CHECKING-DEVICES
    • G07D—HANDLING OF COINS OR VALUABLE PAPERS, e.g. TESTING, SORTING BY DENOMINATIONS, COUNTING, DISPENSING, CHANGING OR DEPOSITING
    • G07D2207/00—Paper-money testing devices

Definitions

  • the present invention relates to a method and a corresponding device for checking documents of value for completeness and authenticity.
  • Counterfeits of valuable documents could be composed of a plurality of partial documents, for example, sections of genuine valuable documents were combined with sections of copies. According to the invention, it is possible to reliably identify such forgeries and to check documents of value for completeness or authenticity.
  • the DE 10 346 636 A1 describes a sensor-based authenticity check of valuable documents with a luminescent marker, which is carried out integrally along a track across the valuable document. While the addition of the luminescence signal along the measurement track is well suited to detecting small, noisy spectral signals, it prevents a small-scale and therefore precise assessment of completeness.
  • the WO 2011/037750 A2 describes the authenticity recognition of banknotes by detecting a homogeneously distributed IR luminescent substance of measurement traces and comparison of the measured modulation of the luminescence intensity through overprinting or applied holograms, stripes, etc. with expected target profiles. Areas with high statistical fluctuations, such as security threads or hologram strips, are excluded from the evaluation and an authenticity decision is made if, for example, > 51% of the measured profile matches one of the four position-dependent authenticity references.
  • the US 6,393,140 B1 describes a further method for checking banknotes, in which a signal such as color or magnetism is measured at several defined points on the banknote and the relative distances between the measured values and a reference value are determined and then standardized. This procedure enables a local authenticity assessment, but not a reliable completeness check.
  • the US 2005/0100204 A1 describes a method for authenticating banknotes based on the brightness values of individual pixels. Pixel specific Brightness results in a geometric shape that is compared to a reference shape.
  • DE 10 2007 044 878 A1 relates to a method for checking the authenticity of banknotes.
  • a first fluorescence intensity is determined at a first measurement time and a second fluorescence intensity is determined for a portion of the banknote at a second measurement time, and a corrected luminescence intensity is determined.
  • the corrected luminescence intensity is compared to a threshold value.
  • DE 10 2010 021 803 A1 discloses a method for checking the authenticity of a banknote.
  • a spatially resolved measurement of a transmission is carried out.
  • the transmission values are compared with a threshold value and the shape of connected subthreshold areas is evaluated.
  • the achievable spatial resolution of the feature signal can be dramatically reduced compared to usual resolutions of optical image sensors in the visible:
  • the spatial resolution can be limited both by the detector technology used and by intrinsic time properties of the feature substance, such as the attack time of a luminescent substance.
  • the pixel size can be in the range of a few mm or even a few cm. In order to be able to derive the completeness of the value document from the feature measurement as reliably as possible in such situations, the information from each individual measurement pixel must be adequately evaluated and used for the completeness check.
  • the aim of the present invention is to provide a reliable completeness measurement or completeness check of modern value documents for the detection of so-called chip forgeries under the conditions of fast-running banknote processing machines (ie measurement at relative speeds, for example of 1-13 m/s, preferably 6-12 m/s between banknotes and sensor).
  • the combination of various security features on the document of value and their interaction with the sensor-based measurement of the machine-readable feature also occurs when the machine-readable feature material is present homogeneously often exhibits a complex modulation pattern of the measured intensity of the feature signal. This makes direct completeness assessment considerably more difficult. In particular, it is assumed that there is no denomination or location information available at the time of the measurement or the completeness assessment, which is often encountered in reality.
  • At least one document of value has at least one machine-readable feature substance in at least two different locations.
  • the document of value is stimulated at least locally. This can be done, for example, by means of electromagnetic radiation, for example light with a wavelength in the visible spectral range. Additionally or alternatively, the document of value can be subjected to magnetism.
  • a feature intensity with regard to the machine-readable feature substance is recorded at several different locations on the document of value.
  • An optical and/or magnetic detection unit can be used for this purpose.
  • the recording unit forms accordingly a characteristic value for each measuring location.
  • the feature intensity is determined from the feature value in relation to the location of the measurement locations of the value document.
  • the locally limited surface element of the location-related feature intensity and/or the location-related reflectance value can be understood below as a pixel.
  • a feature value or a large number of, in particular connected, feature values can be used.
  • a partial aspect of the feature value for example a specific wavelength when detecting a spectral range, can be used to generate or detect the feature intensity.
  • the location-related feature intensities are classified using a threshold value.
  • a location-related classification of the feature intensity can be carried out for each location-related feature intensity, for example into locally real or locally fake.
  • location-related boundaries of an expected location distribution of the machine-readable feature material are determined. These limits preferably reflect the longitudinal extent and/or width extent, particularly preferably the surface extent, of the document of value.
  • errors in the structure for example areas of counterfeiting of a document of value, in particular if the length falls below a minimum, can be determined based on the limits.
  • the location-related distribution of the classified feature intensities is evaluated. At least two classified feature intensities are evaluated in relation to each other and/or to the specific location-related boundaries.
  • the feature intensities at the individual measurement locations are preferably considered locally real with above-threshold intensity or with sub-threshold intensity classified as locally inauthentic. These measurement locations are also referred to below as classified pixels.
  • the number and spatial distribution of subthreshold and/or suprathreshold feature intensities can be determined, for example.
  • a reference feature intensity can be used as a comparison value.
  • Documents of value are sheet-shaped objects with a front and a back, which represent, for example, a monetary value or an authorization and therefore should not be able to be produced arbitrarily by unauthorized persons. They therefore have features that are not easy to manufacture, in particular to copy, the presence of which is an indication of authenticity, i.e. that they were manufactured by an authorized body. Important examples of such documents of value are coupons, vouchers, checks and especially banknotes.
  • a specific location-dependent threshold value is assigned to at least one location or pixel.
  • a location-dependent threshold value is preferably assigned to a large number of locations or pixels or a group thereof.
  • location-dependent threshold values a more detailed location-dependent classification of location-related feature intensities is possible.
  • special ones can Location-dependent properties are represented and checked by the location-dependent threshold values.
  • the local authenticity is determined based on a feature intensity.
  • Several feature values for example of luminescence radiation, are preferably used to assess the local authenticity. This includes a temporal behavior of the feature intensity such as an attack behavior, a decay behavior, a spectral distribution of the feature intensities and/or spatial information such as track information or a transport position.
  • a specific comparison of the determined feature values can be carried out with the expected feature values of a genuine document of value and taken into account when determining the feature intensity. For example, despite the presence of significant luminescence intensity, the feature intensity can be determined to be zero, for example, if the spectral distribution of the luminescence radiation does not match the expected spectrum.
  • a local authenticity of the value document can therefore be determined based on a local feature value.
  • an assessment of the entire value document for completeness and/or authenticity is possible.
  • reflectance values are recorded in a spatially resolved manner at several different locations of the document of value.
  • the measurement locations of the reflectance values preferably essentially correspond to the measurement locations of the feature intensities.
  • the area of the measurement location of a reflectance value can be larger or smaller than the area of the measurement location of the corresponding feature intensity.
  • the measurement locations preferably have an equal area.
  • the measurement location of a reflectance value can also be offset, preferably overlapping, to the measurement location of a feature intensity.
  • the spatially resolved detection of the reflectance values is preferably carried out at the same time as the spatially resolved detection of the feature intensity values.
  • the recorded location-related reflectance values can be parameters of a characteristic curve for location-dependent or location-related threshold values.
  • track completeness is determined.
  • feature values i.e. location-related feature intensities and, if necessary, location-related reflectance values
  • the data from this measurement track is evaluated. Essentially, however, only one-dimensional trace completeness can then be checked and evaluated.
  • the individual feature intensities and, if applicable, remission values of the pixels are first compared individually with a minimum value and classified as real or fake, or accordingly, for example as sub-threshold, above-threshold or average.
  • the length of the document of value can be determined from the distance between the two outermost measuring points with a signal intensity above a minimum threshold.
  • the measured length of the document of value can preferably be measured in a transport direction by edge detection from a feature intensity curve be determined.
  • Feature intensities are recorded in a spatially resolved manner in the feature intensity curve.
  • the feature intensity curve includes value points that result from the feature intensity and the associated location.
  • the extreme spatial positions are determined at which an average threshold (upper threshold - lower threshold)/2 of the feature intensities is reached.
  • the measured length of the value document results from the difference between the two location-related feature intensities, whereby the size of the pixel or measurement location distance is generally taken into account, in particular added.
  • the accuracy of the length determination can be increased by interpolating the feature intensity curve between the measured points, preferably linearly (alternatively spline), and thus determining the length with subpixel precision.
  • the determined or determined length is then compared with a known or predetermined minimum length, which corresponds, for example, to the true length of the shortest denomination variant of a banknote series.
  • the completeness can be determined quantitatively simply by the ratio of the number of pixels with above-threshold feature intensity, or real pixel, to the number of pixels corresponding to the measured length (assuming constant transport speed or spatial resolution).
  • the measurement of the feature sensor is preferably triggered by a light barrier (e.g. the banknote processing machine) in such a way that the measuring points of different documents of value can always be assigned to different data sets.
  • a light barrier e.g. the banknote processing machine
  • the evaluation for completeness from the length determination usually affects exactly one document of value.
  • areas with significantly reduced feature intensity can also occur within a single (real) value document, up to completely disappearing feature intensity, if features such as metallized holograms, security strips, etc. are opaque to the excitation radiation and/or radiation emanating from the value document cover machine-readable feature material.
  • features such as metallized holograms, security strips, etc. are opaque to the excitation radiation and/or radiation emanating from the value document cover machine-readable feature material.
  • the - depending on the denomination - the maximum possible width of the opaque covers as well as their position relative to the front and/or rear edge in the transport direction are taken into account for the completeness assessment.
  • a sensor has several measurement tracks, such as. B. 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 20 or more measurement tracks, so that a two-dimensional distribution of the feature intensities is recorded.
  • a threshold value classification of the individual location-related feature intensities is also initially carried out.
  • a convex hull is then calculated around the determined supra-threshold location-related feature intensities.
  • known or predetermined location-related subthreshold feature intensities for example by a background system, are compared with the determined location-related supra-threshold feature intensities encompassed by the convex hull, for example a number.
  • is the number of determined above-threshold Feature intensities smaller than the known number of above-threshold feature intensities can, for example, be assumed to be an undesirable hole in the document of value. This process allows the detection of holes or opaque spots within the document of value, which are unwanted and therefore indicate a forgery.
  • the evaluation can be carried out on sub-threshold location-related feature intensities. Furthermore, an evaluation with regard to any recorded and known or predetermined remission values is possible.
  • the convex hull is calculated separately for each line, i.e. in this case the interval between the front and rear ends of the line. For each interval, subthreshold location-related feature intensities are marked as spurious or appropriate.
  • a two-dimensional convex hull is calculated using the positions of all pixels above the threshold, e.g. using the Graham algorithm. For example, all subthreshold pixels with positions within the convex hull are marked as spurious or equivalent.
  • subthreshold location-related feature intensities within the convex hull can be rejected if, for example, their measurement locations lie within occurring patterns, such as a transparent window or a metallic LEAD strip.
  • the two-dimensional distribution of the pixels above the threshold is preferably analyzed and evaluated. In particular, this will be the case Occurrence of larger holes checked.
  • location-related feature intensities that are classified as inauthentic or corresponding are determined and identified, marked and counted into two-dimensional connected areas. Lying e.g. For example, if there are more than 2, 3, 5, ... (resolution-dependent) related location-related feature intensities that are classified as spurious or accordingly, a potentially missing area is recognized.
  • the position and geometric extent of the areas classified as fake or corresponding are then analyzed and compared with patterns that occur in a known manner, such as a transparent window or a metallic LEAD strip.
  • the shape, maximum width and relative position to the edges or corners of the document of value are checked for plausibility and, if there are deviations, classified as "incomplete" or similar.
  • neighboring pixels in the line direction that are classified as spurious or correspondingly can be specifically counted and multiple pixels can be evaluated in this direction.
  • the individual tracks are then evaluated analogously to the single-track sensor described above, which provides several measured values for track completeness.
  • the authenticity and/or completeness of the value document is recognized if there is at least a certain ratio between the number and a spatial distribution of the classified pixels, feature intensities and/or reflectance values.
  • the measured length can be determined from the maximum value of the individual track lengths and, in the event of deviations in the other track lengths, the existence of a lack of completeness can be concluded, preferably taking a tolerance value into account.
  • column completeness can be determined, in particular by taking several measurement tracks into account.
  • the spatially resolved detection of the feature intensities can include measuring a spectral luminescence intensity of a luminescent substance. Accordingly, the document of value can be checked for the presence or absence of a luminescent substance and checked for authenticity and completeness according to its local assignment or distribution. Furthermore, the spatially resolved detection can include a spectral measurement of a Raman band and/or a so-called surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS). In addition, the detection can include a measurement of an absorption band with respect to a specific spectral range, for example infrared, and/or the measurement of magnetic properties.
  • SERS surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy
  • Feature values can include measurement results, for example with regard to a spectrum.
  • the feature values are specifically processed to provide feature intensities.
  • the feature values can be assigned a filter, for example to evaluate a spectral range, in particular a wavelength.
  • the feature values can be assigned an algorithm.
  • the feature values can be sensor values from which feature intensities are ultimately determined.
  • the feature values can each include a variety of different feature intensities.
  • feature intensities and/or reflectance values can take place both on a front side and on a back side of the value document.
  • feature intensities and/or, if applicable, reflectance values can be recorded on the same and/or opposite side, in particular in relation to the measurement location.
  • the feature intensities and/or reflectance values are recorded at the same, opposite locations on the front and back.
  • location-dependent threshold values can be determined by a characteristic curve which depends on the feature intensities determined on the opposite side of the value document at the respective location
  • transmission values are recorded in a spatially resolved manner, preferably by time-delayed illumination as part of reflectance measurements on the front and back and/or by time-delayed illumination as part of the measurement of feature values or the detection of feature intensities on the front and back of the document of value.
  • a combined classification can be carried out at several measurement locations, taking into account data tuples assigned to the measurement locations.
  • the data tuples include at least one feature intensity and at least one of the following components: a further feature intensity, a remission value, and/or a transmission value.
  • the above-mentioned task is achieved by a sensor or a sensor unit and/or a banknote processing machine, which are designed to carry out a method set out here.
  • the sensor can be part of the sensor unit and/or the banknote processing machine.
  • the local excitation of the document of value takes place with the aid of excitation radiation.
  • the feature substance preferably has a luminescent substance or a Raman-active substance or a substance that can be detected by surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS).
  • SERS surface enhanced Raman spectroscopy
  • the feature substance can have magnetic properties.
  • any characteristic substance with machine-testable properties is conceivable.
  • the characteristic substance can also be viewed as a marker.
  • the excitation radiation can be spectrally narrow-band, broad-band, or a superposition of various narrow-band and/or broad-band radiation components.
  • the document of value is illuminated with test radiation to check the presence of a document substrate at the respective measuring point, to measure the size of the document of value and/or to measure a reflectance value.
  • the excitation radiation and/or the test radiation is measured in a spatially resolved manner.
  • the documents of value to be checked for completeness within the scope of this invention are equipped with at least one machine-readable feature substance that was introduced or applied at least along a track in the direction of movement of the document of value.
  • the machine-readable feature substance preferably comprises at least one luminescent marker (luminescent substance), particularly preferably inorganic phosphors based on host lattices doped with rare earth or transition metal ions.
  • the machine-readable feature substance is preferably distributed homogeneously over the surface of the document of value or introduced homogeneously into the volume of the document of value (paper or polymer). Alternatively, it can be printed over the entire surface or in partial areas of the document of value, but at least along a track over the length, or in the case of transverse transport over the width of the document.
  • a luminescent feature substance it can either emit at a shorter wavelength (anti-Stokes luminescence or upconverter) and/or at a longer wavelength than the excitation wavelength (Stokes luminescence). Anti-Stokes emitters are not preferred because they typically have significantly lower brightness.
  • These can be, for example, two independent feature substances introduced into the substrate of the document of value (polymer or paper).
  • a feature substance can be present in the substrate and a second feature substance can be printed on.
  • the general structure of the sensor is described as follows.
  • a suitable sensor for the machine-readable feature is required.
  • a luminescence feature or a SERS feature this is typically designed for the spectrally resolved detection of the feature substance.
  • the feature sensor is preferably installed in a machine for automated checking or sorting of valuable documents, in particular a banknote processing machine. This transports the valuable documents to be checked linearly through the detection area of the sensor device in a predetermined transport direction.
  • the feature sensor may include a luminescence sensor.
  • the luminescence sensor is preferably designed as a detection device for spectrally resolved detection of the luminescence radiation in at least one predetermined spectral detection range and delivers detection signals which reflect at least one, in particular spectral, property of the detected luminescence radiation.
  • the spectral resolution can be achieved either by dispersive elements, such as. B. diffraction gratings in reflection or transmission or through suitable filters in front of the respective detector elements.
  • the spectral resolution of the detector has at least two wavelength channels, preferably >4, particularly preferably >8 different wavelength channels.
  • the senor To excite the luminescent radiation emanating from the document of value, the sensor illuminates it in a detection area with an excitation radiation.
  • This is matched to the luminescent substance used to mark the document of value and is in the optical range, i.e. in the UV, VIS or IR spectral range.
  • the excitation radiation can be spectrally narrow-band, broad-band or a superposition of various narrow-band and/or broad-band radiation components.
  • the luminescence sensor is preferably additionally equipped with a remission sensor.
  • it illuminates the document of value with test radiation in addition to the excitation radiation. This is used to check for the presence of the document substrate at the currently illuminated location or to measure the size of the document of value and/or to measure the reflectance.
  • the test radiation preferably has a spectral distribution that at least partially or completely overlaps with the spectral detection range of the detection device. In this case, the reflectance of the valuable document can be determined directly without the need for a separate detector.
  • test radiation detector in addition to the illumination device for the test radiation, there is also a separate test radiation detector, together with any necessary illumination, collimation and/or imaging optics, with which, in addition to the luminescence radiation, the remission is also measured in a spatially resolved manner and via the geometric imaging properties of the two Detection channels are each assigned to the associated measuring locations of the luminescence radiation.
  • the illumination surfaces of the excitation radiation and the test radiation preferably overlap strongly spatially in the detection range of the sensor or are largely identical, so that the spatial assignment of the measured values can take place directly.
  • the senor has a control and evaluation device which controls the emission of excitation radiation or test radiation and receives the signals from the detection device(s), processes them and evaluates them for authenticity or completeness.
  • test radiation and the excitation radiation are generated with suitable light sources such as incandescent lamps, flash lamps, LEDs or laser diodes, in particular edge emitters or VCSELs. Additional filters or phosphor converters may be required to generate the desired spectra.
  • the reflectance is typically determined in the visible spectral range either in a broad or, alternatively, narrowly restricted wavelength range. Alternatively, the remission can also be determined in a non-visible spectral range such as UV or NIR.
  • the luminescence signal obtained during each measurement cycle can be evaluated locally for each individual measuring point.
  • This can include the evaluation of a spectral distribution, for example after an offset or background correction, whereby any signal contributions introduced by scattered light or by the amplifier or evaluation electronics are eliminated.
  • the correction parameters required for this can either be preset or determined dynamically using suitable dark measurements. These can be carried out, for example, when there is currently no document of value in the detection range of the sensor and/or one (or more) measuring point on the document of value itself is “sacrificed” and instead a dark measurement is carried out without excitation and without test lighting.
  • the measured spectra can be standardized with preset or separately measured illumination intensities or reflectance values etc. measured on special calibration substrates.
  • the local authenticity of the document of value is checked on the basis of the measured luminescence signal. This can be done on the basis of the spectral distribution or can also evaluate the rise and/or decay behavior. At least one intensity value is calculated, which represents a measure of the local luminescence intensity and, together with the measurement location, i.e. i.e., e.g. B. the x-y coordinate formed from the track and transport position is saved.
  • the reflectance value is determined in the case of narrow-band test lighting, or the reflectance values of several spectral channels in the case of spectrally resolved reflectance measurement.
  • the determined reflectance value is saved together with the measurement location, i.e. the transport position.
  • Case 1 describes an evaluation without denomination information and without reflectance measurement.
  • the sensor only measures the machine-readable feature, without having any further information about the present document of value or about its true or apparent size. This means that only the measurement data distribution of the machine-readable feature is available for the completeness assessment. Nevertheless, even on the basis of this limited information, a well-founded statement about completeness can be made.
  • a different evaluation preferably takes place between the edge tracks and center tracks. This makes it possible to detect missing measurement areas that occur due to the document of value tilting during transport and to reduce the frequency of documents of value that are incorrectly classified as incomplete. In one embodiment, for example, track completeness can generally be ignored during the evaluation.
  • the edge trace can be evaluated in the shortened form within the extent recognized by the reflectance measurement.
  • a union of the convex hulls of the distributions of the two characteristic substance measurements can be used as a measure of the geometric extent of the document of value.
  • the completeness check is carried out by a machine-dependent evaluation, in which the actual geometric conditions with regard to the transport of valuable documents are taken into account.
  • the transported documents of value can be aligned either along the lower edge or centered, for example. This means that when processing different denominations with different sizes (especially widths) depending on the machine different traces of feature signals can be expected. Since these transport properties always remain constant, they are advantageously taken into account when assessing completeness and are parameterized when installing the sensor. In particular, it is defined which tracks should always be complete (center track(s) vs. bottom track or second bottom track to take skewing into account).
  • both the trace completeness and the area completeness are preferably evaluated and finally combined to form a measure of completeness.
  • a detected lack of trace completeness can lead to the entire value document being recognized as incomplete, even if the surface completeness may still be within an accepted tolerance threshold.
  • a particularly reliable assessment of completeness is carried out by checking at the level of the pixels (pixel completeness), at the level of the measurement tracks (track completeness) and by evaluating the two-dimensional distribution of the measured values obtained (area completeness or two-dimensional completeness).
  • a document of value is provided.
  • the value document includes at least one machine-readable feature substance.
  • the feature substance is arranged at at least two different locations, preferably arranged over a substantial area of the document of value.
  • the machine-readable feature material preferably extends partially over the entire surface extent of the document of value.
  • the document of value is excited at least locally, preferably with electromagnetic radiation.
  • the excitation can be done by irradiating the entire document of value.
  • the document of value is irradiated in certain areas, particularly preferably at specific points.
  • a sensor unit is used to detect a spatially resolved feature value, in particular a feature intensity, with respect to the machine-readable feature material at several different locations on the value document (S3a).
  • the detection usually concerns the surface section of the document of value which was excited by means of electromagnetic radiation, with the excited section preferably having an area that is the same or larger than the detected area or point.
  • a reflectance value is recorded (S3b) in a spatially resolved manner with respect to the feature values recorded in step 3a, whereby several reflectance values can also be recorded, which relate to different wavelengths, for example.
  • a step S4 the feature values and the preferably recorded reflectance value are evaluated in a spatially resolved manner in accordance with steps S2, S3a and, if necessary, S3b.
  • the feature values are compared with expected reference signals and a feature intensity is determined for the spatially resolved feature values.
  • the location-related feature intensities are preferably normalized.
  • a classification of the location-related feature intensities takes place in step S5.
  • the classification is based on a lower threshold value of the feature intensities (see Fig. 2a ) or a combined use of a lower and upper threshold value of the feature intensities (see. Fig. 2b ) or a use different threshold values of the feature intensities, in particular depending on one or different remission values ( Fig. 3 ).
  • step S4 can preferably take place immediately after step S3a and/or for one or more feature intensities, step S4 can take place after the multiple feature intensities have been detected according to S3a.
  • step S5 can preferably take place immediately after step S4 and/or for one or more feature intensities, step S5 can take place after the evaluation of the multiple feature intensities according to S4.
  • a location-related distribution of the feature intensities is determined based on the evaluation from step S4 or alternatively based on the classification of the feature intensities from step S5.
  • Expected location-related limits of the distribution of the characteristic substance are derived from the location-related distribution. These location-related limits are determined either from the distribution of the classified location-related feature intensities, for example by calculating the convex hull of the above-threshold feature intensities, or by taking into account further measured values, in particular the remission values.
  • step S7 the location-related distribution of the classified feature intensities obtained in step S5 is evaluated.
  • the evaluation is carried out in particular with regard to the relative position of the pixels classified above or below the threshold to one another and, according to the invention, with regard to the relative position of the pixels classified below the threshold relative to those determined in S6 Limits of the expected spatial distribution of the machine-readable feature substance.
  • a completeness measure is finally determined for the entire value document, which can be used for authenticity evaluation or, for example, for sorting decisions in a banknote processing machine.
  • the classification of the pixels as real/fake is done by way of example with reference to Figure 1 as follows. In order to evaluate a valuable document for authenticity and/or completeness, a pixel-based classification is carried out.
  • All measuring points or pixels that have reflectance values above a certain threshold R 1 in the reflection channel must also provide sufficient feature intensity in the feature signal in order to be recognized as a real part of the document of value.
  • the feature intensity must therefore be higher than a lower threshold of the feature intensity M min .
  • Figure 2b shows thresholds for feature intensity and reflectance values, respectively, for pixel-level classification in a modified 4-quadrant scheme using a lower threshold M min , R 1 and an upper threshold M max . All pixels that are sufficiently bright (ie reflectance value R > reflectance threshold R 1 ) and provide a sufficiently intense feature signal (feature intensity M > minimum feature intensity M min (lower threshold value of the feature intensity)) are evaluated as "green”. Pixels that are too dark (R ⁇ R 1 ), such as those found in B.
  • the reflectance signal at the pixel level is used to normalize the feature signal (only in the linear range) for the purpose of soiling or overprinting correction. Edge effects are also taken into account if the value document edge only partially overlaps with the measurement pixels and therefore reduced feature and remission intensities are detected.
  • the threshold for the feature intensity required for authenticity recognition can advantageously be dynamically adjusted pixel by pixel based on the measured remission signal.
  • a characteristic curve or a characteristic field for authenticity detection is defined, as in Figure 3 shown.
  • Figure 3 shows a characteristic curve for the threshold values for classification at the pixel level.
  • the presence of a document is recognized for reflectance values R above a reflectance threshold R 1 .
  • This threshold can be set uniformly for all tracks or, preferably, parameterized individually for each track based on reference measurement values for white or black samples.
  • a reduced threshold value for the feature intensity M is also applied (M 1 > M). If there are correspondingly brighter areas (R 1 ⁇ R ⁇ R 2 ), the required feature intensity threshold is preferably increased accordingly between M 1 and M 4 . In particularly strongly reflective areas (R > R 2 ), it can be assumed that there is no normal securities substrate but rather a metallic reflector such as. B. a hologram, Security strips or something similar. Since these are typically opaque to optical radiation, the threshold value for the feature signal is correspondingly reduced to M 3 , since the covered areas may only be able to provide a greatly reduced signal contribution.
  • M 2 M 3 can also be chosen. In these classification variants, a hologram strip is marked in “red”. Alternatively, M 2 can also be parameterized to very low values, which results in a classification of reflective hologram strips as "green”.
  • red pixels can randomly appear at the edge of the value document, which must be treated or tolerated separately in the further evaluation.
  • the creation of these red edge pixels can be prevented by appropriately parameterizing the threshold value characteristic for R 1 or M 1 .
  • M 1 relative to the maximum intensity
  • R 1 is set lower than R 1 , so that due to the purely geometric loss of intensity, which affects both remission and feature intensity equally, the situation cannot arise that R > R 1 but already M ⁇ M 1 is.
  • the characteristic measured values can of course be evaluated both individually and in combination, analogous to the case described in the case without reflectance measurement.
  • the first check for completeness is now carried out on a pixel basis: within the recognized area of the value document, the number of measuring points or pixels classified as "red” must not exceed a certain threshold. In the strictest interpretation with a threshold of 0, this means that there must not be a single measurement location with insufficient feature intensity for the document of value to be recognized as complete. In other variants, individual "red" pixels can be tolerated.
  • the ratio of the number of all green pixels relative to the number of all pixels within the extent of the value document can be formed and checked against a minimum threshold. This corresponds to an area share or the area-related degree of completeness.
  • the trace lengths determined from the reflectance measurements are used as a benchmark for evaluating trace completeness.
  • the number of pixels classified as "green” in this track is divided by the number of all pixels within this track length.
  • a somewhat stricter test criterion is obtained if, in order to calculate the measure of track completeness, the number of pixels classified as "green” in this track is divided by the number of pixels corresponding to the maximum length of the value document.
  • Another test criterion is the number of neighboring "red" pixels within the length of the value document and within a track. If this exceeds a defined threshold, the track is counted as incomplete. To parameterize this threshold, it makes sense to use the maximum width of "red" areas that appear in real value documents, such as: B. the maximum extent of hologram patches or similar is taken into account.
  • measurement traces in the edge position can also be evaluated differently from central traces, although the corresponding positional uncertainties are much lower here due to the reflectance measurement.
  • the two-dimensional distribution of the feature intensity or the two-dimensional distribution of the classified pixels is also evaluated here, as already described above.
  • holes or opaque spots within the document of value can be localized.
  • the occurrence of larger holes is specifically checked.
  • "red" subthreshold neighboring pixels are searched for within the extent of the value document determined by the convex shell and two-dimensionally connected areas are counted and identified/marked. Lying e.g. For example, if there are more than 2, 3, 5, ... (depending on the resolution) connected red pixels, a potentially missing area is recognized.
  • the location and geometric extent of the "red” areas are analyzed and compared to patterns that occur in a known manner, such as: B. compared to a transparent window or a metallic hologram strip.
  • the shape, maximum width and relative position to the edges or corners of the document of value are checked for plausibility and, if there are deviations, classified as "incomplete".
  • an assessment of column completeness can be carried out to efficiently detect counterfeits or incomplete documents of value with vertical manipulation structures.
  • the number of red pixels is determined column by column and compared against a threshold value. If this threshold (e.g. 2 or 3) is exceeded in a column, the value document will be rejected as incomplete.
  • this is taken into account by specifically "red” neighboring pixels in the line direction are counted and multiple pixels are rated as particularly serious in this direction.
  • the maximum width of a hologram strip (or similar security features such as metal paint) can be taken into account by directly classifying valuable documents with a larger number of red pixels in the higher-resolution measuring direction as incomplete than a defined threshold value.
  • the authenticity sensor comprises two sub-sensors that allow the feature intensity on each document of value to be measured on both sides.
  • a reflection channel is preferably available at least on one side - or particularly preferably on both sides - with which the (track) length as well as the exact position and orientation of the document of value are determined.
  • the two sub-sensors are controlled centrally in order to synchronize the timing of the excitation or measured value recording for both sub-sensors.
  • two individual, independent sensors are used for the front and rear, which are synchronized in a master/slave configuration by one of the two sensors ("master").
  • this master sensor determines the operating mode and specifies time delays to be maintained for the measurement pulses and/or measurement recording after a trigger signal.
  • different sensor architectures can preferably be used for the master or slave sensor.
  • one of the sensors can use more complex measurement technology than the other sensor be equipped and check the characteristic values with a higher accuracy or a higher spectral resolution.
  • the two partial measurements from the front and back are then evaluated in combination.
  • the measurement data is assigned to the respective measurement locations on the value document, the location-related data tuples from (Remission, Feature1, Feature2) or (Remission1, Remission2, Feature1, Feature2) are formed and evaluated.
  • the position or timing of the two measurements is preferably coordinated with one another so that the document of value is measured at the same pixel positions on the front and back.
  • the measurement takes place (almost) simultaneously, i.e. a measuring point at a location on the document of value is recorded almost simultaneously from the front and from the back.
  • the illumination of the first partial sensor can also advantageously be used for a transmission measurement with the detector part of the second partial sensor if the two illumination light pulses have a small time offset, so that the transmission signal can be recorded separately in time from the remission signal 2.
  • This temporal sequence of light pulses or detections is in Fig. 3 shown schematically.
  • Transmission, Remission1, Remission2 stand for each measuring location as well as feature1, feature2 are available as a database for the completeness assessment. This enables a complete completeness assessment even with existing opaque (metallic) or transparent (window) security features, which could otherwise hinder the completeness check of certain parts of the value document.
  • the illumination for the reflectance measurement (alternatively: feature measurement) of the front and back is carried out with a slight time delay, so that detector 2 can determine the transmitted portion of the illumination 1 independently and undisturbed by the illumination 2, as shown in Figure 3 is shown.
  • the sum (or the average or the maximum) of feature 1 and feature 2 is formed at each measurement location and then classified and evaluated according to the processes described above.
  • a more accurate evaluation is achieved when individual thresholds are applied for Feature1 and Feature2. These can depend on remission as well as on the other characteristic value.
  • Feature1 and Feature2 These can depend on remission as well as on the other characteristic value.
  • a corresponding characteristic diagram is used here. This can be precisely adapted/parameterized to the typical optical effects that occur on real documents of value.
  • the Figures 5a and 5b show a map for the threshold values for classification at the pixel level when measuring features on both sides.
  • Classification takes place based on static threshold values of feature values (M 1,min , M 2,min ).
  • M 1,min feature values
  • M 2,min feature values
  • interaction effects such as B. Reflection on metallic surface structures applied on one side.
  • the parameterization of the classifier advantageously depends on the location, i.e. H. e.g. B. relative to the front edge, relative to the corners, or specific position within the convex hull, etc. This allows correct treatment of absorptive and reflective interference depending on the effects that may occur in these areas (depending on the position and denomination). In both cases, the corresponding area can be reliably assessed as genuine by measuring the features on both sides despite the insufficient feature intensity on one side.
  • the complete existing data set from (transmission, remission1, remission2, feature intensity1, feature intensity2) is combined and classified and evaluated.
  • holes or window areas in particular can be reliably identified via the transmission signal and their position and extent can be checked in comparison to the values permissible for genuine documents of value. Further exemplary embodiments are described below.
  • Example 1 Here a spectrally resolving single-track luminescence sensor with reflectance measurement is used for the completeness check.
  • the sensor is operated on a banknote processing machine at a transport speed of 11 m/s and is used to check the authenticity and completeness of banknotes with a luminescence marker inserted into the paper that is coordinated with the luminescence sensor.
  • the banknotes have a reflective hologram stripe on the front in the right area.
  • Figure 6 shows a feature curve (O), a reflectance curve (x) and the dynamically calculated feature threshold (dashed) of a genuine and complete banknote. Both remission and feature intensity are significantly modulated. By using a remission-dependent threshold when classifying the feature intensity, completeness can still be determined correctly.
  • Example 2 Here, a spectrally resolving 11-track luminescence sensor with reflectance measurement is used for the completeness check.
  • the sensor is installed on a banknote processing machine at a transport speed of 11 m/s operated and used to check the authenticity and completeness of banknotes with a luminescent marker inserted into the paper.
  • the banknotes have a reflective hologram stripe on the right side of the front and a transparent window on the left side.
  • Figure 7 shows a representation of the measured reflectance values of the banknote. High reflectance occurs particularly in the area of the reflective hologram strip, while very low reflectance occurs in the transparent window.
  • Figure 8 shows a representation of the feature intensity of the banknote.
  • White corresponds to high intensity, while black corresponds to low intensity.
  • black corresponds to low intensity.
  • the hologram strip In the area of the window (left) and the hologram strip (right) only very low feature intensity can be detected.
  • Figure 9 shows a representation of the feature intensity of an incomplete banknote with a diagonally inserted strip of a copy without a feature.
  • Figure 10a shows a pixel-by-pixel classification of the banknote ( Fig. 7-8 ) with dynamic threshold.
  • Figure 10b shows a pixel-by-pixel classification of the incomplete banknote ( Fig. 9 ) with dynamic threshold.
  • the low feature intensity in the area of the hologram strip could be corrected by the dynamic threshold, while the missing feature intensity in the window area is marked in red due to a lack of remission signal.
  • Feature1 front
  • Feature2 rear
  • Remission1 front
  • Remission2 rear
  • FIG 11 shows transmission data of the banknote
  • the front and back were classified separately using a dynamic feature threshold and then combined separately according to the following assignment of the class assignments determined on the front (classification 1) and back (classification 2) to form an overall classification for each pixel, as in Figure 12 is shown.
  • the window area was then recognized based on the high transmission >85 and classified accordingly as a “window” (4).

Landscapes

  • Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
  • Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
  • General Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
  • Toxicology (AREA)
  • Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Computer Vision & Pattern Recognition (AREA)
  • Spectroscopy & Molecular Physics (AREA)
  • Inspection Of Paper Currency And Valuable Securities (AREA)

Claims (20)

  1. Procédé de vérification de l'intégrité et/ou de l'authenticité de documents de valeur, au moins un document de valeur comprenant au moins une substance caractéristique lisible par machine en au moins deux endroits, le procédé comprenant les étapes consistant à :
    - irradier au moins localement le document de valeur (S2) ;
    - détecter, avec une résolution spatiale, une intensité caractéristique (M) relativement à la substance caractéristique lisible par machine en plusieurs endroits différents du document de valeur (S3a) ;
    - classer spatialement les intensités caractéristiques propres auxdits endroits à l'aide d'une valeur seuil (S5) ;
    - déterminer des limites localisées d'une distribution spatiale attendue de la substance caractéristique lisible par machine (S6) ; et
    - déterminer une mesure d'intégrité concernant la totalité du document de valeur compte tenu d'une évaluation d'une distribution spatiale des intensités caractéristiques classées (S7), ladite évaluation s'effectuant en fonction d'une position relative de pixels classés comme étant en dessous du seuil par rapport aux limites déterminées de la distribution spatiale attendue de la substance caractéristique lisible par machine.
  2. Procédé selon la revendication 1, caractérisé en ce que le classement (S5) des intensités caractéristiques (M) propres auxdits endroits est réalisé à l'aide de valeurs seuils fonction desdits endroits.
  3. Procédé selon l'une des revendications précédentes, caractérisé par l'étape de détection, avec une résolution spatiale, de valeurs de rémission (R) (S3b) en plusieurs endroits différents du document de valeur.
  4. Procédé selon la revendication 3, caractérisé en ce que la valeur seuil se trouve sous la forme d'une valeur seuil fonction desdits endroits, déterminée à partir d'une courbe caractéristique fonction de la valeur de rémission (R) déterminée à l'endroit concerné.
  5. Procédé selon la revendication 3 ou 4, dans lequel les endroits de mesure des valeurs de rémission (R) recoupent les endroits de mesure des intensités caractéristiques (M) et y sont de préférence identiques.
  6. Procédé selon l'une des revendications précédentes, caractérisé par l'étape de calcul d'une intégrité de piste de mesure par comparaison du nombre d'endroits de mesure présentant une intensité caractéristique (M) supérieure au seuil au nombre d'endroits de mesure détectés situés à l'intérieur d'une enveloppe convexe des endroits de mesure présentant une intensité caractéristique (M) supérieure au seuil ou bien à l'intérieur d'une enveloppe convexe des endroits de mesure présentant une valeur de rémission (R) supérieure au seuil.
  7. Procédé selon l'une des revendications précédentes, caractérisé par l'étape de vérification d'une répartition bidimensionnelle des intensités caractéristiques (M) classées, par rapport à une enveloppe convexe des endroits de mesure présentant une intensité caractéristique (M) supérieure au seuil ou, si la détection concerne des valeurs de rémission (R), par rapport à une répartition bidimensionnelle des valeurs mesurées lors de la mesure de rémission ; la vérification de la répartition bidimensionnelle des endroits de mesure classés comprenant de préférence un calcul d'une intégrité par colonnes.
  8. Procédé selon l'une des revendications précédentes, caractérisé en ce que les intensités caractéristiques (M) sont détectées sur le document de valeur le long d'au moins une piste de mesure.
  9. Procédé selon l'une des revendications précédentes, caractérisé en ce que la détection, avec une résolution spatiale, des intensités caractéristiques (M) (S2) relativement à la substance caractéristique lisible par machine comprend la mesure d'une intensité de luminescence spectrale d'une substance luminescente et/ou la mesure spectrale d'une bande de Raman d'une substance à activité Raman et/ou d'une substance décelable par spectroscopie Raman amplifiée en surface (surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy, SERS) et/ou la mesure spectrale d'une bande d'absorption d'une substance absorbant dans le domaine spectral infrarouge et/ou la mesure des propriétés magnétiques d'une substance ferromagnétique.
  10. Procédé selon l'une des revendications précédentes, caractérisé en ce qu'une intégrité locale du document de valeur est vérifiée à l'aide d'au moins une valeur caractéristique (M).
  11. Procédé selon l'une des revendications précédentes, caractérisé en ce que le nombre et la répartition spatiale d'endroits de mesure classés comme étant en dessous du seuil sont comparés à des valeurs de référence.
  12. Procédé selon l'une des revendications précédentes, caractérisé en ce que le document de valeur est déplacé à une vitesse de 1 à 13 m/s pendant la mesure, de préférence à une vitesse de 6 à 12 m/s.
  13. Procédé selon l'une des revendications précédentes, caractérisé en ce que la détection, avec une résolution spatiale, des intensités caractéristiques (M) de la substance caractéristique lisible par machine et/ou éventuellement des valeurs de rémission (R) s'effectue sur le recto et le verso du document de valeur, notamment en des endroits identiques et dos à dos dudit recto et dudit verso.
  14. Procédé selon la revendication 13, caractérisé en ce que les valeurs seuils fonction desdits endroits sont déterminées par une courbe caractéristique fonction de l'intensité caractéristique (M) déterminée sur la face du document de valeur au dos dudit endroit.
  15. Procédé selon l'une des revendications précédentes, caractérisé en ce que des valeurs de transmission du document de valeur sont détectées avec une résolution spatiale.
  16. Procédé selon la revendication 15, caractérisé en ce que la mesure de la transmission s'effectue à l'aide d'un éclairage en différé dans le cadre de mesures de rémission sur le recto et le verso et/ou à l'aide d'un éclairage en différé dans le cadre de la mesure de valeurs caractéristiques sur le recto et le verso.
  17. Procédé selon l'une des revendications précédentes, caractérisé en ce que, en plusieurs endroits de mesure, il s'effectue un classement combiné eu égard à des multiplets de données associés auxdits endroits de mesure, lesdits multiplets de données comprenant au moins une intensité caractéristique (M) ainsi qu'au moins l'une des composantes suivantes : une autre intensité caractéristique (M), une valeur de rémission (R) et/ou une valeur de transmission.
  18. Capteur permettant de déterminer une intensité caractéristique (M) et/ou une valeur caractéristique, ledit capteur étant conçu pour réaliser un procédé selon l'une des revendications 1 à 17.
  19. Unité à capteur comprenant un capteur permettant de détecter au moins une intensité caractéristique (M), une valeur caractéristique, une valeur de rémission (R) et/ou une valeur de transmission, notamment selon la revendication 18, ladite unité à capteur étant conçue pour mettre en œuvre un procédé selon l'une des revendications 1 à 17.
  20. Machine de traitement de billets de banque dotée d'une unité à capteur selon la revendication 19, d'un capteur selon la revendication 18 et/ou conçue pour réaliser un procédé selon l'une des revendications 1 à 17.
EP16819440.5A 2016-01-05 2016-12-21 Vérification de l'intégrité d'un document de valeur Active EP3400584B1 (fr)

Applications Claiming Priority (2)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
DE102016000011.2A DE102016000011A1 (de) 2016-01-05 2016-01-05 Vollständigkeitsprüfung eines Wertdokuments
PCT/EP2016/002156 WO2017118467A1 (fr) 2016-01-05 2016-12-21 Vérification de l'intégrité d'un document de valeur

Publications (2)

Publication Number Publication Date
EP3400584A1 EP3400584A1 (fr) 2018-11-14
EP3400584B1 true EP3400584B1 (fr) 2023-11-15

Family

ID=57680203

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
EP16819440.5A Active EP3400584B1 (fr) 2016-01-05 2016-12-21 Vérification de l'intégrité d'un document de valeur

Country Status (6)

Country Link
US (1) US11823522B2 (fr)
EP (1) EP3400584B1 (fr)
DE (1) DE102016000011A1 (fr)
ES (1) ES2968235T3 (fr)
RU (1) RU2724173C2 (fr)
WO (1) WO2017118467A1 (fr)

Families Citing this family (3)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
DE102016000012A1 (de) * 2016-01-05 2017-07-06 Giesecke & Devrient Gmbh Echtheitsprüfung von Wertdokumenten
JP6937391B2 (ja) * 2018-01-31 2021-09-22 富士フイルム株式会社 補修長の決定方法及び補修長の決定装置
DE102019210760A1 (de) * 2019-07-19 2021-01-21 Bundesdruckerei Gmbh Photolumineszenz-Sensorvorrichtung zum Erkennen eines Sicherheitsmerkmals eines sich relativ zu der Sensorvorrichtung bewegenden Objekts

Family Cites Families (22)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
DE19714519A1 (de) 1997-02-03 1998-08-06 Giesecke & Devrient Gmbh Wertdokument und Verfahren zu seiner Herstellung
US6393140B1 (en) 1997-04-16 2002-05-21 Nippon Conlux Co., Ltd. Paper-like piece identifying method and device
DE10346636A1 (de) 2003-10-08 2005-05-12 Giesecke & Devrient Gmbh Vorrichtung und Verfahren zur Prüfung von Wertdokumenten
US20050100204A1 (en) * 2003-11-06 2005-05-12 Spectra Systems Corporation Method and apparatus for detecting fluorescent particles contained in a substrate
DE102007019107A1 (de) 2007-04-23 2008-10-30 Giesecke & Devrient Gmbh Verfahren und Vorrichtung zur Prüfung von Wertdokumenten
DE102007044878A1 (de) 2007-09-20 2009-04-09 Giesecke & Devrient Gmbh Verfahren und Vorrichtung zur Prüfung von Wertdokumenten
US9672510B2 (en) * 2008-01-18 2017-06-06 Mitek Systems, Inc. Systems and methods for automatic image capture and processing of documents on a mobile device
US10102583B2 (en) * 2008-01-18 2018-10-16 Mitek Systems, Inc. System and methods for obtaining insurance offers using mobile image capture
US20130085935A1 (en) * 2008-01-18 2013-04-04 Mitek Systems Systems and methods for mobile image capture and remittance processing
US20100157377A1 (en) * 2008-12-18 2010-06-24 Xerox Corporation Uv fluorescence encoded background images using adaptive halftoning into disjoint sets
US8100330B2 (en) * 2009-05-06 2012-01-24 Xerox Corporation Method for encoding and decoding data in a color barcode pattern
US8047447B2 (en) * 2009-05-06 2011-11-01 Xerox Corporation Method for encoding and decoding data in a color barcode pattern
US8400509B2 (en) 2009-09-22 2013-03-19 Honeywell International Inc. Authentication apparatus for value documents
DE102010021803A1 (de) 2010-05-27 2011-12-01 Giesecke & Devrient Gmbh Vorrichtung zur Echtheitsprüfung von Wertdokumenten
RU131222U1 (ru) * 2012-08-29 2013-08-10 Общество с ограниченной ответственностью "Конструкторское бюро специального приборостроения" (ООО "КБСП") Прибор для детектирования защитных элементов в процессе контроля подлинности ценных бумаг и документов
JP2017053663A (ja) * 2015-09-08 2017-03-16 株式会社東芝 画像読取装置、及び紙葉類処理装置
DE102016000012A1 (de) * 2016-01-05 2017-07-06 Giesecke & Devrient Gmbh Echtheitsprüfung von Wertdokumenten
KR102549881B1 (ko) * 2016-12-16 2023-06-30 오우브이디이 키네그램 악티엔개젤샤프트 보안 다큐먼트의 검증
CA3070691A1 (fr) * 2017-08-09 2019-02-14 Lumii, Inc. Fabrication d'impressions a champ lumineux
FR3086884B1 (fr) * 2018-10-09 2020-11-27 Idemia Identity & Security France Procede de detection de fraude documentaire.
US10628647B1 (en) * 2019-01-30 2020-04-21 Innoview Sarl Authentication and tracking by hidden codes
US11351810B2 (en) * 2020-09-10 2022-06-07 Ecole polytechnique fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) Synthesis of moving and beating moiré shapes

Also Published As

Publication number Publication date
RU2018127765A (ru) 2020-02-06
EP3400584A1 (fr) 2018-11-14
US11823522B2 (en) 2023-11-21
US20200273279A1 (en) 2020-08-27
WO2017118467A1 (fr) 2017-07-13
ES2968235T3 (es) 2024-05-08
DE102016000011A1 (de) 2017-07-06
RU2018127765A3 (fr) 2020-02-06
RU2724173C2 (ru) 2020-06-22

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
EP2577620B1 (fr) Dispositif de contrôle de l'authenticité de documents de valeur
EP1527424A2 (fr) Dispositif et procede de traitement de documents de valeur
EP3400584B1 (fr) Vérification de l'intégrité d'un document de valeur
EP1112555B1 (fr) Procédé et dispositif pour contrôler l'état des papiers de valeur utilisant de mesure fond noir et fond clair.
EP1955292A1 (fr) Dispositif pour controler l'authenticite de billets de banque
WO2001061654A2 (fr) Procede et dispositifs pour le controle d'authenticite d'objets imprimes
EP3400583B1 (fr) Authentification de documents de valeur
WO2005036481A1 (fr) Procede et dispositif pour verifier des papiers-valeurs
EP3443542B1 (fr) Dispositif et procédé de vérification de documents de valeur, en particulier des billets de banque, et système de traitement de documents de valeur
EP2559010B1 (fr) Capteur pour vérification de documents de valeur
WO2014173522A1 (fr) Dispositif et procédé de contrôle de documents de valeur, en particulier de billets de banque, ainsi que système de traitement de documents de valeur
EP2453418B1 (fr) Procédé et dispositif de contrôle de l'authenticité de chèques dotés de fenêtres de sécurité
EP3210195B1 (fr) Dispositif et procédé de vérification de documents de valeur, en particulier des billets de banque, et système de traitement de documents de valeur
EP3455830B1 (fr) Dispositif et procédé de vérification d'un élément de sécurité
EP2920769B1 (fr) L'appareil et methode pour evaluer les documents de valeur
DE102020004471A1 (de) Verfahren und Sensor zur Prüfung von Wertdokumenten
WO2024012634A1 (fr) Capteur et procédé de vérification de documents de valeur comprenant au moins un élément de sécurité réfléchissant
EP1567991B1 (fr) Procede et dispositif permettant de verifier des documents de valeur
EP3570256A1 (fr) Procédé de vérification et dispositif de lecture pour un marquage de sécurité
EP4186041B1 (fr) Capteur et procédé de vérification de documents de valeur, en particulier de billets de banque, et appareil de traitement de documents de valeur
EP3841524B1 (fr) Procédé de contrôle et dispositif de contrôle destinés au contrôle de marquages de sécurité
DE102020007322A1 (de) Sensor und Verfahren zur Prüfung von Wertdokumenten

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
STAA Information on the status of an ep patent application or granted ep patent

Free format text: STATUS: UNKNOWN

STAA Information on the status of an ep patent application or granted ep patent

Free format text: STATUS: THE INTERNATIONAL PUBLICATION HAS BEEN MADE

PUAI Public reference made under article 153(3) epc to a published international application that has entered the european phase

Free format text: ORIGINAL CODE: 0009012

STAA Information on the status of an ep patent application or granted ep patent

Free format text: STATUS: REQUEST FOR EXAMINATION WAS MADE

17P Request for examination filed

Effective date: 20180806

AK Designated contracting states

Kind code of ref document: A1

Designated state(s): AL AT BE BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GB GR HR HU IE IS IT LI LT LU LV MC MK MT NL NO PL PT RO RS SE SI SK SM TR

AX Request for extension of the european patent

Extension state: BA ME

DAV Request for validation of the european patent (deleted)
DAX Request for extension of the european patent (deleted)
STAA Information on the status of an ep patent application or granted ep patent

Free format text: STATUS: REQUEST FOR EXAMINATION WAS MADE

STAA Information on the status of an ep patent application or granted ep patent

Free format text: STATUS: EXAMINATION IS IN PROGRESS

17Q First examination report despatched

Effective date: 20211125

RAP3 Party data changed (applicant data changed or rights of an application transferred)

Owner name: GIESECKE+DEVRIENT CURRENCY TECHNOLOGY GMBH

P01 Opt-out of the competence of the unified patent court (upc) registered

Effective date: 20230519

RIC1 Information provided on ipc code assigned before grant

Ipc: G07D 7/162 20160101ALI20230518BHEP

Ipc: G07D 7/20 20160101ALI20230518BHEP

Ipc: G07D 7/12 20160101AFI20230518BHEP

GRAP Despatch of communication of intention to grant a patent

Free format text: ORIGINAL CODE: EPIDOSNIGR1

STAA Information on the status of an ep patent application or granted ep patent

Free format text: STATUS: GRANT OF PATENT IS INTENDED

INTG Intention to grant announced

Effective date: 20230718

GRAS Grant fee paid

Free format text: ORIGINAL CODE: EPIDOSNIGR3

GRAA (expected) grant

Free format text: ORIGINAL CODE: 0009210

STAA Information on the status of an ep patent application or granted ep patent

Free format text: STATUS: THE PATENT HAS BEEN GRANTED

AK Designated contracting states

Kind code of ref document: B1

Designated state(s): AL AT BE BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GB GR HR HU IE IS IT LI LT LU LV MC MK MT NL NO PL PT RO RS SE SI SK SM TR

REG Reference to a national code

Ref country code: CH

Ref legal event code: EP

Ref country code: GB

Ref legal event code: FG4D

Free format text: NOT ENGLISH

REG Reference to a national code

Ref country code: DE

Ref legal event code: R096

Ref document number: 502016016224

Country of ref document: DE

REG Reference to a national code

Ref country code: IE

Ref legal event code: FG4D

Free format text: LANGUAGE OF EP DOCUMENT: GERMAN

PGFP Annual fee paid to national office [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo]

Ref country code: DE

Payment date: 20231231

Year of fee payment: 8

REG Reference to a national code

Ref country code: LT

Ref legal event code: MG9D

REG Reference to a national code

Ref country code: NL

Ref legal event code: MP

Effective date: 20231115

PG25 Lapsed in a contracting state [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo]

Ref country code: GR

Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

Effective date: 20240216

PG25 Lapsed in a contracting state [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo]

Ref country code: IS

Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

Effective date: 20240315

PG25 Lapsed in a contracting state [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo]

Ref country code: LT

Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

Effective date: 20231115

PG25 Lapsed in a contracting state [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo]

Ref country code: NL

Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

Effective date: 20231115

PGFP Annual fee paid to national office [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo]

Ref country code: ES

Payment date: 20240208

Year of fee payment: 8

PGFP Annual fee paid to national office [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo]

Ref country code: AT

Payment date: 20240207

Year of fee payment: 8

PG25 Lapsed in a contracting state [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo]

Ref country code: NL

Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

Effective date: 20231115

Ref country code: LT

Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

Effective date: 20231115

Ref country code: IS

Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

Effective date: 20240315

Ref country code: GR

Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

Effective date: 20240216

Ref country code: BG

Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

Effective date: 20240215

Ref country code: PT

Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

Effective date: 20240315

PGFP Annual fee paid to national office [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo]

Ref country code: CH

Payment date: 20240208

Year of fee payment: 8

REG Reference to a national code

Ref country code: ES

Ref legal event code: FG2A

Ref document number: 2968235

Country of ref document: ES

Kind code of ref document: T3

Effective date: 20240508

PG25 Lapsed in a contracting state [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo]

Ref country code: SE

Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

Effective date: 20231115

Ref country code: RS

Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

Effective date: 20231115

Ref country code: PL

Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

Effective date: 20231115

Ref country code: NO

Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

Effective date: 20240215

Ref country code: LV

Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

Effective date: 20231115

Ref country code: HR

Free format text: LAPSE BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO SUBMIT A TRANSLATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OR TO PAY THE FEE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT

Effective date: 20231115

PGFP Annual fee paid to national office [announced via postgrant information from national office to epo]

Ref country code: FR

Payment date: 20240112

Year of fee payment: 8