Incremental Interface Decomposition for Legacy Integration Transition

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Transitions in computing infrastructure are complex, costly, and risky, often requiring significant expertise and downtime due to the complexity of legacy interfaces, especially in environments like banking systems, where interoperability and backward compatibility are critical.

Innovation Solution

An incremental transition approach is employed, decomposing existing interface functionalities into smaller services and mapping them onto a domain-driven design framework, allowing gradual expertise development and manageable transitions without complete replacement.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If a complete replacement of legacy computing infrastructure is implemented, then new functionality and improved performance are achieved, but transition complexity, cost, and risk increase significantly

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvesystem performanceVSAvoidtransition complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies segmentation by dividing the monolithic legacy interface into multiple smaller, independent services organized into groupings. Each service implements a subset of functionalities and can be transitioned independently, reducing the overall complexity and risk of the transition while maintaining system performance.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

2Reliability

If all consumer applications are tested to ensure compatibility during transition, then interoperability is ensured, but time and resource requirements become unmanageable

Engineering Contradiction:
ImproveinteroperabilityVSAvoidtesting time
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the testing process by grouping consumer applications and testing them in manageable batches rather than all at once. This allows interoperability to be ensured through systematic testing while reducing the time and resource burden to manageable levels.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements partial action by transitioning and testing services incrementally rather than completing the full transition at once. This allows the system to achieve interoperability for each service subset while avoiding the unmanageable time commitment of testing everything simultaneously.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

3Reliability

If expertise from multiple domains is coordinated to implement transition, then comprehensive coverage is achieved, but coordination difficulty and time consumption increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvetransition completenessVSAvoidcoordination ease
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the transition implementation into independent service groupings that can be developed and tested by specialized teams separately. This reduces coordination difficulty while maintaining comprehensive coverage, as each domain expert can focus on their specific service subset without needing constant coordination with other domains.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

4Productivity

If the transition is implemented in a single phase, then the transition is completed quickly, but downtime and disruption to services increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvetransition speedVSAvoiddowntime
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the transition into multiple phases, with each phase implementing a subset of services. This allows the transition to proceed efficiently without causing complete system downtime, as services can be transitioned and activated incrementally while others remain operational.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent implements periodic action by transitioning services in scheduled batches or phases rather than all at once. This maintains transition productivity while minimizing service disruption, as the system continues to operate with remaining legacy services during each transition phase.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #19Periodic action

Data Source

PatentUS20260089238A1System and Method for Transitioning Computing Operations
Publication Date: 2026.03.26 THE TORONTO DOMINION BANK
  • US20260089238A1 patent drawing
  • US20260089238A1 patent drawing
  • US20260089238A1 patent drawing

AI summary

A system, method, and computer readable medium (CRM) for transitioning a computer integration system are disclosed. Illustratively, the method includes providing an integration layer having an interface positioned between a plurality of consumer applications and a plurality of back-end services. The interface is for performing a plurality of functionalities. The method includes providing a target integration scheme to decompose the interface, the target integration scheme comprising a plurality of groupings. For at least one grouping of the plurality of groupings, the method includes providing a service that implements a subset of the plurality of functionalities. The method includes updating the interface to handle requests for the subset via activating the service.