Machine-Code Subroutine Objects for Scalable Policy Enforcement

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Servers face challenges in efficiently managing and enforcing policies across various organizations with different system environments and programming formats, leading to delays and scalability issues, especially when handling thousands of transactions per minute and dealing with big data.

Innovation Solution

A computer-implemented method that stores machine-code subroutine objects as building blocks for workflows, generates a machine-code syntax tree to represent executable policies, and associates it with the policy, allowing for flexible and customizable transaction management by connecting identified subroutine objects to form a workflow.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If a server applies complex rules to analyze received data for policy enforcement, then policy customization and flexibility are improved, but processing time increases and timing requirements are not met

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvepolicy customizationVSAvoidprocessing time
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments policy enforcement into reusable subroutine objects that can be independently compiled and executed. Each subroutine represents a discrete policy component that can be assembled into workflows, enabling complex policy analysis to be broken down into manageable, pre-compiled units that execute faster than ad-hoc rule analysis.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent performs preliminary compilation of policy subroutines into machine code before execution. By pre-compiling policy logic into optimized machine-code subroutine objects, the system eliminates the need for interpreting complex rules during transaction processing, significantly reducing processing time while maintaining policy flexibility.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

2Adaptability or versatility

If participants add customized features in a non-standardized way, then flexibility and customizability are improved, but system complexity increases and scaling issues occur

Engineering Contradiction:
ImprovecustomizabilityVSAvoidsystem complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent creates a universal subroutine object interface that can represent diverse policy customizations through a standardized mechanism. Different policy requirements from various participants are accommodated by composing workflows from the same set of reusable subroutine objects, eliminating the need for separate implementation approaches for each customization scenario.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

Solution Approach 2:

The patent enables policy customization through parameter configuration rather than structural modification. By allowing participants to customize policies through selecting and configuring existing subroutine objects and their parameters, the system maintains a stable core architecture while accommodating diverse customization needs without increasing fundamental system complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

3Adaptability or versatility

If data communication uses nonstandard protocols or formats, then adaptability to different system environments is improved, but processing efficiency decreases and scaling becomes difficult

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveenvironment compatibilityVSAvoidprocessing efficiency
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent introduces a standardized intermediate representation layer through subroutine objects. Policy logic is translated into a universal subroutine object format that serves as an intermediary between diverse system environments and the execution engine, enabling environment compatibility without sacrificing processing efficiency in the execution phase.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

4Productivity

If a server handles thousands of requests per minute with stringent response requirements, then service capacity is improved, but the ability to perform complex data analysis for policy enforcement deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvetransaction throughputVSAvoidpolicy analysis accuracy
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSMeasurement precision

Solution Approach 1:

The patent performs preliminary compilation of policy subroutines into optimized machine code before transaction processing. This pre-compilation enables the server to execute policy analysis using highly efficient machine-code routines during high-volume transaction processing, maintaining both throughput and analysis accuracy.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

Solution Approach 2:

The patent creates reusable copies of policy logic in the form of compiled machine-code subroutine objects. Once policy analysis logic is compiled into machine code, the same optimized routine can be repeatedly executed for thousands of transactions without reinterpreting the original policy definitions, ensuring consistent and accurate policy enforcement at high speeds.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #26Copying

Data Source

PatentUS20240272906A1Subroutine objects for workflow implementation
Publication Date: 2024.08.15 RAMP BUSINESS CORP
  • US20240272906A1 patent drawing
  • US20240272906A1 patent drawing
  • US20240272906A1 patent drawing

AI summary

A computing server may store a plurality of machine-code subroutine objects. The computing server may receive a definition of a policy. The computing server may identify a plurality of components in the policy based on the definition. The computing server may determine, for each component in the plurality of components of the policy, a corresponding subroutine that needs to be executed to fulfill the component. The computing server may identify, for each component in the plurality of components of the policy, a corresponding machine-code subroutine object that includes the instructions to execute the corresponding subroutine. The computing server may generate a syntax tree to represent an executable workflow that implements the policy. The syntax tree may connect the identified machine-code subroutine objects that correspond to the subroutines that need to be executed to fulfill the components of the policy. The computing server may associate the syntax tree with the policy.