IP Library Granted Patent US 12,554,699
Granted Patent B2
US 12,554,699 · App. 18/364,945 · Granted Feb 17, 2026

Method and system for implementing a data corruption detection test

Inventors: Tyler Austin Neil (Ottawa, CA); Kathleen Bell (Ottawa, CA)
Assignee: The Toronto-Dominion Bank
G06F16/2365G06F11/0751G06F11/0793G06F11/3668G06F11/3684G06F11/0709
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,554,699
App. No.
18/364,945
Filed
Aug 3, 2023
Granted
Feb 17, 2026
Kind
B2
Art Unit
2113
USPC
714/25
Abstract

A system comprises at least one processor; and a memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed, configure the at least one processor to receive a request to create a data corruption detection test; generate a set of operations to create the data corruption detection test, at least one of the operations including a request to generate error-identification processor-executable instructions; conduct an automated review of the data corruption detection test to confirm that the set of operations to create the data corruption detection test are complete; and implement the data corruption detection test to determine whether one or more functions performed according to processor-executable instructions of a function-performing module were performed according to a defined rule.

Claims (49)

1 . A system comprising:

at least one processor; and

a memory coupled to the at least one processor, the memory storing processor-executable instructions that, when executed, configure the at least one processor to:

receive a request to create a data corruption detection test;

generate a set of operations to create the data corruption detection test, at least one of the operations including a request to generate error-identification processor-executable instructions;

conduct an automated review of the data corruption detection test to confirm that the set of operations to create the data corruption detection test are complete; and

implement the data corruption detection test by executing the error-identification processor-executable instructions of a data corruption detection module that is separate from a function-performing module and configured without access to processor-executable instructions of the function-performing module to determine whether one or more functions performed according to the processor-executable instructions of the function-performing module were performed according to a defined rule.

2 . The system of claim 1 , wherein when implementing the data corruption detection test, the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further configure the at least one processor to:

execute the error-identification processor-executable instructions to cause the at least one processor to determine whether the one or more functions performed according to the processor-executable instructions of the function-performing module were performed according to the defined rule.

3 . The system of claim 2 , wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to:

determine that the one or more functions were not performed according to the defined rule; and

in response to determining that the one or more functions were not performed according to the defined rule, generate a notification indicating data corruption.

4 . The system of claim 3 , wherein the data corruption indicates an error in the processor-executable instructions of the function-performing module.

5 . The system of claim 1 , wherein responsive to conducting the automated review of the data corruption detection test, the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to:

assign the data corruption detection test for a secondary review; and

receive an indication that the data corruption detection test has passed the secondary review.

6 . The system of claim 1 , wherein when implementing the data corruption detection test, the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to:

change a status of the data corruption detection test from in development to live.

7 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to:

wherein implementing the data corruption detection test includes selecting the data corruption detection test for execution based on at least one of processor and network availability.

8 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the processor-executable instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, configure the at least one processor to:

responsive to implementing the data corruption detection test to determine whether one or more functions performed according to the processor-executable instructions of the function-performing module were performed according to the defined rule, automatically communicate results of the data corruption detection test to one or more electronic addresses.

9 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the one or more functions are performed in association with at least one data record.

10 . The system of claim 1 , wherein the set of operations include creating a test plan, creating a test purpose, the request to generate the error-identification processor-executable instructions, passing the automated review, passing a secondary review, and output validation.

11 . A computer-implemented method performed by at least one processor, the method comprising:

receiving a request to create a data corruption detection test;

generating a set of operations to create the data corruption detection test, at least one of the operations including a request to generate error-identification processor-executable instructions;

conducting an automated review of the data corruption detection test to confirm that the set of operations to create the data corruption detection test are complete; and

implementing the data corruption detection test by executing the error-identification processor-executable instructions of a data corruption detection module that is separate from a function-performing module and configured without access to processor-executable instructions of the function-performing module to determine whether one or more functions performed according to the processor-executable instructions of the function-performing module were performed according to a defined rule.

12 . The computer-implemented method of claim 11 , wherein when implementing the data corruption detection test, the method further comprises:

executing the error-identification processor-executable instructions to cause the at least one processor to determine whether the one or more functions performed according to the processor-executable instructions of the function-performing module were performed according to the defined rule.

13 . The computer-implemented method of claim 12 , further comprising:

determining that the one or more functions were not performed according to the defined rule; and

in response to determining that the one or more functions were not performed according to the defined rule, generating a notification indicating data corruption.

14 . The computer-implemented method of claim 13 , wherein the data corruption indicates an error in the processor-executable instructions of the function-performing module.

15 . The computer-implemented method of claim 11 , wherein responsive to conducting the automated review of the data corruption detection test, the method further comprises:

assigning the data corruption detection test for a secondary review; and

receiving an indication that the data corruption detection test has passed the secondary review.

16 . The computer-implemented method of claim 11 , wherein when implementing the data corruption detection test, the method further comprises:

changing a status of the data corruption detection test from in development to live.

17 . The computer-implemented method of claim 11 , wherein implementing the data corruption detection test includes selecting the data corruption detection test for execution based on at least one of processor and network availability.

18 . The computer-implemented method of claim 11 , further comprising:

responsive to implementing the data corruption detection test to determine whether one or more functions performed according to the processor-executable instructions of the function-performing module were performed according to the defined rule, automatically communicating results of the data corruption detection test to one or more electronic addresses.

19 . The computer-implemented method of claim 11 , wherein the one or more functions are performed in association with at least one data record.

20 . At least one non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprising processor-executable instructions which, when executed, configure at least one processor to:

receive a request to create a data corruption detection test;

generate a set of operations to create the data corruption detection test, at least one of the operations including a request to generate error-identification processor-executable instructions;

conduct an automated review of the data corruption detection test to confirm that the set of operations to create the data corruption detection test are complete; and

implement the data corruption detection test by executing the error-identification processor-executable instructions of a data corruption detection module that is separate from a function-performing module and configured without access to processor-executable instructions of the function-performing module to determine whether one or more functions performed according to the processor-executable instructions of the function-performing module were performed according to a defined rule.

Assignments (1)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Jan 14, 2026
From: NEIL, TYLER AUSTIN; BELL, KATHLEEN
To: THE TORONTO-DOMINION BANK
Reel/Frame 073470/0046 →
Continuity (1)
Related Publication 20250045270A1 · Feb 6, 2025
References Cited (26)
US 5371883A · Gross · 1994 [cited by examiner]
US 9710367B1 · Nagineni · 2017 [cited by applicant]
US 10241898B2 · Argrawal · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 10318412B1 · McKearney, Jr. · 2019 [cited by examiner]
US 10817283B1 · Naik · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 10942840B2 · Reddy et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 11126543B2 · Ellis et al. · 2021 [cited by applicant]
US 20020029377A1 · Pavela · 2002 [cited by examiner]
US 20060168476A1 · Kehne · 2006 [cited by examiner]
US 20070094543A1 · Joshi · 2007 [cited by examiner]
US 20160239295A1 · Kolesnik · 2016 [cited by examiner]
US 20180217921A1 · Palyekar · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20240281419A1 · Alfaras · 2024 [cited by examiner]
CN 112817875A · 2021 [cited by applicant]
CN 113190460A · 2021 [cited by applicant]
CN 113485911A · 2021 [cited by applicant]
CN 113553263A · 2021 [cited by applicant]
CN 113778866A · 2021 [cited by applicant]
CN 114240622A · 2022 [cited by applicant]
CN 114372001A · 2022 [cited by applicant]
CN 113468052B · 2022 [cited by applicant]
CN 115185828A · 2022 [cited by applicant]
CN 115185848A · 2022 [cited by applicant]
CN 115203036A · 2022 [cited by applicant]
CN 111078536A · 2023 [cited by applicant]
KR 20090077388A · 2009 [cited by examiner]