# US 2026/0093479 A1 · Fast lane for feature implementation

> Agents: this data is available as JSON from the patentgrep API and MCP server — see https://patentgrep.com/llms.txt

- Number: US 2026/0093479 A1
- Document ID: US20260093479A1
- Status: Published application
- Kind: A1
- Application number: 18/901,401
- Filed: 2024-09-30
- Published: 2026-04-02
- Earliest claimed: 2024-09-30
- Assignees: Truist Bank
- Applicants: Truist Bank
- Inventors: Brian Matthew White; Ian Lassonde
- Web page: https://patentgrep.com/patent/US20260093479A1

## CPC

- G06F 8/70: Software maintenance or management
- G06F: ELECTRIC DIGITAL DATA PROCESSING (computer systems based on specific computational models G06N)

## Abstract

A system and method for evaluating and monitoring software code being developed by a software developer and placing the software developer on a slow development track or a fast development track depending on the number of defects in the code. The method includes scanning and analyzing the developing software code, determining and measuring the quality of the scanned software code and the number of defects that are in the scanned software code, and assigning a software development track from a plurality of software tracks to the further development of the developing software code based on the quality and the number of defects in the scanned software code. The software development track includes how often further development of the developing software code will be scanned and evaluated for the quality of the developing software code and the number of defects that are in the developing software code.

## Claims

### Claim 1

A system for evaluating and monitoring software code being developed by a software developer, said system comprising:
a back-end server including:
at least one processor for processing data and information;
a communications interface communicatively coupled to the at least one processor; and
a memory device storing data and executable code that, when executed, causes the at least one processor to:
scan and analyze the developing software code;
determine and measure quality of the scanned software code and a number of defects that are in the scanned software code; and
assign a software development track from a plurality of software tracks to the further development of the developing software code based on the quality of the developing software code and the number of defects in the developing software code, wherein the software development track determines how often further development of the developing software code will be scanned and evaluated for quality of the developing software code and the number of defects that are in the developing software code.

### Claim 2 (depends on 1)

The system according to claim 1 wherein the at least one processor also uses historical information about the software developer to assign the software development track.

### Claim 3 (depends on 1)

The system according to claim 1 wherein the at least one processor also uses information about the amount and magnitude of defects in production software that the software developer has previously developed to assign the software development track.

### Claim 4 (depends on 1)

The system according to claim 1 wherein the defects in the developing software include security defects.

### Claim 5 (depends on 1)

The system according to claim 1 wherein the software development tracks include a fast track having a limited number of developing software code scanning and a slow track having a high number of developing software code scanning.

### Claim 6 (depends on 1)

The system according to claim 1 wherein the at least one processor uses a machine learning model to determine and measure the quality and the magnitude and number of defects that are in the scanned software code.

### Claim 7 (depends on 6)

The system according to claim 6 wherein the machine learning model uses at least one neural network having nodes that have been trained to determine and measure the quality and the magnitude and number of defects that are in the scanned software code.

### Claim 8 (depends on 1)

The system according to claim 1 wherein the software code is part of banking software.

### Claim 9

A method for evaluating and monitoring developing software code being developed by a software developer, said method comprising:
scanning and analyzing the developing software code;
determining and measuring quality of the scanned software code and a number of defects that are in the scanned software code; and
assigning a software development track from a plurality of software tracks to the further development of the developing software code based on the quality of the developing software code and the number of defects in the developing software code, wherein the software development track determines how often further development of the developing software code will be scanned and evaluated for quality of the developing software code and the number of defects that are in the developing software code.

### Claim 10 (depends on 9)

The method according to claim 9 wherein assigning a software development track includes using historical information about the software developer to assign the software development track.

### Claim 11 (depends on 9)

The method according to claim 9 wherein the at least one processor also uses information about the amount and magnitude of defects in production software that the software developer has previously developed to assign the software development track.

### Claim 12 (depends on 9)

The method according to claim 9 wherein the defects in the developing software include security defects.

### Claim 13 (depends on 9)

The method according to claim 9 wherein the software development tracks include a fast track having a limited number of developing software code scanning and a slow track having a high number of developing software code scanning.

### Claim 14 (depends on 9)

The method according to claim 9 wherein assigning a software development track includes using a machine learning model to determine and measure the quality and the magnitude and number of defects that are in the scanned software code.

### Claim 15 (depends on 14)

The method according to claim 14 wherein the machine learning model uses at least one neural network having nodes that have been trained to determine and measure the quality and the magnitude and number of defects that are in the scanned software code.

### Claim 16 (depends on 9)

The method according to claim 9 wherein the software code is part of banking software.

### Claim 17

A system for evaluating and monitoring developing software code being developed by a software developer, said system comprising:
means for scanning and analyzing the developing software code;
means for determining and measuring quality of the scanned software code and a number of defects that are in the scanned software code; and
means for assigning a software development track from a plurality of software tracks to the further development of the developing software code based on the quality of the developing software code and the number of defects in the developing software code, wherein the software development track determines how often further development of the developing software code will be scanned and evaluated for quality of the developing software code and the number of defects that are in the developing software code.

### Claim 18 (depends on 17)

The system according to claim 17 wherein the means for assigning a software development track uses historical information about the software developer to assign the software development track.

### Claim 19 (depends on 17)

The system according to claim 17 wherein the means for assigning also uses information about the amount and magnitude of defects in production software that the software developer has previously developed to assign the software development track.

### Claim 20 (depends on 17)

The system according to claim 17 wherein assigning a software development track includes using a machine learning model to determine and measure the quality and the magnitude and number of defects that are in the scanned software code.
