Wireless AP Client Scheduling Coordination for iPRP and iPCF Integration

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

The combination of industrial parallel redundancy protocol (iPRP) and industrial point coordination function (iPCF) in wireless networks lacks coordination between access points (APs) and clients, leading to wireless performance issues.

Innovation Solution

A communication method that coordinates scheduling of clients by access points (APs) using time-synchronized policies and mechanisms to optimize communication performance, including determining scheduling policies, plans, and adjusting based on state information and decision algorithms to reduce redundant transmissions.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If iPRP and iPCF are combined without coordination, then redundancy and scheduled access are both provided, but wireless performance deteriorates due to lack of coordination between APs and clients

Engineering Contradiction:
ImproveredundancyVSAvoidwireless performance
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements a coordination mechanism where APs exchange scheduling information and adjust their scheduling decisions based on feedback from other APs and clients. This feedback loop enables the system to maintain both redundancy (through iPRP) and optimized wireless performance (through coordinated iPCF scheduling), resolving the contradiction between reliability and productivity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Solution Approach 2:

The patent introduces a coordination mechanism as an intermediary between the iPRP redundancy protocol and the iPCF scheduling protocol. This intermediary layer enables the two protocols to work together harmoniously, allowing redundancy to be maintained while avoiding the performance degradation that would occur from uncoordinated operation.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Device complexity

If simple combination of iPRP and iPCF is used, then implementation complexity is reduced, but coordination between APs and clients deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveimplementation complexityVSAvoidcoordination
Core Design Contradiction:
Device complexityVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the coordination function into distinct modules: scheduling policy determination, scheduling plan generation, information exchange between APs, and execution at clients. This segmentation makes the coordination mechanism more manageable and easier to implement while still achieving the desired coordination between APs and clients.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

3Productivity

If coordinated scheduling is implemented, then wireless performance is improved, but system complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvewireless performanceVSAvoidsystem complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements dynamic scheduling where APs can adjust their scheduling policies and plans based on real-time network conditions, client requirements, and feedback from other APs. This dynamic approach optimizes wireless performance while the modular architecture keeps system complexity manageable by allowing flexibility without requiring complete system redesign.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Data Source

PatentEP4576897A1Communication method, communication apparatus, communication system, computing device, and storage medium
Publication Date: 2025.06.25 SIEMENS AG
  • EP4576897A1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP4576897A1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP4576897A1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

A communication method, a communication apparatus, a communication system, a computing device, and a storage medium are disclosed. The communication method includes: a scheduling policy determining step: determining a scheduling policy of access points (AP) for clients according to a predetermined communication optimization target; a scheduling plan determining step: determining a scheduling plan based on the scheduling policy, where the scheduling plan at least includes which client is to be scheduled by each AP at a current scheduling time slot; a scheduling instruction step: transmitting the scheduling plan to the AP, to instruct the AP to schedule, according to the scheduling plan, the corresponding client for communication; a scheduling state judging step: acquiring scheduling state information from the AP, where the scheduling state information includes whether the scheduling is successful; and a repetitive control step: determining a scheduling plan of a next scheduling time slot based on the scheduling state information and a predetermined decision algorithm, and returning to the scheduling instruction step to perform the method.