Dynamic Transaction Merge Window for Bandwidth Adaptation

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Conventional transaction merging devices use a fixed merging window, which is not suitable for varying bandwidth conditions and latency tolerances between electronic devices, leading to inefficiencies in transaction processing.

Innovation Solution

A transaction merging method and system that dynamically adjusts the size of the merge window based on transmission conditions, such as bandwidth and latency sensitivity, to optimize transaction grouping and processing.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If a fixed merging window is used to perform merging, then the transaction merging process is simple and stable, but the transaction latency becomes fixed and cannot adapt to varying bandwidth conditions and latency tolerances

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveadaptability to varying bandwidth conditions and latency tolerancesVSAvoidcomplexity of merge window management
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent applies the dynamics principle by transitioning from a fixed merging window size to a dynamic merging window size that can adjust based on transmission conditions. The merge device monitors bandwidth conditions and latency tolerances, and automatically adjusts the merging window size accordingly. This allows the system to adapt to varying network conditions while maintaining transaction merging efficiency, resolving the contradiction between adaptability and complexity by making the complexity manageable through automated adjustment mechanisms.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The patent applies the parameter changes principle by modifying the merging window size parameter based on transmission conditions. When bandwidth conditions change or latency tolerances vary, the system changes the merging window parameter to optimize transaction processing. This dynamic parameter adjustment enables the system to adapt to different operational scenarios without requiring complex manual intervention, thus improving adaptability while keeping the system manageable.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

2Productivity

If a larger merge window is used to increase transaction merging efficiency, then the transmission efficiency improves, but the latency tolerance requirements become more stringent and may not be met by all circuits or components

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvetransaction merging efficiencyVSAvoidlatency tolerance compliance
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The system dynamically adjusts the merging window size based on the specific latency tolerance requirements of different circuits or components. When transactions with tight latency requirements are detected, the system reduces the merging window size to ensure compliance. When transactions can tolerate longer delays, the system increases the merging window size to improve efficiency. This dynamic adjustment resolves the contradiction between productivity and reliability by tailoring the merging window to actual operational constraints.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The patent applies local quality by treating different transactions or transaction groups differently based on their specific latency tolerance requirements. Instead of applying a uniform merging window size to all transactions, the system adjusts the merging window locally for each transaction or transaction group according to its specific needs. This allows the system to optimize both efficiency and reliability by applying appropriate merging strategies to different parts of the transaction stream.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #3Local quality

3Reliability

If a smaller merge window is used to reduce latency, then the latency tolerance requirements are easier to meet, but the transmission efficiency and accessing efficiency decrease

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvelatency tolerance complianceVSAvoidtransaction merging efficiency
Core Design Contradiction:
ReliabilityVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The system dynamically adjusts the merging window size to balance latency compliance and merging efficiency. When transactions require strict latency control, the system uses smaller merging windows to ensure compliance. When transactions can accommodate longer delays, the system switches to larger merging windows to maximize efficiency. This dynamic strategy resolves the contradiction by continuously optimizing the merging window size based on real-time transmission conditions and latency requirements.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The patent applies partial action by selectively merging only the necessary number of transactions into each window, rather than always merging the maximum possible number. When latency constraints are present, the system performs partial merging (merging fewer transactions) to meet latency requirements. When latency is not a constraint, the system performs excessive action by merging as many transactions as possible to maximize efficiency. This flexible approach resolves the contradiction between reliability and productivity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Data Source

PatentUS20240061703A1Transaction merging method and transaction merging system
Publication Date: 2024.02.22 MEDIATEK INC
  • US20240061703A1 patent drawing
  • US20240061703A1 patent drawing
  • US20240061703A1 patent drawing

AI summary

A transaction merging method for a first electronic device and a second electronic device. The transaction merging method comprises: (a) receiving a plurality of input transactions from the first electronic device; (b) setting a merge condition of the input transactions according to a transmission condition between the first electronic device and the second electronic device; (c) merging the input transactions according to the merge condition to generate at least one transaction group; and (d) transmitting the transaction group to the second electronic device.