Wireless Piconet Interference Mitigation via Dynamic Schedule Coordination

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

In high-density network environments, overlapping piconets experience interference due to unsynchronized communication schedules, making it difficult to coordinate schedules between adjacent networks, with existing solutions like scheduling idle periods or reassigning piconet controllers being inefficient or complex.

Innovation Solution

A non-controller network device detects interference and broadcasts scheduling information to neighboring networks, allowing them to modify their schedules without direct communication between controllers, or informs its controller to coordinate with the neighboring controller for scheduling adjustments.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Object-affected harmful factors

If PNCs schedule network idle periods to avoid interference, then interference between piconets is reduced, but overall network bandwidth is significantly reduced

Engineering Contradiction:
ImproveinterferenceVSAvoidnetwork bandwidth
Core Design Contradiction:
Object-affected harmful factorsVSProductivity

Solution Approach 1:

The patent implements dynamic schedule adjustment where non-controller devices detect interference and trigger resynchronization of superframe timelines between piconets. Instead of static idle periods, the system dynamically coordinates transmission schedules to avoid overlap while maintaining continuous operation, thus reducing interference without sacrificing bandwidth.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

Solution Approach 2:

The system employs feedback mechanisms where non-controller devices monitor for interference and report back to controllers. This feedback loop enables controllers to adjust their schedules based on actual interference conditions, allowing for optimized bandwidth utilization while maintaining interference avoidance.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

2Object-affected harmful factors

If PNC responsibilities are reassigned to nearby devices, then interference coordination becomes possible, but the process becomes complex and time-consuming

Engineering Contradiction:
ImproveinterferenceVSAvoidPNC reassignment process
Core Design Contradiction:
Object-affected harmful factorsVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

Non-controller devices perform self-service by autonomously detecting interference and initiating the resynchronization process. Instead of requiring complex controller reassignment, any device can detect the interference condition and trigger the schedule coordination mechanism, simplifying the overall process while maintaining effectiveness.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

Non-controller devices act as intermediaries between the interference source and the controllers. They detect interference and convey this information to controllers, enabling schedule coordination without requiring direct controller-to-controller communication or complex reassignment procedures.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

3Object-affected harmful factors

If PNC responsibilities are reassigned to nearby devices, then interference coordination becomes possible, but it may move the problem to a different piconet rather than solving it

Engineering Contradiction:
ImproveinterferenceVSAvoidinterference problem resolution
Core Design Contradiction:
Object-affected harmful factorsVSReliability

Solution Approach 1:

The patent segments the interference problem into detectable units by enabling individual non-controller devices to independently monitor and report interference. This segmentation allows for localized detection and targeted resynchronization of only the affected piconets, rather than requiring global reassignment that might relocate the problem.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The feedback mechanism ensures that interference is continuously monitored and schedules are adjusted based on actual conditions. This continuous feedback loop prevents the problem from relocating by maintaining awareness of interference patterns and dynamically coordinating schedules across piconet boundaries.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

4Productivity

If PNCs cannot communicate directly, then network operation is maintained, but interference mitigation becomes difficult

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvenetwork operationVSAvoidinterference
Core Design Contradiction:
ProductivityVSObject-affected harmful factors

Solution Approach 1:

Non-controller devices serve as intermediaries that enable interference mitigation without requiring direct PNC-to-PNC communication. These intermediaries detect interference and convey schedule information between piconets, allowing coordination while maintaining network operation and preserving the independence of each piconet.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

Data Source

PatentEP2253101B1Mitigation of internetwork interference
Publication Date: 2019.04.24 INTEL CORP
  • EP2253101B1 patent drawingFigure 1
  • EP2253101B1 patent drawingFigure 2
  • EP2253101B1 patent drawingFigure 3

AI summary

When a device in one wireless network receives interfering transmissions from an overlapping neighboring network, the neighboring network may be notified of the interference so that non-interfering schedules can be worked out. In one embodiment, the device receiving the interference may broadcast its own communications schedule. Device(s) in the interfering network may pick up that schedule, and pass it on to their controller, which can rearrange its own network schedule to be non-interfering. In another embodiment, the device receiving the interference may notify its own network controller with the pertinent information, and that controller may contact the controller of the interfering network to coordinate non-interfering schedules.