Uplink Scheduling Constraints for Overlapping UE Transmissions
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions
Solution Overview
Problem
Wireless communication systems face challenges in efficiently handling overlapping uplink transmissions between user equipment (UE) due to the lack of effective scheduling constraints for intra-UE and inter-UE multiplexing and cancelation, leading to inefficient resource utilization and potential conflicts between different priority levels.
Innovation Solution
Implementing scheduling constraints that prioritize higher priority uplink transmissions over lower priority ones, with rules for intra-UE and inter-UE cancelation to resolve overlapping transmissions, including dropping lower priority transmissions and piggybacking data on higher priority ones, and using uplink cancelation indications to manage resource conflicts.
Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles
Engineering Contradiction Analysis
1Productivity
If multiple uplink transmissions are scheduled simultaneously for a UE, then resource utilization increases, but transmission conflicts and reliability decrease
Solution Approach 1:
The patent segments the handling of overlapping transmissions into distinct priority levels. Higher priority transmissions are separated from lower priority ones through the multiplexing rule, where lower priority transmissions are dropped when they overlap with higher priority ones. This segmentation resolves conflicts by creating clear boundaries between different transmission categories.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent establishes preliminary cancelation rules that are applied before transmissions occur. The UE proactively identifies and drops lower priority transmissions that would overlap with higher priority ones, preventing conflicts before they occur. This preliminary action ensures that resource allocation is optimized in advance rather than reacting to conflicts after they arise.
2Object-affected harmful factors
If intra-UE multiplexing rules are implemented to handle overlapping transmissions, then transmission conflicts are reduced, but system complexity increases
Solution Approach 1:
The patent applies different quality rules to different priority levels of transmissions. Instead of a uniform handling approach, the system assigns specific multiplexing and cancelation rules based on the priority of each transmission. This local differentiation allows for conflict resolution without requiring complex global coordination, as each transmission is handled according to its specific priority category.
Solution Approach 2:
The patent changes the parameter of transmission priority to resolve conflicts. By introducing priority levels as a key parameter, the system can dynamically determine which transmissions to maintain and which to drop. This parameter-based approach simplifies the decision-making process compared to analyzing all possible transmission combinations, reducing overall system complexity.
3Reliability
If higher priority transmissions are maintained over lower priority ones, then transmission reliability improves, but resource efficiency decreases
Solution Approach 1:
The patent extracts lower priority transmissions from the resource allocation when they conflict with higher priority transmissions. By removing (dropping) the lower priority transmissions that would cause conflicts, the system ensures that higher priority transmissions are reliably delivered. This extraction approach prevents resource waste on conflicting transmissions while maintaining overall resource efficiency for non-conflicting allocations.
Data Source
AI summary
Methods, systems, and devices for wireless communications are described. Wireless communications systems may employ one or more scheduling constraints to support efficient utilization of techniques for intra-device handling of overlapping scheduled uplink transmissions (e.g., intra-device dynamic resource cancelation and multiplexing) as well as inter-device handling of overlapping scheduled uplink transmissions (e.g., inter-device dynamic resource cancelation and multiplexing). Scheduling constraints may define how a device may apply intra-device and inter-device multiplexing and cancelation rules for various scenarios. For example, a device may apply intra-UE cancelation rules before inter-device cancelation rules. In some examples, later-received grants or uplink preemption indications (ULPIs) may not change a device's previously established decision to drop an uplink transmission. As another example, a device may not expect to receive a grant for an uplink transmission that would arise in subsequent cancelation of that uplink transmission due to a previously-received grant or previously-received ULPI.