Smart Thermostat Schedule Learning for Adaptive Energy Control

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Conventional control systems lack the flexibility and intelligence to adapt and produce desired operational behaviors specified after design and implementation, particularly in dynamic environments where changes in operational requirements occur.

Innovation Solution

Intelligent controllers that learn and modify control schedules over time based on immediate-control inputs, schedule-modification inputs, and previous schedules, using a combination of aggressive-learning and steady-state modes to optimize system performance and energy efficiency.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If conventional control systems are used with predetermined behavior, then system reliability is maintained, but adaptability to changes in operational requirements deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:
ImproveadaptabilityVSAvoidcomplexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The controller performs automated schedule learning by monitoring system operation and user adjustments, automatically generating optimized schedules without requiring external intervention or complex configuration. The system serves itself by learning from its own operational data and user interactions, thereby improving adaptability while maintaining simplicity in deployment.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system implements continuous feedback loops where user adjustments to temperature settings and operational patterns are monitored and fed back into the learning algorithm. This feedback mechanism enables the controller to adapt to changing operational requirements over time, improving versatility while relying on well-established feedback control principles rather than increasing overall system complexity.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

2Loss of energy

If automated schedule learning is implemented, then energy efficiency is improved, but computational requirements increase

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveenergy efficiencyVSAvoidcomputational power
Core Design Contradiction:
Loss of energyVSPower

Solution Approach 1:

The learning algorithm operates in two phases: an initial aggressive-learning phase that collects comprehensive operational data, and a subsequent steady-state phase that performs lighter computational tasks using established patterns. This partial action approach achieves energy optimization goals while reducing ongoing computational power requirements by not continuously performing heavy learning computations.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #16Partial or excessive action

Solution Approach 2:

The system performs preliminary learning actions during initial operation and periods of minimal system usage to establish baseline schedules and patterns. By completing substantial learning tasks in advance rather than continuously, the system reduces real-time computational power requirements while maintaining energy efficiency improvements from the learned schedules.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #10Preliminary action

3Measurement precision

If frequent user interactions are required for schedule learning, then learning accuracy is improved, but ease of operation deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvelearning accuracyVSAvoidease of operation
Core Design Contradiction:
Measurement precisionVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The controller automatically monitors and records all user temperature adjustments and operational interactions without requiring users to actively participate in the learning process. The system extracts learning data from normal usage patterns, achieving high learning accuracy while maintaining ease of operation by eliminating the need for frequent deliberate user interactions.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #25Self-service

Solution Approach 2:

The system continuously feedbacks learned schedule improvements to users through the interface, allowing verification and minor adjustments. This feedback mechanism maintains high learning accuracy by incorporating user preferences while preserving ease of operation by presenting results rather than requiring extensive user input during learning.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #23Feedback

Data Source

PatentUS9417637B2Background schedule simulations in an intelligent, network-connected thermostat
Publication Date: 2016.08.16 GOOGLE LLC
  • US9417637B2 patent drawing
  • US9417637B2 patent drawing
  • US9417637B2 patent drawing

AI summary

The current application is directed to intelligent controllers that initially aggressively learn, and then continue, in a steady-state mode, to monitor, learn, and modify one or more control schedules that specify a desired operational behavior of a device, machine, system, or organization controlled by the intelligent controller. An intelligent controller generally acquires one or more initial control schedules through schedule-creation and schedule-modification interfaces or by accessing a default control schedule stored locally or remotely in a memory or mass-storage device. The intelligent controller then proceeds to learn, over time, a desired operational behavior for the device, machine, system, or organization controlled by the intelligent controller based on immediate-control inputs, schedule-modification inputs, and previous and current control schedules, encoding the desired operational behavior in one or more control schedules and/or sub-schedules.