Vehicle Charging Rule Interface for Drag-and-Drop Energy Planning

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Existing energy storage management systems for electric and hybrid vehicles are difficult for inexperienced users to navigate, limiting their ability to create complex and personalized charging rules.

Innovation Solution

A graphical user interface with drag-and-drop functionality allows users to easily create and compile planning rules using graphic icons representing planning parameters and operators, enabling intuitive and complex rule creation.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Adaptability or versatility

If traditional complex planning rule interfaces are used, then comprehensive charging control capability is achieved, but user operation difficulty increases significantly

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvecharging control capabilityVSAvoiduser operation difficulty

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSEase of operation

Solution Approach 1:

The planning rule interface is segmented into distinct functional blocks: condition blocks (IF statements) and action blocks (THEN statements). Each block represents a discrete logical unit that users can independently configure. This segmentation allows users to build complex charging rules through simple, modular components rather than facing a monolithic complex interface.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The patent introduces an intermediary processing layer that automatically generates and validates the logical structure of planning rules. This intermediary translates user-friendly block selections into formal planning rule syntax, mediating between simple user input and complex system requirements. The intermediary handles the complexity internally while presenting a simplified interface to users.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #24Intermediary (Mediator)

2Adaptability or versatility

If more planning parameters and operators are provided, then rule complexity and personalization increase, but interface complexity and confusion increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improverule personalizationVSAvoidinterface complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

Adaptability or versatilityVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

Planning parameters are segmented into specific categories (time parameters, charge parameters, temperature parameters, location parameters) with dedicated input fields for each category. This organized segmentation allows comprehensive parameter coverage while maintaining interface clarity through systematic grouping and labeling.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

Different sections of the interface provide different levels of detail and control appropriate to each functional area. Condition blocks and action blocks have specialized parameter sets tailored to their specific purposes, allowing users to access detailed customization where needed while keeping unrelated sections simple and focused.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #3Local quality

3Ease of operation

If drag and drop method is implemented, then user-friendly rule creation is achieved, but system implementation complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improverule creation simplicityVSAvoidsystem implementation complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

Ease of operationVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

The drag and drop interface implements self-service functionality where the system automatically performs tasks that would otherwise require complex programming. When users drag condition blocks and action blocks together, the system automatically generates the corresponding planning rule logic, validates the rule structure, and configures the charging parameters without requiring manual code input or complex system intervention.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

4Reliability

If automatic validation checks are added, then rule correctness is improved, but processing time and system complexity increase

Engineering Contradiction:

Improverule correctnessVSAvoidrule processing time

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSLoss of time

Solution Approach 1:

The system performs validation checks preliminarily during the rule creation process rather than waiting until rule execution. Admissibility checks verify parameter ranges and logical consistency, while plausibility checks assess whether the planning rule makes practical sense for charging operations. This preliminary validation prevents incorrect rules from being deployed, saving time in the long run by avoiding charging errors.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #10Preliminary action

Data Source

PatentUS12602150B2Energy storage management system for an at least partially electrically driven vehicle, and method

Publication Date: 2026.04.14 DR ING H C F PORSCHE AG

AI summary

An energy storage management system (1) for an at least partially electrically driven vehicle. A control device (2) is used to operate an energy storage device (3) for the vehicle as a function of stored planning rules (4). An interface device (5) with at least one graphical user interface (15) is used to create the planning rules (4) in a user-defined manner. The planning rules (4) include planning parameters (14) configurable by the user interface (15). The planning rules (4) include planning operators (24). The interface device (5) is suitable and designed for supporting a selection and a compilation of the planning parameters (14) and the planning operators (24) to create one or more planning rules (4) using a drag and drop method by the user interface (15).