Prior art

Analysis of Prior Art for U.S. Patent 10,018,371

As of April 26, 2026, the following is a technical analysis of the prior art cited by the applicant and the examiner for U.S. Patent 10,018,371. The analysis is based on the citations listed in the patent's file wrapper. The core invention of patent '371 revolves around detecting a manual change to a thermostat's setpoint by comparing the actual setpoint to a scheduled or automated setpoint and then using that manual input to adapt future programming.

Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, a claim is anticipated if every element of that claim is found, either expressly or inherently, in a single prior art reference that predates the invention's effective filing date. For patent '371, with a priority date of May 12, 2009, any relevant prior art must have been publicly available before this date.

---

Key Prior Art and Potential Anticipation

Below are the most relevant prior art references and an analysis of which claims of US 10,018,371 they potentially anticipate.

1. U.S. Patent 6,580,950 B1

• Full Citation: US 6,580,950 B1, "Internet based home communications system," assigned to Echelon Corporation.
• Publication Date: June 17, 2003 (Filed: April 28, 2000).
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system where home appliances, including thermostats, are connected to the internet. A remote server can monitor and control these devices. The system allows for remote programming and can collect data from the devices. It mentions a user's ability to override scheduled settings via a local interface or remotely.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claim 1 & 17 (Method and Apparatus for Detecting Manual Changes): The '950 patent discloses a system with a thermostatic controller connected to a network and a remote computer that holds scheduled programming. It allows for manual changes to the setpoints. The server is aware of both the schedule and the actual state of the thermostat, implying the capability to compare them. Therefore, a strong argument can be made that this patent anticipates the core elements of claim 1 and 17, which involve comparing an actual setpoint to an automated one to detect a manual change. The '950 patent describes a system architecture that would inherently allow for such a comparison to be made on the server.
  • Claim 9 (Method for Incorporating Manual Changes): This reference is weaker against claim 9. While the '950 patent discusses overriding schedules, it does not explicitly describe a system that "learns" from these overrides by applying rules to automatically change future scheduled setpoints based on a manual input. It focuses more on the immediate manual override rather than long-term schedule adaptation.

2. U.S. Patent 6,400,996 B1

• Full Citation: US 6,400,996 B1, "Adaptive pattern recognition based control system and method," assigned to Steven M. Hoffberg.
• Publication Date: June 4, 2002 (Filed: February 1, 1999).
• Brief Description: This patent details a control system that uses adaptive pattern recognition to learn user preferences and automate control of various systems, including HVAC. It explicitly discusses monitoring user actions (like manual thermostat adjustments) and using this data to adapt the system's control algorithms and schedules over time.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claim 9 (Method for Incorporating Manual Changes): The '996 patent appears to strongly anticipate the inventive concept of claim 9. It describes a system that observes manual inputs and uses that information to adapt its programming. The patent details using these "user actions" to modify its internal models and control strategies, which aligns directly with claim 9's step of "changing the second automated setpoint at the second time based on at least one rule for the interpretation of the manual change."
  • Claim 1 & 17 (Method and Apparatus for Detecting Manual Changes): The '996 patent inherently discloses the elements of claims 1 and 17. To adapt its programming based on manual changes, the system must first detect that such a change has occurred. This detection would necessarily involve comparing the user's manual input (the actual setpoint) with the system's current automated or scheduled state.

3. U.S. Patent 5,572,438 A

• Full Citation: US 5,572,438 A, "Energy management and building automation system," assigned to Teco Energy Management Services.
• Publication Date: November 5, 1996 (Filed: January 5, 1995).
• Brief Description: This patent describes a comprehensive energy management system that communicates with and controls HVAC systems. It features a central computer that stores operating schedules for thermostats. The system allows for temporary overrides of the schedule by users at the thermostat. The central computer monitors the status of the HVAC equipment and can log events.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claim 1 & 17 (Method and Apparatus for Detecting Manual Changes): The '438 patent discloses a central computer that sends scheduled setpoints to a thermostat and also monitors the thermostat's operation. When a user performs a "temporary override," the system is aware of this deviation from the schedule. This functionality meets the core steps of claim 1 and describes the components of claim 17: a computer calculating a schedule, a thermostat recording actual setpoints, and a comparison to detect a manual change (an "override").
  • Claim 9 (Method for Incorporating Manual Changes): This reference is less relevant to claim 9. The '438 patent describes the manual changes as "temporary overrides," implying that the system reverts to the original schedule after a period. It does not describe a system that analyzes these overrides to permanently adapt or change future scheduled setpoints based on rules.

4. U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0288822 A1

• Full Citation: US 2005/0288822 A1, "HVAC start-up control system and method," assigned to York International Corporation.
• Publication Date: December 29, 2005 (Filed: June 29, 2004).
• Brief Description: This publication describes an HVAC control system that learns the thermal characteristics of a building to optimize start-up times. It discusses an "adaptive" or "learning" algorithm that can adjust programmed start times to ensure the desired temperature is reached by the scheduled time. While focused on optimizing recovery times, it touches upon adapting a pre-set schedule based on learned information.
• Potential Anticipation of Claims:
  • Claim 1 & 17 (Method and Apparatus for Detecting Manual Changes): This reference is not the most relevant for claims 1 and 17. Its primary focus is on adapting the start time of a scheduled change, not on detecting and reacting to a manual setpoint change made by a user. It does not explicitly describe comparing a manually entered setpoint to a scheduled one.
  • Claim 9 (Method for Incorporating Manual Changes): The '822 publication has some relevance to the "adaptive" nature of claim 9, as it describes a system that modifies its behavior based on learned data (the building's thermal properties). However, the adaptation is not triggered by a direct manual setpoint override in the manner described by patent '371. The learning is about system performance, not direct user preference indicated by a manual change. Therefore, it is unlikely to anticipate claim 9.

Summary of Prior Art Analysis

The most significant prior art references appear to be U.S. Patent 6,400,996 B1 and U.S. Patent 6,580,950 B1.

• U.S. Patent 6,400,996 B1 presents a strong challenge to all independent claims, particularly Claim 9, as it explicitly describes a system that learns from user interactions (manual changes) to adapt its future control behavior.
• U.S. Patent 6,580,950 B1 and U.S. Patent 5,572,438 A provide strong support for the anticipation of Claims 1 and 17. Both describe systems with the necessary architecture (remote server, scheduled setpoints, connected thermostat) to perform the fundamental step of detecting a manual override by comparing actual and scheduled setpoints.

The validity of the claims in U.S. Patent 10,018,371, if challenged, would likely depend on the specific implementation details and the interpretation of the "rules" for adapting the schedule as described in claim 9, and whether those details are novel and non-obvious over the adaptive systems disclosed in prior art like the '996 patent.