Increasing the robustness of a refinery by modelling: Technical

This decision concerns an invention related to product blending and component inventory management in an oil refinery by optimizing the shipping schedule and inventory constraints. The invention uses the nonlinear mathematical model, which simulates an ongoing refinery process taking into account initial values and cost parameters and minimizing the number of changes in the split ratio for a splitter and the sequence of blends.

The Board agreed that since the modeling is performed for an active refinery process in an actual refinery, feeding the model with the input parameters and direct conversion of the simulation results into output signals for the control of the blender and splitter in the refinery process can be considered technical inputs/outputs. According to G 1/19, these are indications of a “direct link with physical reality and of a “further technical effect” that goes beyond the mere technical implementation of the algorithm in a computer, and it is irrelevant whether the final step of implementing the optimization results is explicitly claimed as long as the skilled person understands from the wording of the claim that the simulation results are directly converted into control signals for the refinery.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1618/19 of February 28, 2023, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03.

Key takeaways

The invention

The invention was summarized by the Board as follows:

1.1 The invention relates to product blending and component inventory management in a refinery. The objective of the product blending operations is to meet all the shipment commitments on schedule, while operating within the tank inventory constraints both for the blending components as well as the blended products. This operation should be executed in an optimal fashion in terms of overall cost and profitability. A multi-period blending optimisation system produces the optimum schedule for blending, along with optimum recipes and blended volume for each blend, while addressing the underlying inventory optimisation problem.

1.2 It is an alleged object of the invention to additionally minimise give-away losses (losses that occur when a premium quality product must be sold for the regular product price), to utilize better the most valuable components in higher quality products or as direct sales, thus increasing the net profitability of the refinery. A further objective is to realise a multi-period blending optimisation system that can optimise blending operations for components without storage tanks (see pages 1 and 2 of the application).

1.3 This is achieved by a nonlinear mathematical model which simulates an ongoing refinery process taking into account initial values and cost parameters (main request) and by minimising the number of changes of the split ratio for a splitter and of the sequence of blends (first auxiliary request).

Is it patentable?

The Board agreed with the applicant and considered the invention as overall technical:

3.1.1 The claimed subject-matter relates to a concrete apparatus, namely a blending control system in a refinery, and a corresponding method and is therefore overall undoubtedly technical.

3.1.2 Moreover, the claimed blending control apparatus/method comprises a computer modeling apparatus/method. The modeling is performed for an active refinery process in an actual refinery. The feeding of the model with the input parameters (flow and product parameters of the “rundown components supplied from the splitter” and refinery product commitments) as well as the direct conversion of the simulation results (“blend recipes”, “blend events”, “blend timing”, “split ratio”) into output signals for the control of the blender and splitter in the refinery process can be considered technical inputs / outputs according to G 1/19, OJ EPO 2021, A77, reasons 85, and are therefore technical or have a technical effect.

3.1.3 The feeding of process parameters of a running process, i.e. the refinery process, into the simulation and the conversion of calculated process parameters into control signals are thus indications of a “direct link with physical reality” (G 1/19, reasons 88) and of a “further technical effect” that goes beyond the mere technical implementation of the algorithm in a computer (G 1/19, reasons 91). Consequently, it is irrelevant whether the final step of implementing the optimisation results by means of control signals, i.e. to the splitter and blender, is explicitly claimed (as would be recommended in principle according to G 1/19), if the skilled person understands from the wording of the claim, in particular from features (A), (B), (H), (I), (K) and (L) in claim 1 and the corresponding features in claim 6, that the simulation results are directly converted into control signals of the splitter and blender. This is the case here.

3.1.4 Consequently, the entire subject-matter of claims 1 and 6 is considered technical.

The Board defined the problem as follows:

3.5 Effect and problem

3.5.1 The appellant defined the technical problem as “providing a blend control system that is more cost effective and provides a higher quality blend than the system in D5”.

3.5.2 In this regard, the board disagrees because the differing features do not improve the model, schedule, or blending process in D5. These features are not explicitly mentioned in D5 simply because the focus in D5 is not on the refinery process as such and the refinery infrastructure, but rather on the modeling, planning, and scheduling.

3.5.3 The board therefore defines the problem to be solved as implementing the model described in D5 in a realistic refinery infrastructure.

However, the Board considered that document D7 discloses a planning tool for a refinery comprising optimization of the blending and the blending schedule. Therefore, if the skilled person applies the modeling tool of D5 to a realistic refinery process, they would consider the refinery infrastructure of D7 and arrive at the subject-matter of the main Request.

Is Auxiliary Request patentable?

As an Auxiliary Request, the applicant then amended the claim as follows:

The Board noted the distinguishing feature and the resulting technical effect as follows:

4.3.2 D5 fails to disclose:

(e) to encourage the sequence of blends to remain the

same from one optimization and the next

(f) to minimize the number of changes in the split

ratio for the or each splitter

4.4 Effect and problem

The effect of differing features (e) and (f) is independent from the effect of differing features (a) to (d). Features (e) and (f) have the effect of increasing the robustness of the blend schedule and blending system (page 17, lines 8 to 10). This applies to both the optimisation problem and the refinery infrastructure. Every change leads to additional risks and efforts, both in terms of timing, production downtime and additional personnel and material expenses. The additional partial problem to be solved may therefore be formulated as “increasing the robustness of the system and running the optimisation of the scheduling in a conservative manner”.

These features were considered inventive, as the conservative system for product blending and component inventory management in a refinery was non-obvious since it requires selecting specific parameters and introducing a damping mechanism to discourage changes between blends. Additionally, the claimed feature of keeping the sequence of blends unchanged from one optimization to the next was not suggested in any available state-of-the-art.

Therefore, the Board decided that the subject-matter of the claims was inventive.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 1618/19 of February 28, 2023, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.4.03.

Please share this article if you enjoyed it!