https://eureka.patsnap.com/resources/blog/rd-blog/resource-constrained-project-scheduling-optimization-algorithm-patent-landscape/ · Patsnap · data cut-off 2026-10-15 · downloaded from the live page
Patent Landscape · Artificial intelligence & machine learning

Resource-Constrained Project Scheduling Optimization Algorithm Patents

A 23-family dataset on resource-constrained project scheduling optimization algorithms, where filings concentrate in business-process and AI computing classes.

29
Published Records
23
Simple Patent Families
48%
In Force at Cut-off
CN
Leading Jurisdiction

29 published records collapse into 23 simple (DOCDB) families; the difference is the same invention filed in more than one country. In force = 14 of 29 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.

  • 23 simple patent families and 29 published records make up this dataset, with no date limit applied to the search.
  • Southwest Jiaotong Univ holds the largest single share named on 3 of the 23 families (13.0%), while 17 of the 18 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each.
  • G06Q covers the largest share of the technology split appearing on 87.0% of the 23 families, ahead of G06N at 52.2% and G06F at 21.7%.
Check your own idea
Published byPatsnap Research··5 min readSourced from Patsnap Eureka
Overview

What this dataset covers

This landscape is built from a search for "resource-constrained" OR "resource constrained" project scheduling optimization across patent titles, abstracts and claims. It returns 23 simple patent families (29 published records) with no date restriction applied to the query, so the set spans whatever years the matching text happens to appear in. Filings were made through five receiving offices, with China accounting for 22 of the 29 records and the United States for 4.

This is a small pool: 23 families is not enough to support conclusions about a market, an industry trend, or who controls a technical space. Treat the page as a starting point for a more targeted search, not as a map of the field.

Records and families in scope
  1. SOUTHWEST JIAOTONG UNIV3
  2. ZHEJIANG UNIV OF TECH2
  3. XIDIAN UNIV2
  4. CHENGDU AIRCRAFT INDUSTRY GROUP2
  5. XIAN UNIV OF TECH2
  6. WUHAN UNIV1
  7. FUJITSU LTD1
  8. SUN YAT SEN UNIV1
  9. JIANGNAN UNIV1
  10. WUHAN UNIV OF TECH1

Ordered by volume only, not by importance or claim strength. Counted in simple (DOCDB) patent families, so one invention filed in several countries counts once. Names come from Patsnap's standardised assignee field as recorded on each document; subsidiaries and group companies are not merged. The icon before each name is read from the name itself (words such as University, Institute or Ltd); the data carries no organisation-type field, so treat it as a reading aid rather than a classification. Filings held by named individuals rather than organisations are removed where they can be identified; that identification is not exhaustive, so an individually held filing can still appear below. Either way those filings stay inside the totals above. This table shows the top 18 of the 18 filers returned for this search; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 18 is not the complete set of filers. A single family can name more than one filer, so these counts overlap and do not add up to the total.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Assignee ranking and totals. Derived from one Patsnap search for Resource-Constrained Project Scheduling Optimization Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Data

Filing trend and technology composition

The two views below use different units: the filing trend counts published records by earliest filing year, while the technology composition counts simple patent families, so a family carrying several IPC classes raises more than one bar.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)

Records run from 2012 (2 records) up to a peak of 6 in 2021, with 2022 onward still filling in as recent filings continue to publish. The most recent years are understated because of publication lag, so no slowdown or acceleration should be read from the tail of this chart.

Filing trend by earliest filing year (published records)02356220122014201620182020620222024120262022 onwards are shaded as still filling in: a filing is only visible once it publishes, up to 30 months after filing.

Counted in published records by earliest filing year, not de-duplicated into families. A filing is counted in the year it was filed, but it only becomes visible after it publishes: roughly 18 months for most routes, and up to 30 months where a PCT application enters national phase. 2022 onwards are therefore still filling in and are shaded; no growth figure on this page uses them. Because this series counts documents rather than inventions, a rise can mean more inventions or the same inventions filed in more countries; this dataset cannot separate the two.

Technology composition by IPC subclass (simple patent families)

G06Q (business, commerce and admin data processing) appears on 87.0% of the 23 families, G06N (computing based on AI models) on 52.2%, and G06F (electric digital data processing) on 21.7%. These shares add up to more than 100% because a single family can carry more than one class.

Technology composition by IPC subclass (simple patent families)G06Q · Business, commerce & admin dat…2087.0%G06N · Computing based on AI models1252.2%G06F · Electric digital data processi…521.7%G06E · Optical computing14.3%G16B · Bioinformatics14.3%

Shares are the percentage of the 23 patent families in scope. One patent family can carry several IPC classes, so the shares add up to more than 100%.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. Filing trend and technology composition. Derived from one Patsnap search for Resource-Constrained Project Scheduling Optimization Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.

Go deeper on Resource-Constrained Project Scheduling Optimization Algorithm Patent Landscape with Eureka

This page is one run against one query. Ask Eureka your own question about resource-constrained project scheduling optimization algorithm patent landscape and every answer comes back with the patent numbers behind it.

Try Eureka
Record in focus

A record from this dataset

From the result set
US20230153708A12023-05-18

Method for Scheduling Resource-constrained Project by Invasive Weed Optimization

GUANGZHOU METRO DESIGN & RESEARCH INSTITUTE CO., LTD.

The abstract describes a method that builds a resource-constrained project scheduling model, converts the scheduling problem into a mathematical optimization aimed at minimizing total project duration while honoring predecessor/successor and renewable resource constraints, and applies invasive weed optimization to solve it, including a right-shift decoding strategy to correct infeasible solutions.This is simply the first record returned under the database's default ordering, not the most cited, newest, or broadest filing in the set.

US20230153708A1, patent drawing 1US20230153708A1, patent drawing 2
View record details

Selected as the first record the search returns under the database default order, then shown in full. It is not ranked by citations, claim breadth or commercial importance, and it is not a judgement about which filing in this space matters most.

Source: Patsnap Eureka. The first record the search returned, shown in full. Derived from one Patsnap search for Resource-Constrained Project Scheduling Optimization Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Run it yourself

Put your own technology through the same analysis


  
Where to run it
Fastest

Eureka on the web

When you want the answer in the next five minutes.

The agent works the prompt against patents and technical literature, citing every source.

Run your analysis now →
For builders

MCP server & REST API

When it has to run inside your own pipeline.

Patent search, landscape analysis and assignee resolution as MCP tools. Drop them into any agent framework, or call REST directly.

Browse MCP servers →
Key figures

Reading the numbers

Four figures from this dataset, each reported with the unit it was counted in.

Scope
23 families / 29 records
simple patent families / published records

Dataset size

The search returns 23 simple patent families and 29 published records with no date limit applied. The gap between the two counts reflects the same invention being published more than once, typically across different offices.

No start year is implied by this count.
Largest filer
13.0%
share of 23 families

Top single-row share

Southwest Jiaotong Univ is named on 3 of the 23 simple patent families, a 13.0% share. This figure belongs to that one row only; filer rows are not rolled up to corporate group and cannot be added together.

17 of 18 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each.
Technology split
87.0%
share of 23 families (G06Q)

Leading IPC subclass by family count

G06Q (business, commerce and admin data processing) is present on 20 of the 23 families. G06N (AI-based computing) is present on 12, and G06F (electric digital data processing) on 5. These shares overlap because a family can carry more than one class.

Shares sum to over 100% by design.
Legal status
48%
of 29 records

In force at retrieval

14 of the 29 published records were granted and in force at the 2026-10-15 retrieval date. The remaining records cover other statuses that are not broken out individually here.

Status changes continuously and is not a quality measure.
Eureka AI Agent
Looking for what nobody has claimed yet?

Eureka can read the same corpus for gaps instead of for coverage: under-claimed branches adjacent to resource-constrained project scheduling optimization algorithm patent landscape, with the prior art for and against each one.

Find the white space →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Derived observations on the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Resource-Constrained Project Scheduling Optimization Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
Next steps

Where to take this

This page surfaces the pattern in a small, text-matched dataset. Turning it into a working view of any one filer or claim set takes a closer read.

Check the granted claims directly

A family count or an abstract cannot establish what a patent covers. For any record that matters to a decision, pull the granted claim set and prosecution history.

Explore records in Eureka →

Re-run the search with tighter terms

This dataset was built from one text string with no date limit. A narrower or broader phrasing will change the 23-family count and may catch filings this search missed.

Refine the search in Eureka →

Track filer activity individually

Filer rows here are not rolled up to corporate group, so a parent and its subsidiaries appear as separate entries. Watch specific names rather than assuming a shared strategy.

Monitor filers in Eureka →
Source: Patsnap Eureka. Suggested next steps. No new data: every figure named here is one of those above. Derived from one Patsnap search for Resource-Constrained Project Scheduling Optimization Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP
FAQ

Common questions

Answers are grounded in the same dataset. Derived from one Patsnap search for Resource-Constrained Project Scheduling Optimization Algorithm Patent Landscape, covering all matching records regardless of filing date (the search string sets no date limit), retrieved 2026-10-15. Counts cover published records only and move as new filings publish.Run this in Eureka MCP

Research Resource-Constrained Project Scheduling Optimization Algorithm Patent Landscape in depth with Eureka

Go past this page: query the whole resource-constrained project scheduling optimization algorithm patent landscape corpus yourself, in your own scope.
Every answer comes back with patent numbers you can open.

Try Eureka
How this page was built, and what the numbers do and do not mean

Search. Every figure on this page comes from one Patsnap search, run once and not edited afterwards. This is the exact search string:

TAC:(("resource-constrained" OR "resource constrained") AND "project scheduling" AND optimization)

Reading the field codes: TAC searches the title, abstract and claims of each record, not the full description. The search string sets no date limit, so the scope is every matching record in the database regardless of when it was filed. It is not restricted to recent years. How this string was built matters for how far the counts can be pushed. It was generated in batch from a topic list rather than hand-crafted for this page, and the result set is not manually screened. A keyword search over title, abstract and claims both over-captures (unrelated filings that happen to use the same words) and under-captures (the same invention written in different words). This page cannot measure either effect, so read every figure here as what this particular string returned, not as what exists in the field. One subclass (G06Q) carries 87.0% of the patent families, so this search returned a classification-tight set.

What is being counted. Two different units appear on this page and they are not interchangeable. The filer list and the technology split are counted in simple (DOCDB) patent families: one invention counts once however many countries it was filed in. The total, the jurisdiction split and the filing-year chart are counted in published records: the same invention counts once per publication. For this search that is 29 records and 23 families. Record counts reward filing in many jurisdictions; family counts do not. Shares are only ever taken against a denominator in the same unit, and each one names it.

Who the filers are. Names come from Patsnap's standardised assignee field, as recorded on the documents themselves. They are not rolled up to corporate group: a parent and its subsidiaries appear as separate entries, and a portfolio acquired from another company stays under the name on the document unless the assignment is reflected there. This list is meant to carry organisations, not people. Filings held by a named individual are identified by matching the assignee against the inventors on the same search, and, for names written in Chinese, Japanese or Korean characters, by the name carrying no organisational suffix; those are removed from the list. Neither test is exhaustive: the inventor list it matches against is itself capped, and a personal name written in Latin script with no organisational wording in it cannot be told apart from a short company name by rule. So an individually held filing can still appear in the list. Those filings stay inside every total and share on this page either way, so the listed entries can add up to less than the total. A record shown in full further down still names its assignee exactly as the patent office records it, including where that is a person: that name is how the record is identified and checked. What is left out of the ranking is people as ranked entries, not people as cited sources. The table shows the top 18 of the 18 filers returned, ordered by count alone; the data endpoint returns at most 100 entities, so even that 18 is not every filer. One patent family can name several filers and each is counted separately, so these rows are not slices of a divided whole: adding them together over-counts, and this page deliberately publishes no combined "top five" share for that reason. See every filer, individuals included

Dates. The year chart counts by earliest filing year, not publication year. A filing only becomes visible once it publishes: roughly 18 months for most routes, and up to 30 months where a PCT application enters national phase. Measured across these pages, the year four back from today still holds only about 89% of its eventual count. 2022 onwards are therefore shaded on the chart as still filling in. The data behind this page was retrieved on 2026-10-15.

Legal status. "In force" counts documents whose legal status at retrieval was granted and maintained (14 of 29). Everything else is pending, withdrawn, refused, lapsed or not determinable, and those states are not broken out here because the underlying codes do not separate them cleanly. Legal status changes continuously and is reported per document, not per family. Get the status breakdown in Eureka

Classification. The technology split uses IPC subclasses (four characters, for example H01M). A single record usually carries several, so the shares add up to more than 100% and a record can appear in more than one bar. Subclass is a coarse grouping; it describes the field a record was classified into, not what the claims cover. Break the classes down to subgroup level

Who wrote the words. The tables, charts, counts, shares and patent numbers on this page are produced directly from the search result by a program; none of them are written or estimated by a language model. The surrounding prose, headings, FAQ answers and the answers in the question panel are drafted by a language model that is given those same figures and is not permitted to introduce others. Prose can still mis-describe a correct figure, so where the two disagree, the tables and charts are the record.

Disclaimer. This page is generated from Patsnap Eureka data drawn from a limited snapshot of global patent and scientific-literature records, and is provided for general information and reference only.

Patent data carries limitations that apply to every figure above. Recent filings are under-counted, because an application is not public until roughly 18 months after filing and database loading adds further delay. The search string defines and constrains everything shown: records that use different terminology, or that sit outside the fields searched, are absent and cannot be counted. Applicant names, classification codes, legal-status codes and citation records are taken as recorded and may contain errors, duplicates, omissions or stale entries. Ordering by volume is not a measure of quality, scope, enforceability or commercial value, and a larger portfolio is not a stronger one. As a result, the analysis may be incomplete or inaccurate and may not reflect the full technology landscape.

Nothing on this page constitutes an exhaustive prior-art, novelty, freedom-to-operate, validity or infringement search, nor does it constitute legal, financial, investment, or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon as such. No attorney-client relationship is created by it. Any patent, commercial, or strategic decision should be verified independently against the primary records and reviewed with qualified patent, legal, and domain professionals. Patsnap makes no warranties, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, or fitness for any particular purpose of the information presented.

The question panel. The answers behind the suggested questions on this page were written when the page was generated, not in response to your click. The progress steps that play before an answer appears are an animation of how that analysis was done; nothing is being searched or computed at that moment. Typing your own question instead opens Patsnap Eureka, which does run it live.

Machine translation. Assignee and organisation names originally recorded in Chinese, Japanese or Korean have been rendered into English by an AI translation step so that the tables stay readable. These renderings are best-effort and may not match a company's registered English name; the original name is what the underlying patent record carries, and it is what any Eureka query launched from this page uses.

Help us improve

Something wrong, out of date, or missing on this page? Tell us and it goes straight to the team that maintains it.