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 →A 23-family dataset on resource-constrained project scheduling optimization algorithms, where filings concentrate in business-process and AI computing classes.
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 In force = 14 of 29 records still granted and maintained at the data cut-off; the rest are pending, withdrawn, refused or lapsed.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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%.
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 EurekaThe 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.


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.
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 →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 →Four figures from this dataset, each reported with the unit it was counted in.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 →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 →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 →A search for this exact phrasing returns 23 simple patent families and 29 published records, with no date limit applied to the query. These are two different counts: families de-duplicate the same invention across countries, while records count each publication separately. Because the search string is narrow and text-matched, it is likely that related filings using different wording are not captured here.
Southwest Jiaotong Univ is named on 3 of the 23 simple patent families in this dataset, the largest single-row share at 13.0%. Seventeen of the 18 listed filers hold 2 or fewer families each, so most of the listed entities appear once or twice rather than repeatedly. The filer list is organisations only; filings by named individuals are included in the totals but not shown as rows, and rows are not rolled up to corporate group so related entities cannot be summed.
Measured against the 23 families in scope, G06Q (business, commerce and administrative data processing) appears on 87.0%, G06N (computing based on AI models) on 52.2%, and G06F (electric digital data processing) on 21.7%. These percentages add up to more than 100% because a single family is often classified under more than one subclass. The pattern suggests scheduling-optimization filings here are framed as business-process or AI-computing applications rather than as a single distinct technical category.
This page does not show a growth rate for this dataset: the pool is too small and the recent years too incomplete for a percentage to be meaningful. The filing trend by published record runs from 2 records in 2012 up to a peak of 6 in 2021, with 2022 onward still filling in because of publication lag. Any apparent dip in the most recent years reflects that lag rather than a slowdown, so no trend conclusion should be drawn from the tail of the chart.
Across the 29 published records, China accounts for 22, the United States for 4, and the European Patent Office, Luxembourg, and the WIPO PCT route for 1 each. This reflects where applications were filed, not where any filer is based, since the dataset carries no nationality information for filers. Receiving-office counts are per record, so one invention filed in multiple offices is counted once at each.
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.
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.
This page