WO2012006700A2

WO2012006700A2 - System and method for analyzing and optimizing execution performance of one or more projects

Info

Publication number: WO2012006700A2
Application number: PCT/BR2011/000219
Authority: WO
Inventors: João Gilberto Sampaio FERREIRA DA SILVA; Suzana Borschiver
Original assignee: Instituto Nacional Da Propriedade Industrial
Priority date: 2010-07-15
Filing date: 2011-07-14
Publication date: 2012-01-19
Also published as: WO2012006700A3; BRPI1004029A2

Abstract

The purpose of the system and method is to analyze and optimize the execution performance of one or more projects, in particular the processing of intellectual property assets, more specifically patent applications. One or more projects are defined and structured and specific historical data compiled in order to assess the execution performance of the group of projects on the basis of the average time required to fully process a work package and on the average number of these packages to be processed. The more efficient the project, the lower the average time and average number of packages being processed. The system and method may also be used in intellectual property offices, improving the efficiency of the process, such as in patent applications, trademark registrations, computer program registrations, industrial designs, geographical indications, technology transfer contracts, integrated circuits, etc. Specifically in patents, analysis and optimization may apply to the administrative, technical or administrative and technical processes of an office, integration between different offices, offices that are part of the Patent Cooperation Treaty, it being possible to analyze and optimize from a single procedure to the entire international flow of patent applications through the different offices around the world.

Description

SYSTEM AND PROCESS FOR ANALYSIS AND OPTIMIZATION OF PERFORMANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ONE OR MORE PROJECTS.

FIELD OF INVENTION

The present invention finds its field of application among the systems and processes for performance analysis and optimization of execution of one or more projects, specifically asset processing analysis in a company's planning area, more specifically the intellectual property area, even more specifically patent application processing analysis.

DESCRIPTION OF TECHNICAL STATE

In general, project execution correlates with the execution of steps in sequence and / or in parallel, and the efficient and efficient execution of these steps determines the efficient and efficient execution of projects, so that one or more final objectives are met. met.

Project steps are performed by individuals who interact in a stream processing work packages until the ultimate goals are met. In other words, when executing one or more projects, there is eventually interaction between performers of certain stages of the project with one or more clients or with other performers of other stages, so that the execution of all stages and consequently of the projects are performed.

Every project should be organized and executed to the best of its ability and the state of the art describes project optimization systems.

U.S. Patent 5,890,131 describes a software-based project optimization system whereby a single user's computer graphic screen can be used as a tool for planning future actions, reviewing past tasks, arranging meetings and launching other software tools. This system would support the listing and visualization of the sequences of steps of a project that would define the project as a whole until its objective, making a link between these steps and software for execution. these steps and the execution of these software to perform these steps, scheduling meetings in alignment with the execution of the project steps, and providing information about the project steps.

US Patent Application 2003/0135399 describes a process optimization system and method that includes methodologies, processes, measures, and tools for facilitating project process management throughout their life cycle, including their design, planning, and design. , execution and review after its implementation. This patent application describes a subject that includes a project management system comprising four distinct processing steps in a portfolio management, value planning, custom project management and post-deployment review, and may also include governance functionality to manage the four processing steps described above.

US patent application US2005 / 0119959 describes an automated system for project risk optimization from the perspective of the project sponsor. Through this patent application, project, project functionalities and functionality options are defined using data from a project system and a financial system so that project results are presented as value and risk matrices for the project. project sponsor. The system calculates the value for the project by identifying the selection of features that maximize the expected value of the project from the point of view of its sponsor. The system described by this patent application also allows the selection of features that maximize design value with the lowest possible risk to be identified.

Patent application WO 2008/039741 describes a system and method for process control and management by which methods of control, management, verification, certification and communication are provided.

However, despite these studies, there is still a need for systems and methods that are focused on optimizing the distribution of resources between the stages of a project allowing the maximization of its efficiency during its execution. There is no work in the art that focuses on optimizing the distribution of resources between the steps of a project so that it can be executed most efficiently. SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

As seen previously and generally, project execution is correlated with performing sequential and / or parallel steps. The correct and efficient execution of these steps determines the correct and efficient execution of the projects. In this way, the ultimate goals are achieved, the steps being performed by one or more individuals interacting in a processing flow of one or more work packages. Thus, in the realization of projects, there is eventually interaction between performers of certain stages of the project with customers or with other performers of other stages, so that the execution of all stages and consequently the projects are carried out. Eventually a portion of a performer's work may end in a given step, without the need to continue the flow of steps for that particular amount of one or more work packages.

For the accomplishment of the stages and consequently of the project, resources are available. These resources, as they are limited, should be distributed to the best of their ability to perform the steps in order to make the whole process efficient and not just a set of related steps. Usually, however, project performers often allocate available resources intuitively, which unnecessarily impacts more time and workload to be done throughout the project stages.

Through the project work packages flow which are processed by the project performers in their various stages. To perform this processing, resources are dependent, resources that are limited and must be distributed correctly.

Using statistical analysis, specifically queuing theory-based statistical analysis, the distribution of the limited effort distribution between the steps of one or more projects is optimized so that the objectives of one or more projects can be achieved efficiently. It should be noted that methods and variants of those disclosed in this application that would be apparent to a person skilled in the art are within the scope of protection of the present invention. DEFINITIONS

A job step is defined as a combination of a job package queue that has a processing service.

A work package is understood as a set of activities to be performed.

The meaning of the term processing is understood to be the effort required to execute work packages.

A project is defined as a sequence of work steps, which can be combined in several ways, in series and / or parallel among others, forming larger and more complex projects.

A scenario is defined as a specific selection of related projects and project steps and a specific set of parameters.

A workgroup is defined as one or a set of individuals on a project who perform activities of the same nature so that projects can be defined, including possible interactions between possible projects and work steps, where part of the flow of work from one project is forwarded to another.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF DRAWINGS

Figure 1 represents a work step of a project, where there is a queue of work packages to be processed with n positions and at position zero a service processing the work packages of the project stage queue.

Figure 2 represents the arrival of a new work package to the work step, which package enters the last position of the queue.

Figure 3 represents the end of work step service processing of a work package at zero position and the consequent movement of all work packages to an earlier position.

Figure 4 represents a project carried out in a single step.

Figure 5 represents a project carried out in two steps. Figure 6 represents a two-step project where a percentage of the project work package input stream is completed after the first project step.

Figure 7 represents a P-step project where percentages of project work package input streams are completed after each project step.

Figure 8 represents two independent projects carried out in several steps, where percentages of project work package input streams are completed after each step of each project.

Figure 9 represents two dependent projects performed in several steps, where percentages of project work package input streams are completed after each step of each project.

Figure 10 represents the processing of the data collection and performance evaluation phase.

Figure 11 represents the goal setting phase.

Figure 12 represents the goal setting phase considering the selection and setting of average processing time for a work package or the average amount of work packages for specific project steps.

Figure 13 represents the goal setting phase considering the expansion of total work packet processing capacity.

Figure 14 represents the goal setting phase considering a spectrum of new work package submission rates for each project j.

Figure 15 represents the goal setting phase considering a spectrum of flow pull-off percentages after each work step i of each project j.

Figure 16 represents the goal setting phase considering a spectrum of number of work steps of each project j.

Figure 17 represents the integration between the process phases. Figure 18 represents a project relating to the administrative procedures of a patent office and the appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

Figure 19 represents a project relating to the technical procedures of a patent office and the appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

Figure 20 represents a project relating to the administrative procedures followed by the technical procedures of a patent office and the appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

Figure 21 is a blueprint for the first instance patent office proceedings and the appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

Figure 22 represents two dependent projects relating to the first and second instance proceedings of a patent office and the appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

Figure 23 represents two independent projects concerning the first and second instance proceedings of a patent office and the appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

Figure 24 represents three dependent projects relating to the first and second instance proceedings and lawsuit of a patent office and the appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

Figure 25 represents three dependent projects relating to the first and second instance proceedings and lawsuit of a patent office, in which part of the outflow of the first instance project is directed to the lawsuit project and the appropriate responses from depositors. or clients outside the patent office.

Figure 26 represents three independent projects relating to the first and second instance proceedings and legal action of a patent office and the appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office. Figure 27 represents three dependent projects relating to the procedures for receiving a patent application by a PCT receiving office, conducting an international search report, and conducting an international preliminary examination report from an international search and examination authority and due responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

Figure 28 represents three independent projects concerning the process of receiving a patent application by a PCT receiving office, conducting an international search report, and conducting an international preliminary examination report from an international search and examination authority, and due responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

Figure 29 depicts the possible interactions between different PCT search and design authorities and the appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

Figure 30 represents independent projects representing different international search and examination authorities for PCT project applications and the appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

Figure 31 represents the possible sources of patent application filings in a patent office and the appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

Figure 32 represents the possible patent destinations and patent applications from a patent office and the appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

Figure 33 represents the possible sources of patent filing with an international PCT filing and examination authority and the appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

Figure 34 represents the possible patent and patent application destinations from an international PCT search and examination authority and the appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office. Figure 35 depicts the generic design of patent application processing by a patent examiner and the appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

Figure 36 depicts the design of patent application processing by a patent examiner being executed in up to 3 steps by the examiner and the appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The invention proposes a resource allocation analysis and optimization system and process for performing sequential and / or serial steps, so that the total completion time of a specific work package is as short as possible and the amount of work to be made is as small as possible without necessarily increasing the amount of resources available for these steps.

Multiple work packages await processing, and processing that processes work at the end of this queue. Figure 1 illustrates this row.

This step considers the existence of k positions, positions occupied by work packages, with position zero being the service position. A new work package that enters a step will occupy the k position, leaving the step with k + 1 work packages. Figure 2 graphically represents this occupation.

At the end of processing the work package occupying the zero position, this work package leaves the zero position in which it is being processed, leaving the work stage. Importantly, by moving the work package at the end of a processing run, all work packages occupying the queue move toward the processing position, occupying a position ahead of which they previously occupied. Figure 3 illustrates the end of processing and movement of work packages after processing the work package occupying the zero position. It is important to note that, for a work step, there is a work packet processing order that is given by the order of arrival of them to the step. The project definition for this patent application encompasses, but is not limited to, a project with a specified deadline and amount of work, whether or not specified, with continuous or determined time to execute, as an engineering project, as a sequence of activities performed. daily, such as the operation of post offices, such as the receipt, processing and distribution of correspondence, among others.

In a preferred embodiment of the invention, if a work step is considered according to Figure 4, the variable λ symbolizes the workflow entering the single project work step and the variable μ represents the work packet flow processing rate. entering the design stage. Thus, according to queuing theory, the average amount of work accumulated in this work step and the average time that each work package takes to go through the queue and be processed in this work step can be described according to the theory. queues by equations 1 and 2:

λ

L = Equation (1) μ - λ

W = - -— Equation (2) μ - λ

These two equations assume that work packet processing is performed by a single processing operator who has a number of μ resources. If there is more than one operator, ie if there are n operators, the workflow that enters the project should be adjusted to an average value represented by the ratio between λ and n. The number of operators in the processing is by no means limiting of the invention.

For the project to run efficiently, a work package needs to be executed in the shortest possible time expected. This means that the workload represented by work packages waiting for processing and being processed also tends to be as small as possible.

For the specific example in Figure 4, where only one design step is considered, given the rate of submission of new work packages represented by the variable λ for the project, all project resources must be applied to the μ rate processing. . However, if it is considered that the project can be carried out in two steps as per Figure 5, there is a need for distribution of processing resources. It should be noted that the number of design steps can be one, two or more. From Figure 5, the variable λ still symbolizes the workflow that enters the project through the first project work step, while the variables μ _! and μ ₂ respectively represent the work packet flow processing rates that enter project steps 1 and 2. For such a project, there is a need to distribute the limited resources to μ between steps 1 and 2, with the sum of μι and μ ₂ less than or equal to μ so that the project becomes viable and there is no infinite accumulation of I work on one of the steps. For this particular case and still according to queuing theory, equations 3 and 4 roughly represent the average amount of work packages accumulated in the project and the average time each work package has to go through this entire project.

λ λ

L 1 Equation (3) μ _χ - λ μ ₂ - Λ

W = - i— + - -— Equation (4)

- λ jU ₂ - Á

In these equations, the first fraction of equation 3 represents the average amount of work packages accumulated in step 1 of the project, the second fraction of equation 3 represents the average amount of work packages accumulated in step 2 of the project while the first fraction of Equation 4 represents the average time it takes for a work package to go through project step 1, the second fraction of equation 4 represents the average time it takes for a work package to go through project step 2.

Thus, depending on the input rate of new work packages λ there will be a unique set of processing rates μι and μ ₂ dependent on this input rate value of new work packages λ such that the values of L and W are minimal, whereas the sum of μ! and μ ₂ is a fixed value equal to μ, which ultimately means that the resources for carrying out the project are limited to μ · In another preferred embodiment of the invention, as shown in Figure 6, part of the project work packages is completed after the first project step, so that these packages need not be processed through the second project step. For this situation, a percentage of work packages, represented by -, are completed after processing from design step 1, without the need for processing from step 2. For this situation, there will also be a unique set of processing rates μι and μ ₂ such that the values of L and W are minimal, whereas the sum of μι and μ ₂ is a fixed value less than or equal to μ, but these values will depend, in addition to the input rate value of new work packages λ , of the percentage of work packages that is completed after the processing of design step 1 and is represented by

According to queuing theory, equations 5 and 6 represent the processing of a two-step project, where a percentage of the workflow is completed after the first project step.

L = - - + ^ fl - fl) _{Equation (5)} μ ^ - λ μ ₂ - λ (\ - ρ _λ )

W = —— + - Equation (6) μ _χ - λ μ ₂ - λ (\ - ρ)

In these equations, the first fraction of equation 5 represents the average amount of work packages accumulated in step 1 of the project, the second fraction of equation 5 represents the average amount of work packages accumulated in step 2 of the project while the first fraction of Equation 6 represents the average time it takes for a work package to go through project step 1, the second fraction of equation 6 represents the average time it takes for a work package to go through project step 2. Still in this case, the sum value of μ _! and μ ₂ is still fixed at a value less than or equal to μ, which ultimately means that the resources for carrying out the project are limited to this μ value.

If it is considered that a number P of work steps, as exemplified in Figure 7, equations 5 and 6 can be generalized according to equations 7 and 8: L Equation (7)

W Equation (8)

Where:

μι represents the processing rate of project step i;

^ represents the input rate of new work packages entering the project;

- represents the percentage of new work package entry rate that is completed by the project after step i;

P maximum number of project steps or simply number of project steps;

L Average amount of work packages accumulated in the project

W - average time each work package to go through the entire project.

These equations also have the following restrictions:

P-i

∑P, ≤l Equation (9) ie the sum of the percentages of the entry rate of new work packages that are completed after each project step must necessarily be less than or equal to 1 and

1 -∑The Equation (10) λ

that is, the relationship between the ratio of the processing rate of a given project work step i to the rate of entry of new work packages from this project must be greater than the unit subtracted from the sum of all percentages of the project rate. of input of new work packages that are completed by the pre-work step i of this project. It is noteworthy that Figure 7 shows a preferred embodiment of the invention, not limiting the scope thereof. In this example, there is only one project presented at two levels. The first constraint given by equation 9 is due to the fact that the sum of the percentages for a step must naturally be less than or equal to the unit and the second constraint given by equation 10 is due to the fact that it is The condition that guarantees project stability, that is, the condition that ensures that there will not be an infinite accumulation of work packages to be processed at any stage of the project, which also ensures that the average time for total processing of a work package. work throughout the project will not be infinite. If the restriction of equation 10 is met, the solution is stable, that is, it is possible to calculate the values of L and W while if the restriction of equation 10 is not met, the values of L and W tend to infinity and the solution It is unstable. Equations 9 and 10 should be applied equally to figures 4, 5 and 6, considering the specific values of P and ¼ for each situation. As in the case of figures 4, 5 and 6, equations 7 and 8 can be subdivided so that each step of each project can be described by the following equations:

Equation (11)

Equation (12)

Through these equations, the values of L _j , and Wjj are respectively the number of work packages in a work step ie the average time it takes for a work package to go through the entire work step i of project j, λμ the total flow work package that enters work step i of project j, considering both new work package flows and work package flows from other projects, and Uji the processing rate of work step i of project j. For these cases, the value of λ _μ already considers the project work package withdrawals after the work steps prior to the work step i in project j, making it unnecessary to spell out the variables ^ j.

Thus, the total average amount of work packages design for jeo average total processing time of a job for a package design satisfaction j P _j working steps are given by:

Equation (13)

= 2l ^W _fl Equation (14)

(= 1

Similarly, the equation that describes the generic relationship between the processing rate of a work step i of a project j and the total work package submission rate for this work step i of a project j λ in a generic way. This design step i be stable is as follows:

Equation (15)

Briefly, the system and process may use either the set of equations 7 to 10 or the set of equations 11 to 15, depending on the convenience and design being analyzed.

This project structure with P work steps can be even more general. In another preferred embodiment of the invention, independent designs are considered in parallel, as in Figure 8. In yet another embodiment of the present invention the designs are mutually dependent, as in the example of Figure 9. It is noteworthy that in Figure 8 and Figure 9 there are only one project presented on two levels.

In another specific embodiment, as shown in Figure 8, the two projects are parallel and fully independent, presenting Pi and P ₂ quantities of work steps that may or may not be equal, each project receiving an input rate of new work packages ^ where j represents project, ie either project 1 or project 2, entry rates for new work packages that may or may not be the same, where after each work step i of project j a percentage pjj of new work package input stream leaves the project, and the percentage profiles of the respective input streams leaving the projects may or may not be the same between projects. In this case, all resources must be correctly divided between the processing steps of each project to meet demand and make projects efficient and each project should be treated as the project and its steps described by the equations above.

In yet another embodiment of the present invention, as shown in Figure 9, the designs are parallel and dependent, having amounts of work steps Pi and P ₂ which may or may not be the same, each project receiving a new work package entry rate where j represents the project, ie either project 1 or project 2, new work package entry rates that may or not the same, and after each work step i of project j, a percentage pjj of the input stream of new work packages leaves the project, and the percentage profiles of the respective input streams leaving the projects may or not being the same between the projects. As in the previous case, all resources must be correctly divided between the processing steps of each project to meet demand and make projects efficient and each project should be treated as the project and its steps described by the equations above, remembering only that the incoming project workflow 2 is the sum of the original project workflow 2 plus the workflow leaving project 1. It is important to note that more than one workflow from more than one stage of the project project 1 may be referred to project 2.

It should be understood that the present invention encompasses designs that are parallel and / or series dependent and / or not dependent on each other. Such variations are within the scope of the invention and will be readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.

Applying the logic used earlier, several scenarios can be represented by the system and process, which considers the execution of one or more projects by a set of work steps, which steps of each project that process a workflow, and eventually part of this workflow leaves the project and part goes to the next step, these projects being independent and / or dependent.

A scenario has a specific set of parameters, namely:

· Number of dependent or independent projects;

• maximum number of steps of each project;

• entry fees for new work packages on each project;

• processing rates of each stage of each project; • total processing capacity, represented by the sum of all work package processing rates for each work step of all projects;

• Percentages of entry rates for new work packages that are completed after each step of each project.

This scenario, like any other scenario, must be submitted to the equations presented above.

Once the scenario has been defined, its processing through the system must be carried out through a defined process to be determined.

The system process can be done in three distinct and interconnected steps: the preparation, data collection, performance appraisal, and goal setting stages. Additional and / or complementary steps are within the scope of the invention and the steps presented below are not considered as limiting the invention.

The first stage, the preparation stage, aims to map the working groups that will be studied in the system and will be part of the process, so that their activities can be represented by a system composed of project work steps.

The second stage, the data collection and performance evaluation, aims to collect historical data from this work group that is being evaluated to insert in the process. The first step is to determine a discretization interval for the system and process so that all data and results are calculated based on this accuracy. Then you need to look at the history of the average submission rate of new work packages for each project j, ie the number of work steps of each project, ie P _j , the average work package processing rates. for each work step i, ie ujj, the total processing capacity μ represented by the sum of all work packet processing rates for each work step i of all projects and the percentages of flow withdrawal after each work step i of each project j, ie pjj. In a preferred embodiment of the invention, this history is surveyed using the possible time horizon, with as much historical data as possible from ongoing and / or similar projects. From these values, you can determine group efficiency by calculating the average processing time and average number of work packages that are in each work step of each project, and then calculating the total average amount of work packages per project. and the average total processing time per project and the total average number of work packages in the system, and it is even possible to verify that processing is feasible. All this processing is done using the equations previously presented.

In an alternative embodiment, since work packages do not necessarily go through all work steps i of all project j, the average total time a work package travels through the system is not calculated, but the result of the average total times that a work package takes to go through each project as a function of the result presented for the average total amount of work packages in the system. Figure 10 illustrates this processing.

The third and final step is goal setting, based on the results found in the previous step.

The first step of the goal setting step is, from the data obtained in the data collection and performance appraisal step, to generate a matrix with all possible combinations of work packet processing rates Ujj for each work step i of each project j, considering that each rate must necessarily be positive and that the total processing capacity μ represented by the sum of all work packet processing rates Ujj for each work step i of all projects j must be respected. The generation of this matrix depends on the discretization interval determined in the previous phase that the system and process use, which is one of the system and process input data.

After matrix generation, all average work package times and average amounts of each work step i of each project j can be calculated, so that the total average processing time of a work package per project and average amount total work packages per project and system in a scenario can be determined for each combination of the Uji work packet processing generated. This result is generated in matrix form and shows which combinations of work packet processing rates give viable results and therefore are stable results and which results are unstable.

In another alternative embodiment, after the matrix is generated, the best result can be presented through a process of searching for the optimal solution by an optimization algorithm. However, the full spectrum of solutions may be available for consultation.

In a particular embodiment of the invention, the processing of the phases may be as follows:

- preparation phase, which may comprise one or more or all of the following sub-phases:

o map existing working groups;

o define the activities that these working groups carry out;

o Define projects and project work steps based on work group mapping and activity definition;

o define interactions between projects;

- data collection and performance evaluation phase, which may comprise one or more or all of the following sub-phases:

o determine a discretization interval to perform the analysis; o define a time frame for collecting data from ongoing projects or similar projects;

o collect historical data for calculating the average submission rates of new work packages _j for each project j;

o collect historical data for calculating the maximum number of work steps Pj for each project j;

o collect historical data for calculating the average work package processing rate for each work step i of each project j, o collect historical data for calculating percentages of withdrawal P _j i from the average rates of submission of new work packages _j from work packages after each work step i of each project j;

o raise the maximum amount of available resources μ for allocation between project work steps i;

o calculate the average number of work packages L _j j in each work step i of each project j based on the data collected; o calculate the average time W _j that each work package takes to go through a work step i of a project j based on the data collected;

o calculate the total average number of work packages L _j of each project from the calculated results of average number of work packages L _j , in each work step i of each project j; o calculate the total average time W _j that each work package takes to go through each project from the calculated average time results W _j that each work package takes to go through a work step i of a project j;

o calculate the total average amount of work packages L in the system from the average total quantities of work packages L _j of each project j;

o assemble a matrix presenting for the combination of raised rates μ the data considered for the calculation of the results k _j , Pj, μ, p _j i, U _j j) and their respective results (L _j i, W _j i, L _j , W _j and L).

- goal setting phase, which may comprise one or more or all of the following sub-phases:

o generate a matrix with all possible combinations of work packet processing rates U _j i per work step i per project j respecting the maximum limit of μ as the sum of these rates, these rates being μμ positive; o for each rate combination Uj „calculate the average amount of work packages Lji in each work step i of each project j based on the other system data collected in the data collection phase;

o for each combination of rates Ujj, calculate the average time Wji that each work package takes to go through a work step i of a project j based on the other system data collected in the data collection phase;

o for each combination of rates Ujj, calculate the total average amount of work packages Lj in each project j from the calculated results of average amount of work packages Lj in each work step i of each project j;

o For each combination of rates Ujj, calculate the total average time Wj that each work package takes to go through each project from the calculated average time results Wj, which each work package takes to go through a work step i of a project. j;

o for each combination of rates Uji, calculate the total average amount of work packages L in the system from the average total quantities of work packages Lj of each project j;

o Using an optimization method, determine the minimum value of L, which is the optimal result, for a given combination of rates Uji;

o assemble a matrix presenting for each combination of rates

Uji the data considered for the calculation of these results (K _j , Pj, μ, pji,

Uji) and their respective results (Lji, Wjj, Lj, Wj and L);

o apply one of the rate combinations Ujj to the system, considering the data raised (k _j , Pj, μ, Ojj) in order to obtain the desired results.

All of these results are generated from the use of the previously presented equations and Figure 11 illustrates a possible processing. In yet another specific and preferred embodiment of the invention, it is also possible to select and fix, for specific project-specific work steps, the average processing time of a work package (W _j ), and / or the average amount of packages. for these work steps (L _j i), automatically setting the value of μμ. In these cases, the system and process may consider the preliminary calculation of work packet processing rates for these steps. The matrix generated with the possible combinations takes into account these additional constraints.

After the matrix generation, the best result is presented through a process of searching for the optimal solution despite the fact that the entire spectrum of solutions is available for consultation. In an alternative embodiment of the invention, the total processing rate μ may or may not consider those steps whose average processing times of a work package (Wji) or average quantities of work packages (L _j i) have been selected and set. All of these results are generated from the use of the previously presented equations and Figure 12 illustrates a possible processing.

In yet another embodiment of the present invention it is possible to analyze and optimize the total work packet processing capacity μ by analyzing a spectrum of total work packet processing capacities in the work steps of each project. For this, after the matrix generation with the possible total processing capacity of work packages μ, a result matrix is generated in terms of the average work package processing time per work step of each project and the average amount of work packages per work step of each project for each value of total work packet processing capacity μ. After the generation of these matrices, the best result is presented through a process of searching for the optimal solution despite the fact that the entire spectrum of solutions is available for consultation. In a particular aspect of the invention, the best result may be the best overall result or the best result for each total work packet processing capacity μ. Figure 13 illustrates this processing. In a preferred embodiment of the invention, it is also possible to analyze and optimize a spectrum of submission rates of new work packages Î ” _j for each project j. For this, after the matrix generation with the possible possible combinations of submission rates of new work packages j for each project j, a result matrix is generated in terms of average work packet processing time per work step. each project and average number of work packages per work step of each project for each value of new work package submission rates λί for each project j. After the generation of these matrices, the best result is presented through a process of searching for the optimal solution despite the fact that the entire spectrum of solutions is available for consultation. The best result in this case may be the best overall result or the best result for each set of new work package submission rates Xj for each j project. Figure 14 illustrates this processing.

In a further embodiment of the invention, it is also possible to analyze and optimize a spectrum of flow withdrawal percentages Ojj after each working step i of each project j. For this, after the matrix generation with the possible possible combinations of flow withdrawal percentages Djj after each work step i of each project j, a result matrix is generated in terms of average work packet processing time per step. workload for each project and average number of work packages per work step for each project for each combination of flow withdrawal percentages pji after each work step i of each project j. After the generation of these matrices, the best result is presented through a process of searching for the optimal solution despite the fact that the entire spectrum of solutions is available for consultation. The best result in this case may be the best overall result or the best result for each set of flow withdrawal percentages p _ji after each work step i of each project j. Figure 15 illustrates this processing.

Additionally, in a preferred aspect of the invention, it is also possible to analyze and optimize a spectrum of maximum number of work steps Pj of each project j. For this, after generating the matrix with the possible combinations of number of work steps Pj of each project, it is necessary to generate the matrix or matrix of flow withdrawal percentage matrices pji after each work step i of each project j, since, when the number of steps of a project Pj is changed, the flow withdrawal percentages pji after each work step i of each project j will also change. After the generation of the work step number matrix Pj and the respective flow withdrawal percentage matrices pjj after each work step i of each project j, a result matrix is generated in terms of the average packet processing time. work per work step for each project and average number of work packages per work step for each project for each combination of number of work steps P _j for each project and one of their respective arrays of flow withdrawal percentage combinations p _j j after each work step i of each project j. After the generation of these matrices, the best result is presented through a process of searching for the optimal solution despite the fact that the entire spectrum of solutions is available for consultation. The best result in this case may be the best overall result or the best result for each set of work steps number Pj of each project and flow withdrawal percentage matrix p _j i after each work step i of each project j. Figure 16 illustrates this processing.

In yet another preferred embodiment of the invention, the system and process further allow for combined spectra analysis, i.e. analysis that combines total processing rate spectra μ of project work steps and / or new packet send rate spectra. of work λ _; for each project je / or percentages of flow withdrawal p _j j after each work step i of each project je / or number of work steps P _j of each project, whether or not setting the average processing time of a work package (W _j i) for specific work steps or the average amount of work packages for specific steps (Ljj). The results of the combined analyzes are also generated from the use of the previously presented equations.

In a preferred embodiment the system and process may allow integration between the process phases, as shown in Figure 17. Initially, the preparation step is followed by the data gathering and performance evaluation step and the goal setting step. . From the preparation step to the data collection and evaluation step follow the information for the system which working groups will be analyzed and the project structures and work steps, represented in Figure 17 by index 1.

After the data collection and the first performance assessment are performed, survey statistics as well as performance results in terms of average processing time and average number of work packages in process are sent to the goal setting step. based on average processing time and average number of work packages, so that system and process variables are determined so that goals can be set. This processing is represented in Figure 17 by index 2.

During the goal setting phase, a specific scenario is selected by selecting a result in terms of order package processing time and the number of work packages in the system that are the system goals, which scenario may be the same. great scenario or another alternative scenario. By scenario selection, all system and process variables are selected and projects must operate as these variables are established. After a set period of goal setting, a new analysis cycle should be performed through a new data collection and benchmarking to verify that the goals have been met and update the data collection to set new goals. This processing is represented in Figure 17 by index 3.

After a period generally longer than the period of a new data collection and performance appraisal, a new preparation step is required so that the working groups can be reevaluated. Cycle periods for both new data collection and benchmarking as well as new preparation will depend on the type of system and the need for data updating. This processing is represented in Figure 17 by index 4.

Briefly, the integration between the phases can be done as follows: - after a certain period of time after the goal setting phase, which is dependent on the system project types, a new data collection phase and performance evaluation. It is performed in order to verify the fulfillment of the goals and update the data collection; - After a certain period of time after the goal setting phase, which is dependent on the project types of the system, a new preparation phase is carried out to check for changes in the working groups, projects and project stages.

PREFERRED EMBODIMENT OF THE INVENTION

Patent Application Processing

In a preferred embodiment of the invention, the above-described methodology may be used to create a system for analyzing and optimizing patent application processing.

For the patent area, the flow of new work packages may be represented by the flow of new patent applications arriving for review by a patent office, depositors and clients outside the patent office, the processing of work packages by design stage by the administrative and technical procedures that generate opinions or reports such as examinations that are performed in the patent office examination steps or technical or administrative merit examination by a patent office or drafting response to an opinion or report From a depositor or client outside the patent office, the workflow percentages that leave the project are the percentages of patent applications that reach a decision, meaning that they are either granted, denied, or are abandoned by the applicant or client outside the patent office, the number of project steps This can be represented by the number of times the flow of patent applications is examined, either by the patent office verifying technical or administrative merit, or by the applicant or client outside the patent office providing, for example, a response to a patent. technical or administrative opinion of the patent office, and the total examination fee, which may correspond to the total processing capacity.

Generally, once a patent application is filed with a patent office, it can usually be reviewed in several steps. In In the first or more initial steps, such as administrative steps, the formal requirements necessary for filing and filing a patent application would be verified. Then, in a second step, there may be, for example, the technical examination, in which a patent application would be reviewed by a patent examiner to assess the technical merit of the patent application. Between these two consecutive steps of patent office processing, whether this is administrative or technical processing, there may be a need for the patent office to formulate an opinion that must necessarily be reviewed and answered by the applicant or client external to the patent office. patents before the process continues its normal course. In this case, there is a clear interaction between the entities, the patent office and the applicant or client outside the patent office for the analysis of patent applications. In a preferred embodiment of the invention, the above filed depositor or client outside the patent office may actually represent one or more filers and / or clients outside the patent office.

Basically, therefore, there is a continuous interaction between a patent office and depositors or clients outside the patent office in a process of patent application review and examination responses until, at the last moment, the patent office defends or rejects it. the patent application or the depositor or client outside the patent office abandons the patent application. The granting and rejection of a patent application by a patent office or its abandonment by a depositor or client outside the patent office are considered in this particular embodiment as decisions. However, it will be clearly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art that the term decisions has to be taken in its broadest sense and applied to other phases of the system and process.

Objectively, the relationship between the system and process described in this patent application and the system and process specifically concerned with patent application processing is as follows:

• the rates of new work packages Xj for each project j correspond to the submission rates of new patent applications; The maximum number of work steps P _j per project j corresponds to the number of steps of administrative or technical procedures performed at the patent office for the generation of an opinion or report and the response steps by depositors or external clients to these opinions. or reports generated by the patent office;

The processing of work steps corresponds to the performance of administrative or technical procedures performed at the patent office for the generation of an opinion or report and the response by depositors or external clients to these opinions or reports generated by the patent office;

work package processing fees in a work step i of a project j correspond to the patent office processing fees by the patent office in performing administrative or technical procedures for the generation of opinions or reports or by depositors or external clients to provide a response to advice or reports from the patent office;

the total processing capacity μ corresponds to the total processing capacity of the patent office or patent office only and of depositors or clients outside the patent office, as the responses of depositors or external clients to the advice or reports of the patent office patents can be selected and fixed based on a fixed average time frame or average patent application;

the percentage of entry fees for new work packages that are completed after each work step i of each project j corresponds to the patent application decision rates after each step of processing by the patent office;

the average amount of work packages in a work step i in a project j (L _j j) is the average number of patent applications in a processing step i in a project j by the patent office or the depositor or client outside the patent office;

• the average amount of work packages in project j (L _j ) corresponds to the average amount of patent applications in project j; · The total average amount of work packages in the system (L) corresponds to the total average amount of patent applications in the system.

• the average time it takes for a work package to go through work step i in project j (Wjj) is the average time it takes for a patent application to go through processing step i in project j by the patent office or by the depositor or client outside the patent office;

• the average time it takes for a work package to go through project j (Wj) is the average time it takes for a patent application to go through project j;

· The preparation phase considers mapping patent application classifications that are examined by a group of examiners or an examiner, since in a patent office an examiner or group of examiners analyzes patent applications based on a set of technologies that are expressed by their respective classifications for project definition and project stages;

• The data collection and performance appraisal phase aims to collect data for the performance of the patent office performance appraisal;

'The goal setting phase aims to set goals and distribute resources between examination steps to improve the performance of the patent office.

The patent application review project may also have different focuses. It may focus only on the technical examination interacting with the applicant or client outside the patent office so that the performance of examiners in relation to the technical examination, may focus only on the administrative examination, so that the last step of the project is to submit the patent application to the technical area or may focus on the full flow including filing, administrative examination. and technical exam. The purely administrative, purely technical and administrative-technical focuses, considering that the technical stage is later than the administrative stage, are represented in figures 18, 19, and 20. For these figures the variable λ represents the rate of receipt of new patent applications. There may be one or more work steps, also representing the total output flow which in this case means the sum of the output flows of the various stages of each project of each of the figures. Other variants may be present in the system and process and will be clearly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.

If a patent office has other focuses in the course of the application examination than the administrative and technical examination, the system can be used to represent only these other focuses individually as well as to represent the full flow, as well as variations thereof. , among others.

Considering that patent application examination can take place in several instances, the system involving patent application analysis can also be divided into several projects.

A first system is what only the first instance of analysis considers, where a flow of new patent applications is examined by a patent office and ultimately decided. Figure 21 illustrates this system. Similarly to figures 18, 19 and 20, the variable λ represents the rate of receipt of new patent applications to be analyzed. For the project of Figure 21, there may be one or more work steps and the variable λ also the total output flow which in this case means the sum of the output flows of the various design steps of the figure.

If the second instance analysis, whether nullity or appeal, is also to be considered, the system can be modified so that there are two dependent projects, where part of the workflows leaving the first instance project enter In the first stage of the project, which represents the second instance of patent application analysis, there is no flow of patent applications. patent for the second instance design that does not come from the design that represents the first instance. Figure 22 illustrates this system. From this figure, the variable λ represents the rate of receipt of new patent applications to be considered in the first instance and p _\ represents the sum of all percentages of patent applications that are decided in the first instance, but which are subject to appeal or nullity, that is, so that there is a second instance For the first instance project in Figure 22, there may be one or more work steps and the representation of λ (1-ρϊ) as the output stream represents in this case the sum of the output flows of the various first instance project steps that are not forwarded to the second instance project. Similarly for the second instance project of Figure 22, there may be one or more work steps and the representation of λρ! as output stream in this case represents the sum of the output streams of the various stages of the second instance project.

The system can also be simplified so that instead of having a clear relationship between the first and second instance, the two projects are independent and the input flow in the second instance is measured independently of all first instance output flows. . Figure 23 represents this system where λι and λ ₂ respectively represent the submission rates of new patent applications for the first and second instances. If the focus is only on the second instance, the system may be represented by a single project, as in Figure 21. For projects in Figure 23, there may be one or more work steps, and the representation of λι and λ _{2 may} also be represented. as output streams represents in this case the sum of the output streams of the various respective stages of the first and second instance projects of the figure. It is noteworthy that the flow of new patent applications for the second instance project does not mean a direct filing of patent applications for second instance analysis, but rather patent applications that have already been reviewed and decided in previous instances and that are being presented for analysis in the second instance without the system and process having a direct link with any instance prior to it. Still in relation to this situation where only the first and second instance is considered, it is possible to apply a hybrid system in which part of the second instance project input stream comes from the first instance project and part consists of a stream of new patent applications. Hybrid systems are within the scope of this invention and will be readily understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.

If the analysis of a lawsuit is also to be considered, the system can be modified using the same logic as above. The scenario can be formed by three dependent projects, where part of the output flow of the various stages of the project representing the first instance is forwarded to the first stage of the project representing the second instance, and there is no patent application flow to the first instance. second instance project that does not come from the first instance project, and another part is decided. Regarding the second instance, part of the outflow of all steps is forwarded to the first stage of the lawsuit project and part is decided, and there is no patent application flow for the lawsuit that does not come from the project. which represents the second instance. Figure 24 represents this scenario. From this figure, the variable λ represents the rate of receipt of new patent applications to be analyzed in the first instance, pi represents the sum of all percentages of patent applications that are decided in the first instance, but which are subject to appeal or nullity, that is, so that there is a second instance proceeding and p ₂ represents the sum of all the percentages of patent applications that are decided in the second instance, but which are subject to legal action. For the first instance project of Figure 24, there may be one or more work steps and the representation of λ (1-ρι) as output stream represents in this case the sum of the output flows of the various first instance project steps that are not forwarded to the second instance project. For the second instance project of Figure 24, there may also be one or more work steps and the representation of λρ ^ Ι-ρ ^ as output stream represents in this case the sum of the output flows of the various stages of the second instance project. that are not referred to the lawsuit project. Finally, lawsuit project From Figure 24, there may be one or more work steps and the representation of λριρ ₂ as the outflow represents in this case the sum of the outflows from the various stages of the lawsuit project.

It is also possible to consider a scenario consisting of three dependent projects in which part of the flow that leaves all the steps of the first instance is forwarded to the first step of the project that represents the second instance and another part of the flow that leaves all the steps of the first instance. It is directed directly to the first stage of the project representing the lawsuit, and there is no flow of patent applications for the second instance project other than the project representing the first instance. In relation to the second instance, part of the outflow of all steps is forwarded to the first stage of the lawsuit project and part is decided definitively, and there is no flow of patent applications for the lawsuit that does not originate. of the project that represents the second instance. Figure 25 represents this scenario. From this figure, the variable λ represents the rate of receipt of new patent applications to be analyzed in the first instance, p _\ represents the sum of all percentages of patent applications that are decided in the first instance but are subject to appeal or nullity, that is, so that there is a second instance proceeding, p ₃ represents the sum of all percentages of patent applications that are decided in the first instance but which are the subject of a lawsuit and p ₂ represents the sum of all percentages of patent applications that are decided in the second instance but are the subject of a lawsuit. For the first instance project in Figure 25, there may be one or more work steps and the representation of λ (1-ρ _! -Ρ ₃ ) as output stream represents in this case the sum of the output flows from the various project stages. that are not referred to the second instance project or the lawsuit project. For the second instance project of Figure 25, there may also be one or more work steps and the representation of λρι (1-ρ ₂ ) as output stream represents in this case the sum of the output flows of the various stages of the second stage project. instance that are not referred to the lawsuit project. Finally, a lawsuit in Figure 25, there may be one or more work steps and the The representation of λ (ρ ₂ + ρ ₃ ) as an outflow represents in this case the sum of the outflows from the various stages of the legal action project.

Again like the previous case, the scenario can also be simplified so that instead of having a clear relationship between the first instance, the second instance and the lawsuit analysis, the three projects are independent and the flow of entry into lawsuit analysis and second instance are measured independently of all first instance outflows. Figure 26 represents this system, where λ _1; λ ₂ and λ ₃ represent respectively the filing rates of new patent applications for the first and second instance and lawsuit. If the focus is only on lawsuit analysis, the system can be represented by a single project. If the focus is only on lawsuit, the system may be represented by a single project, as in Figure 21. For projects in Figure 26, there may be one or more work steps and the representation of λι, λ ₂ and λ ₃ also as outflows represents in this case the sum of the outflows of the various respective stages of the projects of first and second instance and lawsuit of the figure. It is noteworthy that, due to the flow of new patent applications for the second instance project, there is no direct filing of patent applications for second instance analysis, but rather patent applications that have already been reviewed and decided in previous instances and which are pending. being presented for analysis in the second instance without existing in the system and process a direct link with any instance prior to this. Likewise, it is important to point out that, due to the flow of new patent applications for the lawsuit project, there is no direct filing of patent applications for analysis through a lawsuit, but patent applications that have already been reviewed and decided on. previous instances and that are being submitted for review by lawsuit without the system and process having a direct link with any previous instance.

Also in relation to this situation in which the first and second instance are considered and lawsuit, it is possible to apply a hybrid system in which part of the inflow of the second instance project comes from the first instance project and part consists of a stream of new patent applications and part of the inbound flow of the lawsuit project comes from the first instance project, part of it comes from the second instance project and part consists of a stream of new patent applications for lawsuit.

If a patent office permits the execution of more than two instances of technical analysis of a patent document or more than one instance of judicial review, the system may be expanded using the same logic as previously presented for the national phase of patent applications.

The patent office may also be part of an international community that integrates patent application review.

One such community is the Patent Cooperation Treaty, known as the PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty). Countries that are parties to this treaty accept what is called the international filing of patent applications, which is reviewed at an international stage by an international search and examination authority for the conduct of an international search report and / or an international examination report. preliminary. This stage of PCT review takes place before the patent application is entered into the national phase.

If it is then considered that a PCT application has basically three major processing processes, that of receiving patent applications from receiving offices, that of making an international search report, and making an international preliminary examination report, this treaty can be used by the system and process for its optimization.

As the first step in PCT processing is receiving by a receiving office, this must necessarily be the first project in the scenario. The second step is the realization of the international search report, where part of the receiving project's output stream is directed to the international search report. The third step is the realization of the international preliminary examination report, which is fed by the flow that leaves the draft international search report, since not necessarily a patent application through the PCT treaty needs to go through the realization phase. international preliminary examination report. In this proposed structure, the three projects are dependent projects where part of the flow that leaves the receiving office project goes into the international search reporting project and part of the flow that comes out of the international search reporting project goes into the preliminary international reporting project, as in Figure 27. According to this figure, the variable λ represents the rate of receipt of new patent applications received in the reception project, p _! represents the sum of all percentages of patent applications leaving the receiving process and are forwarded to the filing of an international search report and p ₂ represents the sum of all percentages of patent filing which, upon completion of the international search report , are forwarded to an international preliminary examination report. For the PCT order receipt project in Figure 27, there may be one or more work steps, and the representation of λ (1-ρ as the outflow represents in this case the sum of the outflows from the various steps in the downstream project. PCT requests that are not routed to the International Search Reporting project.For the International Search Reporting project of Figure 27, there may also be one or more work steps and the representation of λρ _! (1-ρ ₂ ) how output flow represents in this case the sum of the output flows from the various stages of the international search reporting project that are not forwarded to the preliminary examination international reporting project. International Preliminary Examination Report of Figure 27, there may be one or more work steps and the representation of λρ ₂ as the output stream represents In this case, the sum of the outflows from the various stages of the draft preliminary examination report is presented.

The system and process implementation hypothesis can still be considered for a scenario with three independent projects, so that the input flows of these three projects are independent, as in Figure 28. In this figure, the variables λ _ΐ5 λ ₂ and λ ₃ respectively represent the incoming streams of new patent applications in the projects of receiving, conducting an international search report, and conducting an international preliminary examination report. For the projects in Figure 28, there may be one or more work steps and the representation of λ _1; λ ₂ and λ ₃ also as flows of In this case, the output represents the sum of the output flows of the various respective stages of the PCT order receiving, international search report, and preliminary examination report respectively.

It is noteworthy that, due to the flow of new patent applications for the project to carry out an international search report, there is no direct filing of patent applications for an international search report, but patent applications that have already been analyzed and decided in previous instances or in other receiving offices and are being presented for the purpose of conducting an international search report without having in the system and process a direct link with any previous instance. Likewise, it is noteworthy that, due to the flow of new patent applications for the draft preliminary examination report, there is no direct patent application filing for the preliminary examination report, but rather for patents that have already been reviewed and decided in previous instances or in other offices that are capable of preparing international search reports and are being filed for an international preliminary examination report without a direct link to the system and process prior to it is.

Still in relation to the PCT deposit, there is still the possibility of a hybrid system and process, in which the projects have a partial interdependence, that is, part of the flow of patent applications that enters a project for the realization of an international report. the search would come from the receiving project's outgoing flow, and part consisting of a flow of new patent applications, just as the draft preliminary international reporting may receive a flow from the receiving international reporting project and part consisting of a stream of new patent applications. Under the PCT treaty, it is not possible for a patent application to be received and forwarded directly to the international preliminary examination report without the international search report being produced. Also in relation to the specific PCT, it is possible to apply the system and process in order to analyze and improve efficiency among the various offices that make up this treaty. Whereas the initial deposit of the PCT to the receiving office may be made in an office, whereas an office, not necessarily the receiving office, may be designated to be the office that will perform the international search report and subsequently an office that is not necessarily the receiving office or the office that made the international search report will be designated to carry out the international preliminary examination report, it follows that PCT treaty processing can be translated into a multi-office processing network and that this network can be represented in the proposed system and process as projects related to receiving, conducting an international search report, and conducting an international preliminary examination report for offices with these capabilities. In other words, each office that is part of the PCT, depending on its assignments in the treaty, can be analyzed and optimized by the system and process proposed by the construction of reception projects, international search report and international preliminary examination report, where each reception desk project for each office is interconnected with all international search reporting projects for all offices and each project for each international search reporting office is interconnected with all reporting projects preliminary examination of all offices in the extreme case of application of dependent projects. Figure 29 illustrates this integration between PCT treaty offices into a dependent design system, where the variables λ _1} λ ₂ , λ ₃ and _m represent the incoming flows of new individual patent applications from the m office reception steps. patent applications are signatories to the PCT treaty and are responsible for receiving, conducting an international search report, and conducting an international preliminary examination report. It is important to note that not all offices necessarily have the reception, international search and preliminary examination report stages, and therefore the integration between the offices is well significant. For Figure 29, the outflows of each office were not represented, as they depend on the interaction between the offices.

In the extreme case of the application of independent projects, all reception, international search and preliminary examination report projects would not be interconnected in the system and process and their incoming patent applications would be independent. Figure 30 illustrates PCT treaty offices in an independent project system. In this case, the variables λ _ΐ5 λ ₂ , λ ₃ and _m represent the incoming streams of new individual patent applications from the receiving stages of m patent offices that are parties to the PCT treaty and are responsible for receiving patent applications. PCT patent, conducting an international search report and conducting an international preliminary examination report without interaction between the offices. For Figure 30, the outflows of each office were not represented either. It is important to note that due to the flow of new patent applications for the draft preliminary examination report, there is no direct patent application filing for the preliminary examination report, but patent applications that have already been filed. analyzed and decided in previous instances or in other offices capable of preparing international search reports and which are being presented for the preparation of an international preliminary examination report without a direct link in the system and process with any previous instance, so the The new patent filing flow for the International Search Reporting Project does not represent a direct patent filing for International Search Reporting, but rather patent applications that have already been reviewed and decided in previous or other instances. reception offices PCT requests that are being submitted for the purpose of conducting an international search report without having in the system and process a direct link with any previous instance.

Between these two extremes, there is also the possibility of the system and process to perform a hybrid processing, in which part of the offices has an interdependence between their projects and part not, that is, part of the flow of requests for patent that enters an international search reporting project would come from receiving project output streams, one of which may be from the international search reporting office itself or not, and part patent applications, as well as an international preliminary examination reporting project may receive a stream from international search reporting projects, one of which may be from the international preliminary examination report office itself or not, and part consisting of a stream of new patent applications. Under the PCT treaty, it is not possible for a patent application to be received and forwarded directly to the international preliminary examination report without the international search report being produced.

Finally, the system and process are capable of creating a scenario of integration between the international and national phases of patent applications.

Considering a particular office, this office may have a patent filing process flow that is directly filed with it in the first instance without having been filed with another office previously, as processing described for the national phase may have a flow of patent applications that are filed with the office considering the existence of unionist priority, which means that part of the outflow from another national phase is forwarded to the national phase of this office, and may have part of its flow from the PCT. Figure 31 illustrates this scenario where λι, λ ₂ and λ ₃ represent, respectively, the flow of new patent applications that is directly filed in this office without having been filed in another office previously, the flow of patent applications that are filed. in other offices and then, through the unionist priority device, is filed in this particular office, and the flow of patent applications that comes from the PCT. In this figure, the project known as PI Offices represents other intellectual property offices, the PCT project the PCT treaty office network, and the PI Office project the office under consideration. Importantly, if the office is not part of the PCT treaty, the flow of patent applications from the PCT does not exist and, therefore, the variable λ ₃ is null. If the office does not accept the Unionist priority device, the patent application flow from other offices does not exist and therefore the variable λ ₂ is null, meaning that the office only accepts direct deposits. For the projects in Figure 31, there may be one or more work steps and the representation of λι, λ ₂ , λ ₃ and (λ! + Λ ₂ + λ ₃ ) also as output flows represents in this case the sum of the flows of output of the various stages of the respective projects.

This system can also be represented as an independent system, that is, where patent application flows λ ₂ and λ ₃ do not have a link in the system and process with a project from which they originate but may have their origin identified. The new patent application flow λι, since it is a patent application flow filed directly at the office, has no link to another project. Likewise, it is possible to apply the system and process in a hybrid way, where part of the patent application flows λ ₂ and λ ₃ come from other projects and part of the patent application flows, being the flow of new patent applications. Patent is entirely made up of new patent applications.

Regarding the global outflow of patent applications from the national phase of this office, part of the patent applications are not propagated, that is, they are not forwarded for future processing, since they already have a unionist priority, are already from the PCT or simply There is no interest in patenting the technology in other territories, part is sent directly to other offices, as there are patent applications that have been filed directly in this office and will be considered as a Unionist priority for filing in other offices without the use of PCT, and part Such patent applications that have been filed directly with this office will be forwarded to a PCT application office, which may be the office itself or another designee. Figure 32 illustrates this scenario where λι, λ ₂ and λ ₃ represent, respectively, the patent application flow decided at the office that is not sent to any other office or to the PCT, the patent application flow that is forwarded to other offices through the unionist priority device, and the patent application flow that is forwarded to the PCT. In this figure, the project designated by PI Offices represents other intellectual property offices, the PCT project the PCT treaty office network and the PI Office project the office under review. Importantly, if the office is not part of the PCT treaty, the flow of patent applications that is forwarded to the PCT does not exist and, therefore, the variable λ ₃ is null. If the office does not accept the Unionist priority device either, the patent application flow that is forwarded to other offices does not exist and therefore the variable λ ₂ is also null. For the projects in Figure 32, there may be one or more work steps and the representation of λι, λ ₂ , λ ₃ and (λ _! + Λ ₂ + λ ₃ ) also as output flows represents in this case the sum of the flows of output of the various stages of the respective projects.

This system can also be represented as an independent system, that is, where patent application flows λ ₂ and λ ₃ do not have a link in the system and process with a project to which they will be sent, but can have their destination identified. The patent application flow λι, since it is a patent application flow whose processing will not proceed, has no link to another project. Likewise, it is possible to apply the system and process in a hybrid way, where part of the patent application flows λ ₂ and λ ₃ are intended for other projects and part of the flows entering the PCT and PI Offices projects are new applications. The patent application flow is entirely comprised of patent applications for which there is no interest for further processing.

In relation to the PCT phase, part of the patent application flow that enters a receiving office is filed directly, part comes from a national phase of a patent office and the outgoing flow, part goes to one or more patent offices. and part will not be propagated. Figures 33 and 34 illustrate the two scenarios.

In Figure 33, the variables λι and λ ₂ represent, respectively, the patent application flow that is filed directly in a PCT filing office and the patent filing that enters the PCT system after it has been filed in the Phase. national of a patent office. For the projects in Figure 33, there may be one or more work steps and the representation of λι, λ ₂ , and (λι + λ ₂ ) also as output flows represents in this case the sum of the output flows of the various stages of the respective steps. of the projects. In this figure, the project designated by PI offices represent intellectual property offices and the PCT project is the PCT treaty's office network.

In Figure 34, the variables X _\ and λ ₂ represent, respectively, the patent application flow that is abandoned after analysis by the PCT system and the patent application flow that is forwarded to the patent office after analysis through the PCT system. . For the projects in Figure 34, there may be one or more work steps and the representation of λι, λ ₂ , and (λι + λ ₂ ) also as output flows represents in this case the sum of the output flows of the various stages of the respective steps. of the projects. In this figure, the project called PI Offices represents intellectual property offices and the PCT project represents the PCT treaty office network.

The systems of figures 33 and 34 may also be represented by standalone or hybrid design systems. The system of Figure 33 may be the flow of patent applications λ ₂ without a link in the system and process to a project from which it originates, but may have its origin identified, that is, be an independent system. The new patent application flow λι, since it is a flow of new patent applications whose origin is direct filing, has no link to another project. Similarly, it is possible to apply the system and process in a hybrid way, where part of the patent application flow λ ₂ comes from another project and part of the new patent application flow, the new patent application flow being X _\ consisting entirely of direct filing patent applications and therefore unrelated to another project. Similarly to the system of Figure 34, the flow of patent applications λ ₂ without a link in the system and process to a project to which it is forwarded although it may have its destination identified, that is, be an independent system. The patent application flow λι, since it is a patent application flow whose processing is closed, has no link to another project. Similarly, it is possible to apply the system and process in a hybrid way, where part of the patent application flow λ ₂ is destined for another project and part of the flow that enters the PI Office project is formed by a flow of new patent applications. patent being the flow of patent applications λ! entirely made up of patent applications whose processing is no longer of interest and, therefore, there is no link with another project. Thus, considering the various national processes, the PCT treaty and the concept of unionist priority, the proposed system and process are able to analyze the processing and increase the processing efficiency of patent applications from a simple technical processing in a patent office. specific patents as the entire global patent application analysis network.

Analysis and optimization of processing of other industrial property assets

If the patent office is considered to be only a division of an intellectual property office, and that this intellectual property office is responsible for reviewing other assets such as trademarks, geographical indications, industrial designs, program registration computer, technology transfer contracts, integrated circuits, the same system may be applied, whether or not there is an analysis of administrative and technical merits, the existence of at least one examination body, the existence or otherwise of one or more instances. lawsuit analysis and the integration of the intellectual property office with an international asset analysis community, the entire intellectual property office and all its assets can use this system and process to analyze and optimize the processing and distribution of resources. in the analysis of intellectual property assets, to make the office as a whole more efficient.

General project analysis and optimization

This patent application is not limited to performance analysis and optimization only of the designs described above, but to all designs that may be represented by the system and process described.

Example

The example will focus on processing patent applications only by a patent examiner in a single patent office, where only the distribution of resources between examination steps will be evaluated, and the submission fee will not change. new patent applications, the number of examination steps, the percentages of decision after each examination step, and the maximum examination capacity.

For the patent examination, the preparation phase consists in mapping patent application classifications that are examined by a group of examiners or examiner, since in a patent office an examiner or group of examiners analyzes patent applications based on in a set of technologies that are expressed by their respective classifications.

After this mapping, it is necessary to select a specific group and identify the number of examiners in this group.

The second phase begins by determining the time interval for data collection. For this interval, you must raise the exam fee per exam step, the number of exam steps, the total exam rate, the decision percentages after each exam step, and the new patent application submission fee for each exam. first exam, which is the first stage of the project, considering only the classifications of the study group.

With these values and knowing the number of examiners in this particular working group, it is possible to determine the individual average examination rates per examination step and sending first examinations to one examiner of this working group.

From this information, it is then possible to use the system and process presented to evaluate the group's average performance by determining the average decision time for a patent application and the average number of patent applications under consideration for a group patent examiner. .

Since the goal is to analyze and optimize the distribution of resources across patent office patent application review steps, the response times of the filers or clients outside the patent office will be fixed as there is a time limit for responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office to the examiners' advice. For this scenario, the total processing fee will only refer to the work done by patent examiners, as for work of depositors or clients outside the patent office the response times to opinions will be fixed and it is desired to analyze and optimize the work performed by patent examiners.

The third phase then is the establishment of patent application decision time targets and average number of patent applications under examination by establishing the distribution of resources between the examination steps given a maximum processing capacity of μ patent applications. It is emphasized that this maximum processing capacity of μ patent applications will correspond only to the processing capacity of patent examiners and will not consider processing by depositors or clients outside the patent office.

The processing of patent applications can be represented by Figure 35. This purely technical processing begins when patent applications are assigned for examination by an examiner. In this figure, there is only one project even though it is presented at three different levels.

According to this system and process, a flow of new patent applications for the technical examination reaches the first examination stage at a rate of ~ - and is processed in the first technical examination stage by the patent examiner. is called an EP _\ at a rate μΕΡΐ - After this processing, a percentage of this fee - ^ new patent applications (1- ½pi) is forwarded to depositors or clients outside the patent office to respond to the technical examination while a percentage of this fee - ~ = new patent applications ½PJ leaves the system because either the patent application has been granted, rejected or has been abandoned by the applicant or client outside the patent office, who decides not to respond to the office upon hearing the opinion of the examiner.

The depositor or client outside the patent office, represented by step DPj, processes patent applications at a μορι rate and, once it has processed this patent application flow, forwards this flow to the second stage of patent processing. patent examiner, who performs the second stage of the technical examination represented by EP ₂ . As the value of time depositor or client's response to the patent office shall be fixed, the value of μορι shall be automatically fixed.

In this second stage of patent examination by the examiner, the patent application flow is processed at a rate of μεκ and a ½p ₂ percentage of the input stream of the first patent application step leaves the project while the rest goes on. that the opinions generated by the examiner in this second stage of examination are reviewed by depositors or clients outside the patent office in the second stage of response analysis to depositors or clients outside the patent office, represented by DP ₂ .

This interaction repeats until in a last response step of the depositor or client outside the patent office, DPT step.] It gives the answers to the examiner's opinion that, in the processing step etapaτ of the patent office, terminates processing of the remaining flow of patent applications when reaching a decision for this flow.

Considering an example where a given patent stream is fully processed in up to 3 analysis steps, there are the patent office processing steps EPi, EP ₂ and EP ₃ and the processing steps

and DP ₂ by the depositor or client outside the patent office interacting as shown in Figure 36. As in Figure 35, in Figure 36 there is only one project even though it is presented at three different levels.

For processing this example, the flow of new patent applications is given by the monthly rate of λ, where λ is equal to 3 new patent applications per month. For the processing of this flow, the historical decision-making profile of patent applications is 50% of applications after the first patent office examination stage, 30% of applications after the patent office second examination stage and the remaining 20% after the third stage of examination by the patent office, which means p! equals 50%, p ₂ equals 30% and (1 -prp ₂ ) equals 20%. For this scenario, it will be assumed that the total sum of patent application examination resources by the patent office will be a maximum of 8 patent application examinations per month, which resources should be distributed between steps EPi, EP ₂ and EP ₃ , the which means that μ equals 8 patent application examinations per month. As seen above, instead of calculating the processing steps of the DP] and DP ₂ project steps for the depositor or client outside the patent office, ie instead of calculating μορι and μορ ₂ , a time value will be stipulated. for patent processing through these steps. Since the objective is to analyze and optimize the distribution of resources across patent office patent examination steps, the response times for steps DPi and DP ₂ will be set at 4 months each, as there is a time limit. for responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office to the examiners' opinions. It is noteworthy that this time of 4 months for each step considers not only the processing by the depositor or client outside the patent office but also the time it takes to reach the examiner's hands.

From the execution of the system and process described for this scenario, the full spectrum of examination performance by this patent office can be analyzed.

Considering two examiners who present the same exam performance profile and print a resource distribution in their exams according to Table 1, the performance result can be calculated through the system and process according to the data collection and evaluation phase. These results are presented in Table 2.

Table 2 Examiner performance of examiners

Examiner Number of Average Time Applications in months of patent decision under review for a patent application

Examiner 1 42.2 14.1

Infinite Examiner 2 Infinite According to these tables, according to the distribution of resources that examiner 1 prints, there are, on average, 42.2 patent applications under his responsibility, either under examination at his desk or awaiting response from depositors or clients outside the office. patents, but still under its responsibility for review, and an application takes approximately 14.1 months, ie just over 1 year to decide, including the time it is being processed by the examiner and awaiting response from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

With regard to examiner 2, it turns out that by printing the same total amount of resources as examiner 1, that is, even if they perform 8 patent applications per month, they are unable to process the workload they receive. is assigned, generating a continuous and growing backlog of patent office applications to be reviewed. If the backlog is infinite, the decision time of a patent application is also infinite, which means that the scenario for examiner 2 is unstable.

Using the proposed system and process, it is possible to determine the full spectrum of viable resource allocation solutions between patent office examination steps to optimize their performance. According to the proposed scenario, there are 3622 resource distributions that make patent application processing viable, ie 3622 ways for a patent examiner to work to perform up to 8 average exams per month without generating a backlog. infinite number of requests to be analyzed. For this result, the discretization interval of 0.1 was considered.

Of these 3622 resource distributions, there is a single distribution that provides the best possible result, which is generated in the goal setting phase and presented in Table 3, with its respective result presented in Table 4.

Table 3 Optimal Resource Allocation

UEPI Examiner UEP2 UEP3 μ

Great Case 4.3 2.5 1.2 8.0 Table 4 Performance considering optimal resource distribution

Analyzing Tables 1 and 2 compared to Tables 3 and 4, it can be concluded that there is a significant performance improvement due to the proposed system and process utilization. Comparing the performance of examiner 1 with the optimal case, it is clear that only by better distribution of exam resources can this examiner reduce by 32% the number of patent applications under his responsibility and reduce by up to 32%. % The time it takes for an application to be granted or denied by the office or abandoned by the depositor or client outside the patent office, without reducing or submitting further patent applications. This comparison shows how much an examiner and therefore the entire office can be more efficient without increasing the amount of resources spent on patent applications, ie, the office can perform better only by better allocation of resources. With respect to examiner 2, the fact that this scenario has 3622 resource distribution profiles means that this examiner has several options to modify its behavior so that its performance does not lead to the continuous and growing accumulation of patent applications to be examined by the office.

Still according to the system and process, it is possible to obtain other resource distributions that improve examiner performance without necessarily being the optimal distribution. Tables 5 and 6 illustrate an example of resource allocation and its outcomes other than the optimal outcome, distribution and outcomes that are also generated in the goal setting phase, but which are higher than the results currently obtained by examiners 1 and 2.

Table 5 Alternative Resource Allocation

Examiner μερι UEP2 HEP3 μ

Alternative Case 4.6 2.7 0.7 8.0 Table 6 Performance Considering Alternative Resource Distribution

From the comparison of tables 1 and 2 with tables 5 and 6, it can be seen that the performance of examiner 1 can be increased to a higher value than the current one, even if not acting according to the optimal distribution of resources. In this alternative distribution, examiner 1 would have a reduction of up to 22% in the amount of patent applications under its responsibility and a reduction of up to 22% in the time it takes for an application to be granted or denied by the office or abandoned by the applicant or client. outside the patent office, without having to work too hard or have the reduced filing of new patent applications.

Finally, depending on the system and process, it is possible to obtain other resource distributions that improve the performance of examiners even considering a total amount of resources that may be less than that observed through an intuitive process, ie even reducing μ become more efficient. Tables 7 and 8 illustrate an example of resource allocation and its results, also generated in the goal setting phase, where the total examination resource is lower than that shown in table 1 and yet a higher result is obtained than results from table 2.

Table 7 Resource Allocation with Reduced Total Resource

Table 8 Performance considering resource allocation of resources with

reduced total amount of resources

From the comparison of tables 1 and 2 with tables 7 and 8, it can be seen that the performance of examiner 1 can be increased to a higher value than the current one, even not acting according to the optimal distribution of resources. In this alternative distribution, examiner 1 would have a reduction of up to 26% in the amount of patent applications under its responsibility and a reduction of up to 26% in the time it takes for an application to be granted or denied by the office or abandoned by the applicant or client. external to the patent office while maintaining the filing rate of new patent applications and making fewer patent applications than you intuitively do, ie taking 7 exams per month through a system and process response is more efficient than taking 8 exams per month intuitively.

Claims

1 System for performance analysis and optimization of the execution of a project or more projects characterized by:

one or more projects, each described by a series of interconnected work steps through which work packages flow and are processed;

- one or more input streams of new work packages entering projects;

- each project with a maximum number of work steps;

- each work step of each project processing work packages at a processing rate;

- arrival of work packages and work package processing in the work steps taking place according to queuing theory;

- work packages being processed in the work steps by order of arrival in the work step;

- work packages waiting in a queue in the work step waiting to be processed at the end of this queue;

- ability to process work packages in a work step limited to the resources made available for this work step;

- total processing capacity of all work steps limited to a value that must be distributed among the work steps of the various projects;

- an eventual outflow of work packages leaving after each work step of each project;

- each work step of each project containing an average number of work packages;

- a work package going through a work step through which this work package has to go in an average time;

- each project containing a total average number of work packages;

- each project being covered by a work package in a total average time;

the system being able to: - analyze project execution performance by calculating the number of project work packages and the average time it takes a work package to go through each project given a given distribution of work package processing resources between steps of project;

- allocate available resources for work package processing among different work steps of different projects to improve project execution by minimizing the total amount of project work packages and minimizing the average time a project package work takes to go through each of the projects.

System for analyzing and optimizing the execution performance of a project or more projects according to independent claim 1, characterized in that the projects are independent.

System for analyzing and optimizing the execution performance of a project or more projects according to independent claim 1, characterized in that the projects are dependent.

System for analyzing and optimizing the execution performance of a project or more projects according to independent claim 1, characterized in that the projects are hybrid.

System for analyzing and optimizing the execution performance of a project or more projects according to claims 2, 3 or 4, characterized in that the projects represent the processing of intellectual property assets.

A system for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 5, characterized in that the intellectual property assets are trademark registrations.

System for analyzing and optimizing the execution performance of a project or more projects according to claim 5, characterized in that the intellectual property assets are computer program records.

System for performance analysis and optimization of the execution of a project or more projects according to claim 5, characterized in that the intellectual property assets are industrial designs. A system for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects, according to claim 5, characterized in that the intellectual property assets are geographical indications.

System for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 5, characterized in that the intellectual property assets are technology transfer agreements.

System for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 5, characterized in that the intellectual property assets are integrated circuits.

A system for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects, according to claim 5, characterized in that the intellectual property assets are patent applications.

System for analyzing and optimizing the execution performance of a project or more projects according to claim 12, characterized in that:

- the new work package rates _} for each project j correspond to the new patent application submission rates;

- the maximum number of work steps Pj per project j corresponds to the number of steps of administrative or technical procedures performed at the patent office for the generation of an opinion or report and the steps of depositors or external customers to respond to these opinions. or reports generated by the patent office;

- the processing of the work steps corresponds to the performance of administrative or technical procedures performed at the patent office for the generation of an opinion or report and the response by depositors or external clients to these opinions or reports generated by the patent office;

- the processing fees U _j of work packages in a work stage i of a project j correspond to the patent office processing fees by the patent office in carrying out administrative or technical procedures for the generation of opinions, or either by depositors or external clients to provide a response to patent office advice or reports;

- total processing capacity μ corresponds to the total processing capacity of the patent office or patent office only and of depositors or clients outside the patent office, as the responses of depositors or external clients to office advice or reports patent applications can be selected and set based on a fixed average time frame or average patent application amount;

the percentage of entry fees for new work packages that are completed after each work step of each project corresponds to the decision rates of patent applications after each step of processing by the patent office;

- the average amount of work packages in a work step i in a project j (L _j i) is the average amount of patent applications in a processing step i in a project j by the patent office or the depositor or client external to the patent office;

- the average amount of work packages in a project j (L _j ) corresponds to the average amount of patent applications in a project j;

- the total average amount of work packages in the system (L) corresponds to the total average amount of patent applications in the system;

- the average time it takes for a work package to go through a work step i in a project j (Wjj) is the average time it takes for a patent application to go through a processing step i in a project j by the patent office, or by the depositor or client outside the patent office; - The average time it takes for a work package to go through project j (Wj) is the average time it takes for a patent application to go through project j.

System for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects, according to claim 13, characterized in that there is only one project related to the administrative procedures of an office of patents and appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

System for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 13, characterized in that there is only a single project relating to the technical procedures of a patent office and the appropriate responses of the filers or clients outside the patent office.

System for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 13, characterized in that there is only one project relating to the administrative and technical procedures of a patent office and the appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

17. A system for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 13, characterized in that there is only one project relating to the first instance patent office proceedings and the appropriate responses from the patent office. depositors or clients outside the patent office.

A system for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 13, characterized in that there is only one project relating to the second instance patent office proceedings and the appropriate responses from the patent office. depositors or clients outside the patent office.

19. A system for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 13, characterized in that there is only one project relating to the patent office proceedings and the appropriate responses from the patent office. depositors or clients outside the patent office.

System for analyzing and optimizing the execution performance of a project or more projects according to claim 13, characterized in that there are two projects relating to the first and second instance proceedings of a patent office and the appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

A system for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 13, characterized by the fact that there are multiple projects relating to the multi-instance processing of a patent office and the appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

22. A system for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 13, characterized by the fact that there are three projects relating to the first and second instance proceedings and a lawsuit filed by a patent office. due responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

A system for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 13, characterized by the fact that there are multiple projects relating to multi-technical proceedings and multiple patent office projects. and due responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

A system for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 13, characterized in that there is only one project relating to the receipt of PCT patent applications and the appropriate responses from depositors or clients. outside the patent office.

25 - System for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 13, characterized in that there is only one project related to the execution of an international search report and the appropriate responses from depositors or clients. outside the patent office.

A system for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 13, characterized in that there is only one project relating to the preparation of an international preliminary examination report and the appropriate responses from the depositors or clients outside the patent office. System for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects, according to claim 13, characterized by the fact that there are three projects related to the reception procedures of PCT requests, the execution of an international search report and the execution of International Preliminary Examination Report and appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

A system for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 13, characterized by the fact that there are several projects representing the different receiving and searching authorities and international examination of PCT requests and the appropriate ones. responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

A system for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 13, characterized in that the projects consist of a national-level patent office and its possible sources for patent filing and appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

System for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 13, characterized in that the projects consist of a national-level patent office and its possible patent application destinations and the appropriate ones. responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

A system for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 13, characterized in that the projects consist of an international receiving, searching and examining authority and their possible sources for patent applications and appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

32. A system for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 13, characterized in that the projects consist of an international receiving, searching and examining authority and its possible destinations for patent applications and the appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

A process for analyzing and optimizing the execution performance of a project or projects, which describes the processing of the systems set forth in claims 1 to 32, comprising the following phases:

- preparation phase, comprising the following sub-phases:

o map existing working groups;

o define the activities that these working groups carry out;

o define interactions between projects;

- Data collection and performance evaluation phase, comprising the following sub-phases:

o collect historical data for calculating the average submission rates of new work packages j for each project j;

o collect historical data for calculating the maximum number of work steps P _j for each project j;

o collect historical data for the calculation of the average work packet processing rate μ for each work step i of each project j o collect historical data for the calculation of the withdrawal percentages pjj from the average workload submission rates λ¾ of work packages after each work step i of each project j;

o calculate the average number of work packages L _j at each work step i of each project j based on the data collected; o calculate the average time Wji that each work package takes to go through a work step i of a project j based on the data collected;

o calculate the total average number of work packages Lj of each project j from the calculated results of average number of work packages Lji in each work step i of each project j;

o calculate the total average time Wj that each work package takes to go through each project j from the calculated average time results Wjj that each work package takes to go through a work step i of a project j;

o calculate the total average amount of work packages L in the system from the average total quantities of work packages Lj of each project j;

o assemble a matrix presenting for the combination of raised rates Uji the data considered for the calculation of the results (Àj, Pj, μ, pji, Uj and their respective results (Lji, Wjj, Lj, Wj and L).

- goal setting phase, comprising the following sub-phases:

o generate a matrix with all possible combinations of work packet processing rates Uji per work step i per project j respecting the maximum limit of μ as the sum of these rates, these rates being positive Uji;

o for each combination of rates μ, calculate the average number of work packages Lji in each work step i of each project j based on the other system data collected in the data collection phase; o for each combination of rates μ ^, calculate the average time Wjj that each work package takes to go through a work step i of a project j based on the other system data collected in the data collection phase;

o for each combination of rates Ujj, calculate the total average amount of work packages Lj of each project from the calculated results of average number of work packages L _j j in each work step i of each project j;

o for each combination of rates Uji, calculate the total average time Wj that each work package takes to go through each project from the calculated average time results W _j i that each work package takes to go through a work step i of a project j;

o for each rate combination Uj, calculate the total average amount of work packages Lj in the system from the average total quantities of work packages Lj of each project j;

o Using an optimization method, determine the minimum value of L, which is the optimal result, for a given combination of rates μ ^; o assemble a matrix presenting for each combination of rates Uj, the data considered for the calculation of these results (λ ^ Pj, μ, pjj, Ujj) and their respective results (Lji, Wji, L _j , Wj and L);

o apply to the system one of the combinations of rates j ,, considering the data raised (k _j , Pj, μ, Ojj) in order to obtain the desired results. on what:

- After a certain period of time after the goal setting phase, which is dependent on the system project types, a new data collection and performance evaluation phase is carried out to verify the achievement of the goals and update the survey. of data;

- After a certain period of time after the goal setting phase, which is dependent on the project types of the system, a new preparation phase is carried out to check for changes in the working groups, projects and project stages.

34. The process for analyzing and optimizing the execution performance of a project or more projects according to claim 33, wherein it is possible to select and fix the average processing time of a work package for specific project specific work steps ( Wji) or the average amount of work packages for these work steps (L _j i), so that for these work steps the value of is equally fixed.

35. The process for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 33, characterized in that the total processing capacity μ considers the Ujj values of the project work steps whose average time values. A work package processing (W _j i) or average amount of work packages for these work steps (Lji) were selected and fixed.

36. The process for analyzing and optimizing the execution performance of a project or more projects according to claim 33, characterized in that the total processing capacity μ does not consider the values of Uj of the project work steps whose values of Average processing time of a work package (Wji) or average amount of work packages for these work steps (L _j i) were selected and fixed.

37. A process for analyzing and optimizing the execution performance of a project or projects according to claim 33, characterized in that the total processing capacity μ can be analyzed and optimized more widely for the calculation of results by the establishment phase. by providing a spectrum of total processing capacities μ for this phase, whose individual values of this spectrum of total processing capacity μ will be used one by one in the targeting phase, so that an overall result of this phase considering all The possible values of total processing capacity μ can be considered for the formation of the result matrix and the determination of the overall optimal results and per value of total processing capacity of the spectrum.

38. The process for analyzing and optimizing the execution performance of a project or projects according to claim 33, characterized in that the submission rates of new work packages X _j for each project can be analyzed and optimized more widely. for the calculation of results by the goal setting phase by providing an array of submission rate combinations of new work packages Xj for each project j for this phase, whose new work package submission rate combinations X _j for all j projects will be used one by one in the goal setting phase, so an overall result of this phase considering all possible combinations of new submission rate values X _j work packages can be considered for the formation of the result matrix and the determination of the overall optimal results and by combining submission rates of new X _j work packages.

A process for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 33, characterized in that the percentages of flow withdrawal p _j i for each work step i of each project can already be analyzed. and more broadly optimized for the calculation of results by the targeting phase by providing an array of flow withdrawal percentage combinations p _j i for each work step i of each project j for this phase, whose combinations of percentage of flow withdrawal _pj i for each work step i of each project j will be used one by one in the goal setting phase, so an overall result of this phase considering all possible combinations of flow withdrawal percentage values Djj can be considered for the formation of the result matrix and the determination of the overall optimal results and by combining the percentages of r flow direction pjj.

A process for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 33, characterized in that the maximum number of project steps P _j can be analyzed and optimized more widely for the calculation of results by goal setting phase by providing a spectrum of maximum number of design steps P _j for this phase, whose combinations of maximum number of design work steps P _j will each be accompanied by multiple combinations of percentage value combinations p _j stream withdrawn from each working step i of each project j, so that a combination of maximum number of project work steps _Pj and their respective combinations of values of PJJ flow withdrawal percentage of each step of work i of each project are already used one by one in the goal setting phase so that an overall result of this phase considering all possible combinations of maximum numbers of project work steps Pj and their respective combinations of flow pull-out percentage values p _j j from each work step i of each project j can be considered for the formation of the result matrix and the determination of optimal overall results and by combining the maximum number of project work steps Pj.

Process for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claims 34, 35, 37, 38, 39 and 40 characterized by the fact that the process allows for a broader analysis and optimization of any combination. of total processing capacity μ, rates of submission of new work packages j for each project j, percentages of flow withdrawal p _j i for each work step i of each project j and maximum number of project steps P _j , setting or no average work package (Wji) processing time or average work package (L _j j) values for certain work steps of certain projects, so this selection and setting is considered for computation or not of the total processing capacity μ.

Process for analyzing and optimizing the execution performance of a project or more projects according to claims 33, 34, 35 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41, characterized in that the process designs reflect the processing of intellectual property assets.

43. A process for analyzing and optimizing the execution performance of a project or more projects according to claim 42, characterized in that the intellectual property asset is trademark registration.

44. A process for analyzing and optimizing the execution performance of a project or more projects according to claim 42, characterized in that the intellectual property asset is an industrial design.

45. A process for analyzing and optimizing the execution performance of a project or more projects according to claim 42, characterized in that the intellectual property assets are integrated circuits. 46. A process for analyzing and optimizing the execution performance of a project or more projects according to claim 42, characterized by the fact that the intellectual property asset is technology transfer agreements.

47. A process for analyzing and optimizing the execution performance of a project or more projects according to claim 42, characterized in that the intellectual property asset is geographical indication.

A process for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 42, characterized in that the intellectual property assets are computer program records.

A process for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 42, characterized in that the intellectual property assets are patent applications.

A process for analyzing and optimizing the execution performance of a project or more projects according to claim 49 characterized by the fact that:

- the rates of new work packages X _j for each project j correspond to the submission rates of new patent applications;

- the work package processing fees in a work stage i of a project j correspond to the patent office processing fees by the patent office in carrying out administrative or technical procedures for the generation of opinions or reports or by depositors or external clients to provide a response to patent office advice or reports;

- the total processing capacity μ corresponds to the total processing capacity of the patent office or patent office only and of depositors or clients outside the patent office, as the responses of depositors or external clients to office advice or reports patent applications can be selected and set based on a fixed average time frame or average patent application amount;

- the percentage of entry fees for new work packages that are completed after each work step i of each project j corresponds to the decision rates of patent applications after each step of processing by the patent office;

- the average amount of work packages in project j (Lj) corresponds to the average amount of patent applications in project j;

- the average time it takes for a work package to go through work step i in project j (W _j j) is the average time it takes for a patent application to go through processing step i in project j by patents or by the depositor or client outside the patent office; - the average time it takes for a work package to go through project j (W _j ) is the average time it takes for a patent application to go through project j;

- the preparation phase considers the mapping of patent application classifications that are examined by a group of examiners or an examiner, since in a patent office an examiner or group of examiners analyzes patent applications based on a set of technologies that are expressed by their respective classifications for project definition and project steps;

- The data collection and performance evaluation phase aims to collect data for the performance of the patent office performance evaluation;

- The goal setting phase aims to set goals and distribute resources between the examination steps to improve patent office performance.

51. A process for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 50, characterized in that there is only one project relating to the administrative procedures of a patent office and the appropriate responses from the filers or clients outside the patent office.

A process for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 50, characterized in that there is only a single project relating to the technical procedures of a patent office and the appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

A process for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 50, characterized in that there is only one project relating to the administrative and technical procedures of a patent office and the appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

A process for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or more projects according to claim 50, characterized in that there is only one project relating to the first instance patent office proceedings and the appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office. A process for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 50, characterized in that there is only one project relating to the second instance patent office proceedings and the appropriate responses from the patent office. depositors or clients outside the patent office.

56. A process for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 50, characterized in that there is only one project relating to the patent office proceedings and the appropriate responses from the patent office. depositors or clients outside the patent office.

Process for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 50, characterized in that there are two projects relating to the first and second instance proceedings of a patent office and the appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

Process for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or more projects according to claim 50, characterized in that there are multiple projects relating to multi-instance patent office proceedings and the appropriate responses from depositors or clients. outside the patent office.

59. A process for analyzing and optimizing the performance of a project or more projects, according to claim 50, characterized by the fact that there are three projects relating to the first and second instance proceedings and a lawsuit filed by a patent office. due responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

60 - System for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 50, characterized by the fact that there are multiple projects relating to multi-technical proceedings and multiple patent office projects. and due responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office. 61. A process for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 50, characterized in that there is only one project relating to the receipt of PCT patent applications and the appropriate responses from depositors or clients. outside the patent office.

62. A process for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 50, characterized in that there is only one project related to the execution of an international search report and the appropriate responses from depositors or clients. outside the patent office.

63. A process for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 50, characterized in that there is only a single project relating to the preparation of an international preliminary examination report and the appropriate responses from the depositors. clients outside the patent office.

64. A process for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects, according to claim 50, characterized by the fact that there are three projects related to the PCT request reception process, the accomplishment of an international search report and the execution of International Preliminary Examination Report and appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

65. A process for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 50, characterized by the fact that there are several projects representing the different receiving and searching authorities and international examination of PCT requests and the appropriate ones. responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

66. A process for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 50, wherein the projects consist of a national-level patent office and its possible sources of patent applications and appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office. 67. The process for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects, according to claim 50, characterized in that the projects consist of a national-level patent office and its possible and appropriate patent application destinations. responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

68. The process for analyzing and optimizing the performance of the execution of a project or projects according to claim 50, wherein the projects consist of an international receiving, searching and examining authority and their possible sources of patent applications. appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.

69. The process for analyzing and optimizing the execution performance of a project or more projects according to claim 50, wherein the projects consist of an international receiving, searching and examining authority and their possible destinations for patent applications. appropriate responses from depositors or clients outside the patent office.