U.S. Patent Position Review · 19/476,586

U.S. Patent Position Review — 19/476,586

DATA COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING TASK SCHEDULES TO SERVICE PROVIDERS

Published international application: PCT/AU2024/050370 / WO2024216337A1

Return to IndexOverlap MatrixPAGE 07 / 24

Section 07 — AH-07

Provider Schedule & Availability

Angi's public description of schedule as a matching variable, and the limits of that evidence.

Angi / HandyAH-07Page 07 of 24Public-Evidence Technical Review

Angi / Handy Position — Public Evidence

Angi publicly markets professional matching according to trade, schedule and region. That language is highly relevant to the patent's availability element.

Angi matching inputs

  1. Pro trade
  2. Pro region
  3. Pro schedule
  4. Matched lead

Patent architecture

  1. Capability
  2. Geography
  3. Available / preferred time
  4. Suitable provider

Assessment

Availability as a matching variable
Material Technical Correspondence

Ambiguity to resolve

The source establishes use of schedule as a matching variable but may not fully expose the backend implementation.

  • Does "schedule" mean current calendar availability?
  • Does it mean preferred job timing?
  • Does it mean lead-delivery preference (when the pro wants leads)?
  • Or another internal concept entirely?

Public Evidence

Each record exposes the source, publisher, date, direct link, relevant extract, what it establishes, what it does not establish and evidence confidence.

Classification language rule: "Not Publicly Established" records the limits of public evidence reviewed. It is not a finding that the company does not operate the technology. Forward-looking items are labelled: Potential Future Patent Development — Subject to Patent Attorney Review.

HJMT | U.S. Patent Position Review

Angi / Handy — Provider Schedule / Availability

PAGE 07 / 24 | AH-07

This portal provides a technical and commercial patent-positioning analysis based on publicly available information. It does not constitute a legal opinion regarding patent infringement, validity, enforceability, claim construction or freedom to operate. Legal conclusions should be determined by appropriately qualified patent counsel.