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 14 / 24

Section 14 — AH-14

Cost Estimation

Cost intelligence is extensive; it must remain visually and analytically separate from duration intelligence.

Angi / HandyAH-14Page 14 of 24Public-Evidence Technical Review

Angi / Handy Position — Public Evidence

Angi operates extensive cost-estimation functionality, and its AI-guided systems help homeowners understand what a project might cost and what to expect in planning it.

Cost Intelligence — Established

  • Project cost ranges
  • Pre-priced service pricing
  • AI-guided cost expectations

Duration Intelligence — Not Established

  • Recommended time to complete the task
  • Duration used to size an appointment window
  • Duration used to construct a professional's day

Limitation panel — PRICE ≠ DURATION

  • A published price does not establish a computed task length.
  • Cost models may use labour assumptions that are never surfaced publicly; absence of disclosure is not evidence of absence.

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 — Cost Estimation

PAGE 14 / 24 | AH-14

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.