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 10 / 24

Section 10 — AH-10

Handy Direct Booking

Handy receives a separate workflow because it is potentially more directly scheduling-oriented than Angi's traditional lead marketplace.

Angi / HandyAH-10Page 10 of 24Public-Evidence Technical Review

Angi / Handy Position — Public Evidence

Handy publicly provides pre-priced services, selectable date, selectable time, professional fulfilment, online rescheduling and online cancellation.

Handy booking architecture

  1. Service
  2. Customer location
  3. Select date
  4. Select time
  5. Pay
  6. Professional assignment
  7. Scheduled service

Patent ↔ Company Technical Mapping

Patent elementAngi / Handy — publicly observedStatus
Appointment date / time generationCustomer selects from offered date and time optionsStrong Observed Correspondence
Platform assignment of a providerProfessional assigned after booking for pre-priced servicesStrong Observed Correspondence
Duration-derived appointment windowBasis of the offered window not publicly establishedNot Publicly Established

Strategic Interpretation

This architecture is materially relevant to the patent's scheduling element.

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 — Handy Direct Booking

PAGE 10 / 24 | AH-10

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.