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 17 / 24

Section 17 — AH-17

Professional Performance

Ratings and reviews are extensive; their effect on scheduling is a separate question.

Angi / HandyAH-17Page 17 of 24Public-Evidence Technical Review

Angi / Handy Position — Public Evidence

Angi has substantial ratings, reviews, professional reputation and service-performance data.

Analytical discipline

  • Do not assume reputation affects task scheduling merely because it affects customer choice.
  • The patent element concerns historical performance affecting future schedule construction, which is a narrower proposition.

Technical Investigation Queue

  • Does reputation influence ranking of professionals shown to homeowners?Partially Answered
  • Does reputation influence which professionals receive a lead?Evidence Required
  • Does reputation influence lead distribution volume?Evidence Required
  • Does reputation influence scheduling or appointment allocation?Evidence Required

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 — Professional Performance

PAGE 17 / 24 | AH-17

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.