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 03 / 24

Section 03

Interactive Patent Architecture

Page 03 converts the patent position established on Page 02 into an interactive technical architecture. Nodes PA-01 to PA-17 are permanent identifiers reused throughout the review, so the architecture operates as the index connecting patent element, technical function, patent basis, Taskrabbit function, public evidence and technical difference.

Status

Public-Evidence Technical Review

Every substantive node is traceable: patent architecture → patent element → technical function → patent basis → Taskrabbit function → public evidence → technical alignment or difference. Node identifiers PA-01 to PA-17 remain constant across the Taskrabbit review and will be reused for Angi / Handy and Thumbtack so the three-company comparison compares like with like.

Principal independent claim architecture only.

Architecture layer

Input — Customer

Architecture layer

Input — Provider

Illustrative availability pattern (PA-07)

Monday · 09:00–12:00Tuesday · UnavailableWednesday · 13:00–17:00

Illustrative only. These windows are not asserted as facts about Taskrabbit.

Architecture layer

Orchestration Engine

Service Task Orchestration Engine

PA-02

Task Intelligence

Processes task details.

PA-08

Duration Intelligence

Uses AI techniques to assign a recommended amount of time for task completion.

PA-09

Provider Suitability

Compares task requirements against provider capability.

PA-10

Geographic Suitability

Compares task location against provider operating region.

PA-11

Provider Subset Generation

Identifies providers satisfying the relevant criteria.

PA-12

Provider Selection

Selection of a particular provider from the suitable population.

PA-13

Scheduling Engine

Uses date, time, availability and duration constraints to generate the task schedule.

Architecture layer

Output

Secondary Architecture — Multi-Task Orchestration

An expanded specification-level view. It is not presented as identical to independent Claim 1.

  1. Task A — Location A
  2. Travel
  3. Task B — Location B
  4. Travel
  5. Task C — Location C
Availability windowExpected task durationGeographic constraintsSchedule progress
Page 16 — Multi-Task / Route Optimisation →

Potential Future Patent Development

These concepts sit outside the principal architecture and are visually disconnected from existing claim protection.

Potential Future Patent Development — Subject to Patent Attorney Review.

Where Does Taskrabbit Sit Within This Architecture?

The subsequent review assesses whether publicly available Taskrabbit evidence establishes technical correspondence across the complete orchestration chain, or only across selected components of it. The review therefore distinguishes marketplace functionality from provider matching, from scheduling, from AI-assisted scheduling intelligence, and from broader service-provider orchestration.

Side-by-Side Architecture

Each connection pairs an element of the application's architecture with the corresponding element of Taskrabbit's publicly observed architecture.

United States Patent Application No. 19/476,586

Taskrabbit publicly observed architecture

Explanation

Published availability constrains the time options presented to the customer at booking.

Difference

Patent reconciles availability against duration and travel to yield windows.

Evidence & Confidence

Confirmed

Open analysis

Secondary Navigation

Technical alignment is an analytical assessment of publicly observable functionality and does not constitute a legal conclusion regarding infringement.

HJMT | U.S. Patent Position Review

Patent Architecture

PAGE 03 / 24

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.