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
Section 11 — TR-11
Customer Provider Selection
How the customer evaluates the presented candidates — profile, skills, experience, rate, reviews, availability — and where the decision authority actually sits.
Executive Finding
Public evidence establishes that Taskrabbit recommends and ranks but leaves final provider selection to the customer, which is a material difference from an architecture in which the system determines the provider and issues the schedule.
Observed Workflow
- Ranked Candidates
- Profile & Reviews
- Rate Comparison
- Window Selection
- Customer Chooses Tasker
- Booking Confirmed
Patent Question
Who selects the provider — the system or the customer — and how does that compare with the patent's suitable-subset-then-customer-selection sequence?
Patent Architecture Sequence
- Suitable Provider Subset
- Customer Selects Particular Provider
Patent Position
United States Patent Application No. 19/476,586 — "DATA COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING TASK SCHEDULES TO SERVICE PROVIDERS"
Claimed Patent Element
- The identified subset of suitable providers is used to produce a task schedule for a service provider.
Specification / Embodiment Disclosure
- The specification contemplates selection being performed by the system, by the service recipient from a presented subset, or by a combination of both.
- Embodiments describe the selection step being informed by provider attributes already held in the network.
Potential Future Patent Evolution
Potential Future Patent Development — Subject to Patent Attorney Review.
- Autonomous assignment, agent-mediated selection on the customer's behalf, and selection driven by predicted completion outcomes.
Taskrabbit Position
- Customers compare Taskers by hourly rate, rating, review text, completed-task counts, stated skills and the windows each provider can offer.
- The customer makes the final choice; no public material describes the platform assigning a Tasker without customer confirmation in the standard consumer flow.
- Application listings describe browsing local Taskers, comparing rates and reviews and selecting a time as the core product behaviour.
Public Evidence
Each record below opens the full source entry — extract, publication and access dates, direct URL and archived URL where available — without leaving this analysis.
Technical Alignment
- The system narrows to a suitable subset — that part corresponds to the architecture.
- Recommendation and ordering exist, so the platform expresses a preference within the subset.
- Determination, however, is human. On the evidence, Taskrabbit recommends and ranks; it does not automatically select.
Difference / Gap
- Decision authority sits with the customer, so the schedule follows a human choice rather than a system determination.
- Attributes surfaced for the decision are presented for human judgement rather than consumed as computational inputs.
Where Public Evidence Is Incomplete
- Whether partner or retail-originated channels select automatically is not publicly established.
- Whether default ordering effectively determines most selections in practice cannot be assessed from public sources.
Patent \u2194 Taskrabbit Mapping
| Patent element | Taskrabbit position | Status |
|---|---|---|
| System narrows to a suitable subset | Algorithmically generated Tasker results | Strong Observed Correspondence |
| Human final selection of a particular provider | Customer reviews skills, experience, rate, reviews and availability, then selects a Tasker | Strong Observed Correspondence |
| Computational surfacing of a substitute provider | Rebooking after cancellation can offer another Tasker while permitting the customer to browse alternatives | Partial Correspondence |
Language Discipline
- This review does not state that Taskrabbit automatically chooses the final provider. That would require separate evidence for a specific product or API pathway.
- System narrowing and human final selection are conceptually distinct and are recorded separately.
Patent Architecture Beyond Publicly Observed Functionality
The following matters are contemplated by the patent architecture and have not been established from Taskrabbit's public material. Absence of public evidence is not evidence that the functionality is absent from the company's internal technology stack.
- System-determined provider selection producing an issued schedule is contemplated architecturally and is not publicly established here.
Evidence Confidence
The customer-selection model is directly observable in the booking flow and corroborated by application-store product descriptions.
Strategic Interpretation
- This distinction is the one most likely to be tested by opposing technical counsel, and stating it plainly strengthens rather than weakens the review.
- Any future shift toward automatic assignment would move this function materially closer to the architecture.