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 17 — TR-17
Performance & Historical Intelligence
What historical data Taskrabbit holds and how it is used — separating customer-facing reputation, algorithmic provider ranking and scheduling intelligence.
Executive Finding
Ratings, reviews and business metrics are publicly evidenced as customer-facing reputation and as stated inputs to result ordering, but no public source establishes their use as scheduling intelligence.
Observed Workflow
- Completed Tasks
- Ratings & Reviews
- Business Metrics
- Profile Display
- Result Ordering
Patent Question
Is provider history used as a system input, and does it feed reputation or future schedule intelligence?
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
- Provider records used in identifying suitable providers may include information about the provider held within the network.
Specification / Embodiment Disclosure
- The specification contemplates historical performance information being retained and used when assessing providers and scheduling future tasks.
- Embodiments describe completion data informing subsequent duration expectations.
Potential Future Patent Evolution
Potential Future Patent Development — Subject to Patent Attorney Review.
- Completion-probability prediction, per-category suitability modelling and reliability-weighted schedule construction.
Taskrabbit Position
- Ratings, review text and completed-task counts are displayed on profiles and are visible at the point of customer selection.
- Provider-facing material indicates that business performance metrics may influence how a Tasker appears in results.
- Reliability expectations are set out in provider policies, with consequences for standing on the platform.
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
- Customer-facing reputation: strongly evidenced, but it informs a human decision rather than a system determination.
- Algorithmic ranking: stated at a descriptive level, which is the closest observable analogue to performance-informed assessment.
- Scheduling intelligence: not evidenced. No source connects historical data to duration, sequencing or schedule construction.
Difference / Gap
- Historical data appears to be used for visibility and trust rather than as an input to scheduling determinations.
- The architecture contemplates performance influencing future scheduling; the public evidence stops at ordering.
Where Public Evidence Is Incomplete
- Which metrics feed ranking and with what weighting is not disclosed.
- Whether completion outcomes are analysed to correct estimates is not disclosed.
Patent \u2194 Taskrabbit Mapping
| Patent element | Taskrabbit position | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Historical provider data | Established | Strong Observed Correspondence |
| Customer ratings | Established | Strong Observed Correspondence |
| Performance affecting visibility / status | Established (Elite performance score, metro/category comparison) | Strong Observed Correspondence |
| Performance affecting search / recommendation | Evidence exists; current implementation to be dated carefully | Partial Correspondence |
| Historical performance directly adjusting future task schedules | Not established from public material | Not Publicly Established |
Two Different Feedback Loops
- TASKRABBIT OBSERVED: performance → visibility / reputation / status.
- PATENT DISCLOSURE: performance → future schedule intelligence.
- That difference is material to the comparison and is preserved throughout this review.
Dating Discipline
- Historical search-ranking material is classified with its publication date in the Evidence Register.
- No historical algorithm description is implied to remain unchanged in 2026.
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.
- Predictive use of historical performance — suitability, duration correction, completion probability — is not publicly established.
Evidence Confidence
Reputation display is directly evidenced and provider-facing material states that business metrics may affect visibility; no source describes historical data influencing duration, suitability or schedule construction.
Strategic Interpretation
- Historical data is the fuel for every predictive element of the architecture; holding it is not the same as using it.
- The gap between held data and applied intelligence is where the strongest evolution arguments sit.