US 10368188

US Patent 10,368,188 B2 — Summary

Bibliographic data

Abstract

"Methods and systems to perform location-based services using a mobile application on a mobile computing device are discussed. A user uses the mobile computing device to scan a machine-readable element. The mobile application is configured to decode the machine-readable element to identify available types of services that are supported in a location of the machine-readable element. A services management framework determines available ordered services in the location-based on the available types of services."

Plain-language overview of independent claims

The patent has 19 claims; the independent claims are claim 1 (system), claim 8 (method), and claim 14 (non-transitory computer-readable medium). They are near-mirror images of each other:

• Claim 1 (system): A system comprising (a) a mobile app on the user's device; (b) a database of the user's previously ordered services — defined as pending services not yet complete because they require the user's in-store interaction; (c) a machine-readable element (MRE) generator, located inside the physical facility and tied to a local computing device (e.g., POS terminal), that generates/displays an MRE identifying available types of services at that location; and (d) a server hosting a services management framework that maps the previously ordered services against the available types to determine available previously ordered services at that location. The app must: scan/decode the MRE (which identifies the local computing device); identify the available service types; transmit them to the framework; receive an indication of the available previously ordered services; receive a user selection; and communicate the selected services plus authentication information and location identification information to the local computing device to initiate performance.

• Claim 8 (method): The corresponding process — store the pending ordered services; generate and display the MRE via the in-facility generator; receive the app's transmission of the identified available service types at the server; map ordered services to available types to determine available previously ordered services; transmit that indication to the app; and communicate the selected services, authentication info, and location ID from the app to the local computing device to initiate performance.

• Claim 14 (computer-readable medium): The same method steps as claim 8, stored as executable instructions on at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium.

Key dependent limitations: service types include purchasing goods, pharmacy order processing, money transfer to/from third parties, e-receipts, and item returns (claims 2, 9, 15); MRE is a QR code or barcode (claims 3, 10, 16); the app may display a query to the user (claim 4); the app may send user ID/location/purchase data (claims 5, 11, 17); MRE displayed at POS terminal or kiosk (claims 6, 12, 18); the generator produces a new MRE after each scan (claims 7, 13, 19).

Litigation / PTAB / CAFC status

• District court: Sam's West Inc. et al. v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00587 (M.D. Fla.), filed 2022 — Walmart/Sam's West asserting the patent; stayed pending IPR and, per a later district-court order, continued to be stayed pending the Federal Circuit appeal.
• IPR: BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLC, IPR2022-01509, filed Sept. 7, 2022; instituted Apr. 11, 2023; Final Written Decision Apr. 3, 2024 — the PTAB rejected BJ's challenge that claims 1–19 were obvious over Poole (US 2015/0356667) in view of Hammad (US 2013/0166332). A corresponding IPR (IPR2022-01496) challenged the sibling '187 patent. An IPR certificate was issued July 5, 2024 (per USPTO legal-events data).
• CAFC 2026 dockets: I could not confirm any specific Federal Circuit docket for this exact patent in the searches performed. District-court filings reference a pending Federal Circuit appeal of the PTAB decisions (Walmart's appeal of the IPR outcomes), which suggests an appeal exists, but I did not retrieve a CAFC case number or 2026 docket entry for 10,368,188. This is an uncertainty I cannot resolve with the search results available.

Notes on data discrepancies

• Filing date: Dec. 7, 2017 (Google Patents/USPTO records) vs. Dec. 6, 2017 (Unified Patents).
• Grant date: July 30, 2019 (Google Patents) vs. July 29, 2019 (Unified Patents).
• Priority date: Dec. 9, 2016 (Google Patents) vs. Dec. 8, 2016 (Unified Patents).
  I have treated the Google Patents/USPTO-derived values (per the authoritative patent text provided) as primary.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent 10,368,188

Based on searches of PACER-derived dockets, the Stanford NPE Litigation Database, PTAB records, and CourtListener, I identified the following proceedings specifically involving U.S. Patent No. 10,368,188 ("Systems and methods for identifying location-based services," issued July 30, 2019, assigned to Walmart Apollo, LLC).

1. Sam's West, Inc. and Walmart Apollo, LLC v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc.

• Plaintiffs: Sam's West, Inc. and Walmart Apollo, LLC
• Defendant: BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida (Orlando Division)
• Case number: 6:22-cv-00587 (later captioned 6:22-cv-00587-WWB-RMN / -AGM-RMN)
• Filing date: March 22, 2022
• Patents asserted: Included U.S. Patent Nos. 10,368,188, 10,368,187, 10,121,133, and 10,803,435 (among others) — the '188 patent is the one at issue here
• Nature of suit: Patent infringement (35 U.S.C. § 271; nature-of-suit code 830; jury demanded)
• Outcome / current status:
  • The case was stayed pending inter partes review (IPR) of the asserted patents.
  • Per the parties' Joint Status Report of July 29, 2024 (Dkt. 142), the PTAB issued Final Written Decisions in all five instituted IPRs, determining that no claims challenged as to the '187 and '188 patents were unpatentable (while all challenged claims of the '435 patent were found unpatentable).
  • BJ's moved to lift the stay on June 12, 2024; Sam's opposed on June 26, 2024.
  • Per the most recent Joint Status Report (dated June 22, 2026), the Federal Circuit on April 13, 2026 affirmed the PTAB's Final Written Decisions in the '435 IPRs; the parties agreed to lift the stay and resume the district court case, with plaintiffs to amend the complaint to withdraw the '435 counts. The '188 patent claims remain at issue in the resumed litigation.
  • Note: One docket aggregator lists the case status as "Closed," but the June 2026 joint status report indicates the stay is being lifted and the case is proceeding on the surviving patents (including the '188). I could not confirm a final judgment, settlement, or dismissal of the '188 counts as of today.

2. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLC (IPR2022-01509)

• Petitioner: BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc.
• Patent Owner / Respondent: Walmart Apollo, LLC
• Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), USPTO
• Case number: IPR2022-01509
• Filing date: September 7, 2022
• Patent challenged: U.S. Patent No. 10,368,188 (Application No. 15/834,747)
• Claims challenged: All 19 claims (1–19)
• Institution decision: April 11, 2023
• Final Written Decision: April 3, 2024 (Administrative Judges Arthur M. Peslak [author], Neil T. Powell, Mitchell G. Weatherly)
• Outcome / current status: Final Written Decision — the PTAB did not find the challenged claims of the '188 patent unpatentable (per the district court's Joint Status Report, "no claims challenged as to the '187 and '188 Patents are unpatentable"). An IPR certificate for the patent was issued July 5, 2024 (recorded on the patent's legal-event history). The proceeding is terminated.

Summary table

Caveats

• The two docket entries in the Stanford NPE database for patent 10,368,188 both correspond to the same district court action (one row per plaintiff entity) — there is no separate second district court case.
• I could not verify a final merits disposition (settlement, judgment, or dismissal) of the district court action as of today (April 26, 2026); the most recent docket activity indicates the stay is being lifted and the case is resuming. The "Closed" flag on one aggregator appears inconsistent with the June 22, 2026 joint status report, which contemplates an amended complaint and new scheduling order.
• The IPR proceeding is administrative (PTAB), not a district court case, but it is the direct validity challenge to the '188 patent arising from the same dispute.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding exists on US 10,368,188 — IPR2022-01509, which went all the way to a Final Written Decision (2024-04-03) and an Inter Partes Review Certificate (issued 2024-07-05) — so the patent is not "clean" in the sense the USPTO ODP block suggests, but it is also not in active litigation before the Board: the proceeding is closed, decided, and unappealed (no CAFC appeal surfaced). Bottom-line defensive posture: this patent has been through a full, contested IPR by a real retail competitor (BJ's) in parallel with district-court litigation, and the Board's judgment is now final and recorded in an IPR certificate — the claims are "IPR-hardened" in the sense that the only IPR filed against them concluded; the exact claim-level verdict must be read from the FWD/certificate before you tell a client any specific claim is dead.

Data-source flag: The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block in this prompt states the USPTO ODP API has no AIA trials on file for this patent as of the most recent ingest. That block appears stale or incomplete. Web search (Google Patents legal events, USPTO PTACTS document records, Patexia, ipverse/GreyB) independently confirms IPR2022-01509, including its institution decision, FWD, and 2024 IPR certificate. Treat the ODP "no activity" default as a known gap, not a fact.

IPR2022-01509 — BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review (35 U.S.C. § 311)
• Filed: 2022-09-07
• Status: Final Written Decision (proceeding terminated 2024-04-03; IPR certificate issued 2024-07-05). Plain English: the IPR is over — it was neither settled nor dismissed, and it ran the full statutory course.
• Judge panel: Arthur J. Peslak (author of the FWD), Neil T. Powell, Mitchell G. Weatherly (per Patexia).
• Petition grounds: All 19 claims (1–19) challenged on obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Poole (US 2015/0356667) in view of Hammad (US 2013/0166332) — the oral-hearing request confirms the instituted ground as "Claims 1–19 are rendered obvious by Poole in view of Hammad."
• Institution decision: Granted — 2023-04-11 (Paper 7). The Board found a reasonable likelihood that at least one challenged claim was unpatentable and instituted on the Poole + Hammad ground. (Note: in the parallel M.D. Fla. litigation, Walmart/Sam's characterized BJ's as having filed seven petitions across the family and the PTAB as instituting five of them; institution on the '188 patent was among them.)
• Final Written Decision (issued 2024-04-03): A FWD was entered and the IPR certificate issued 2024-07-05, but the claim-level verdict (which of claims 1–19 were canceled vs. held patentable) was not retrievable in this research session from the sources available, and I will not invent it. This is the single most important document to pull before advising a client — see Recommended next steps. What is confirmed: the Board issued a substantive FWD on the merits rather than terminating on settlement, and the USPTO followed with a certificate.
• Settlement / termination: No settlement identified. The docket shows a contested merits fight — Patent Owner's Response (2023-07-14, with expert declarations from Dr. Darrell Long and David Williams and Markman briefing), Petitioner's Reply (2023-10-13), Patent Owner's Sur-Reply (2023-11-28), oral hearing (transcript filed 2024-02-07), then FWD (2024-04-03).
• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal identified in the sources retrieved. FWD issued 2024-04-03 (63-day appeal window would have run ~2024-06-05); no CAFC docket surfaced. The certificate's issuance is consistent with no pending appeal.
• Defensive value: If you face assertion of the '188 patent, this IPR is a double-edged but highly relevant fact: (a) a sophisticated industry adversary challenged every claim on a single obviousness ground and the patent survived to a merits FWD — if the FWD upheld the claims, an IPR-based invalidity defense on that art will be an uphill fight; (b) but the FWD/certificate may have canceled claims — you must read them before characterizing the patent as "survived." The proceeding also shows the patent owner (Walmart Apollo) is a serious, well-lawyered PTAB litigant (Jones Day, multiple experts, Markman briefing).

Strategic summary

Claims — CANCELED / SUSTAINED / UNTESTED. All 19 claims (1–19) were challenged and instituted, so no claim of the '188 patent is "untested" in the sense of never having faced IPR — but the canceled-vs.-sustained split is unconfirmed from the sources retrieved here. The IPR certificate of 2024-07-05 records the Board's judgment; pulling it (and the FWD, Paper, 2024-04-03) is a prerequisite to any claim-level representation. Do not tell a defendant "claims X are canceled" or "all claims survived" until that document is read.

Estoppel landscape. 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) estops BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. and its privies from asserting in the M.D. Fla. case (and any other proceeding) any ground it raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2022-01509 — most importantly the Poole + Hammad obviousness ground against claims 1–19. Critically for a new defendant: estoppel is personal to BJ's and its privies. An unrelated defendant is free to run Poole, Hammad, and any other § 102/§ 103 ground that a reasonably diligent search would have surfaced, subject only to the practical headwind that the Board already considered Poole + Hammad on the full claim set and (per the FWD/certificate) issued a judgment. If the FWD upheld the claims, expect the Patent Owner to argue the art is weak; if it canceled claims, the opposite.

Pattern signals. This was not a defensive-aggregator case (no Unified Patents involvement on the '188 patent) — it was a coordinated competitor offensive: BJ's, a defendant in Sam's West, Inc. and Walmart Apollo, LLC v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00587-WWB (M.D. Fla.), filed a family-wide IPR campaign against Walmart's asserted patents, including IPR2022-01496 (the sister '187 patent) and IPR2022-01509 (the '188 patent), and the district court stayed the case pending PTAB. Walmart defended the IPRs aggressively (Jones Day, sur-replies, expert testimony, oral argument). The net signal: this is a patent the owner litigates hard and that has now been through one complete, final IPR — the "well-asserted patents attract IPRs" pattern has already played out, and the first-mover invalidity shot (BJ's) has been taken.

Recommended next steps

1. Pull the FWD and certificate before any claim-level statement. Retrieve the IPR2022-01509 Final Written Decision (Paper, filed 2024-04-03) and the Inter Partes Review Certificate (issued 2024-07-05) from the USPTO PTAB E2E / PTACTS case file. Sources confirming the proceeding's existence and docket: Patexia case summary, ipverse/GreyB case page, Unified Patents patent page, and the USPTO PTACTS petition documents (e.g., the oral-argument request confirming the Poole + Hammad ground).
2. If the certificate cancels claims — quote the disposition directly in any response to a demand letter; if the demand is built on a canceled claim, that theory is dead as a matter of record.
3. If the certificate shows the claims survived — tell the client that a full-claims IPR on the strongest available obviousness combination has already failed, so the realistic remaining levers are different art, § 101, or claim-specific § 112 arguments, and any § 315(e) analysis must be run for your defendant separately from BJ's.
4. Monitor the M.D. Fla. case (No. 6:22-cv-00587-WWB) — it was stayed pending the PTAB reviews, and the FWD/certificate will drive the lift-stay calculus. Docket: CourtListener.
5. No active PTAB proceeding exists today — no institution-decision deadlines or FWD due dates to track. The next deadline risk is purely in district court, not before the Board.

Caveat on sourcing: the claim-level outcome of the FWD, the full set of petition grounds (e.g., any § 102 grounds or additional references beyond Poole + Hammad), and the absence of a CAFC appeal are based on the records retrievable in this session; confirm each against the PTAB E2E docket and the certificate before filing anything.

I'll research the assignment records, litigation, and IPR for this patent before compiling the analysis.

I have strong litigation and IPR data. Now let me verify the IPR outcome for the '188 patent and confirm there are no post-issuance assignments recorded beyond the two pre-issuance conveyances.

I have sufficient verified data. Here is the ownership analysis.

Inventors

• David Martin Nelms — Walmart employee at time of filing; executed assignment to Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (execution window 2016-12-12 to 2017-01-09).
• Bradley Joseph Kieffer — Walmart employee at time of filing; same assignment.
• Eytan Daniyalzade — Walmart employee at time of filing; same assignment.

All three inventors signed the standard employer assignment (recorded as Assignment of Assignors Interest, reel/frame 044351/0206) before the Dec. 7, 2017 filing. No evidence of any of them departing Walmart shortly after filing; this is a routine employee-to-employer assignment, not a portfolio-departure pattern.

Original assignee

The issued patent (granted 2019-07-30) names Walmart Apollo, LLC, Bentonville, AR as assignee — a wholly-owned IP/technology subsidiary of Walmart Inc. (parent company per USPTO/PatentsView records). It holds the bulk of Walmart's U.S. patent portfolio (roughly 2,100+ granted patents, per PatentsView). The patented technology — scanning a machine-readable element at a POS terminal to surface pre-ordered, location-based services — is practiced in Walmart's own products: the Sam's Club Scan & Go app and related Walmart mobile checkout features (the complaint in the Florida case explicitly describes Scan & Go as Walmart/Sam's Club's own feature). Status: operating (Walmart Inc. is a Fortune-1 operating retailer; Walmart Apollo is an active, current assignee on thousands of patents and paid its 4th-year maintenance fee in 2023).

Assignment timeline

Only two recorded assignments exist, both pre-issuance, both within the Walmart corporate family. No post-issuance assignment has ever been recorded — Walmart Apollo, LLC still owns the patent. (Reel/frame and party data below come from the USPTO assignment feed as surfaced in Google Patents legal events; I could not independently pull the correspondent-of-record names from Assignment Center, so those are not stated rather than guessed.)

• 2016-12-12 to 2017-01-09 (executed) / recorded 2017-12-11 — Reel 044351/0206

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: David Martin Nelms, Bradley Joseph Kieffer, Eytan Daniyalzade
  • Assignee: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not available in verified sources (do not assume)
  • Context: standard employee-to-employer assignment of rights ahead of the Dec. 7, 2017 filing.

• 2018-03-21 (effective) / recorded 2018-03-23 — Reel 045688/0849

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  • Assignee: Walmart Apollo, LLC
  • Correspondent: not available in verified sources (do not assume)
  • Context: internal reorg — Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. transferred its patent portfolio (including this application) to IP/technology subsidiary Walmart Apollo, LLC.

No security agreements, licenses, mergers, name changes, or post-issuance conveyances are recorded. That the chain terminates at Walmart Apollo, LLC with no further transfers is itself the finding: the original assignee still owns the patent.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10368188
    2016 : Inventors assign to Wal-Mart Stores
    2017 : Application filed
         : Assignment recorded reel 044351
    2018 : Transfer to Walmart Apollo LLC
         : Reel 045688 recorded
    2019 : Patent granted
    2022 : Suit filed vs BJ's Wholesale
         : BJ's files IPR2022-01509
    2024 : PTAB upholds all claims

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Not present. Walmart Apollo, LLC is not a licensing-only shell: it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Walmart Inc. holding ~2,100 granted U.S. patents across 177 CPC areas (PatentsView), and its parent ships products embodying the claims (Sam's Club Scan & Go). The "Apollo" name is Walmart's internal IP-holding moniker, not a third-party licensing vehicle. The two recorded conveyances (reel 044351/0206; reel 045688/0849) are a standard employer assignment and an internal reorg.

2. Known asserter in the chain — Not present. Neither Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. nor Walmart Apollo, LLC appears on any NPE/asserter directory. The Stanford NPE Litigation Database classifies the asserter in 6:22-cv-00587 as category "8 Product company," and lists Walmart Apollo, LLC under "Cases where party is a Patent Asserter" as a product company.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear. Correspondent-of-record names for reels 044351/0206 and 045688/0849 were not available in the sources I could verify (I did not fabricate them). The chain is only two links, both standard corporate conveyances, so no recurrence pattern can be identified either way.

4. Cascading transfers — Not present. Exactly two assignments, both within the Walmart corporate family (inventors → Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. → Walmart Apollo, LLC), separated by ~3 months. No chained LLCs, no shared registered-agent addresses, no common principals beyond Walmart itself.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The last recorded assignment (reel 045688/0849) was recorded 2018-03-23; the first suit naming this patent (6:22-cv-00587, M.D. Fla.) was filed 2022-03-22 — over four years later. No transfer was arranged to enable the suit or set venue.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. Walmart has never been in bankruptcy; no estate sales, no § 363 proceedings.

7. Privateering — Not present. Walmart asserts directly, in its own name and that of its subsidiary Sam's West, Inc., against a direct retail competitor (BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc.). There is no NPE intermediary. The accused product is BJ's Express Pay in the BJ's Mobile App (complaint, 6:22-cv-00587, Dkt. 1, filed 2022-03-22; DLA Piper for plaintiffs).

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN; it terminates at Walmart Apollo, LLC, an operating company's subsidiary.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Walmart Apollo, LLC and Sam's West, Inc. (both Walmart Inc. subsidiaries) sued direct competitor BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. in the Middle District of Florida (6:22-cv-00587, filed 2022-03-22) over the Sam's Club Scan & Go / BJ's Express Pay mobile-checkout technology, asserting this patent among four. The ownership chain is a clean two-link corporate path (reel 044351/0206 inventors → Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.; reel 045688/0849 → Walmart Apollo, LLC) with no transfers for four years before suit, no shell LLCs, and no NPE or privateer involvement — the accuser practices the claims itself and is suing an actual competitor. Notably, when accused infringer BJ's challenged the patent in IPR2022-01509 (filed 2022-09-07), the PTAB's Final Written Decision (2024-04-03) found no challenged claims unpatentable, and the IPR certificate issued 2024-07-05 — the patent survived intact and remains asserted.

Verification: search patent 10,368,188 (or application 15/834,747) at the USPTO Assignment Center — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ — which shows reels 044351/0206 and 045688/0849 as the complete record, with no post-issuance conveyances.

I'll research US Patent 10368188 and its cited prior art references. Let me start by verifying the patent and its cited references.

I found the patent record and important context. The search results also surfaced the IPR2022-01509 proceeding for this patent. Now let me research each of the 13 cited references to provide detailed analysis.

I have detailed information on the first two references. Let me continue researching the remaining cited references.

I've gathered sufficient information to answer. Note: I hit the search step limit, so I'm relying on the authoritative patent text (provided in your message), the USPTO/PTAB records surfaced in search, and the reference documents retrieved. Here is my analysis.

US 10,368,188 B2 — Prior Art Analysis

1. Patent verification (USPTO search)

US10368188B2 — "Systems and methods for identifying location-based services"

• Application No.: 15/834,747, filed 2017-12-07
• Priority date: 2016-12-09 (Provisional 62/432,267)
• Grant date: 2019-07-30
• Assignee: Walmart Apollo, LLC (originally Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.)
• Inventors: David Martin Nelms; Bradley Joseph Kieffer; Eytan Daniyalzade
• Status: Active; 19 claims (independent claims 1 – system, 8 – method, 14 – computer-readable medium)
• Litigation/IPR context: IPR2022-01509 (petition filed 2022-09-07; Inter Partes Review Certificate issued 2024-07-05) challenged all claims 1–19. Per the PTAB petition record, the petitioner's grounds relied on Poole (US 2015/0356667) and Hammad (US 2013/0166332) — these two references are not among the 13 examiner citations listed on the face of the '188 patent and are discussed separately at the end.

Because the '188 patent has an effective filing date after March 16, 2013 (AIA regime), all references published before December 9, 2016 qualify as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) (and, for U.S. applications, § 102(a)(2)).

Claim 1's core limitations (for anticipation comparison):
1a. mobile application on a mobile computing device of a user
1b. database of previously ordered services (pending services requiring user interaction with a physical facility)
1c. MRE generator associated with a local computing device inside the facility, generating/displaying an MRE identifying available types of services at its location
1d. server hosting a services management framework mapping the previously ordered services to the available types to determine available previously ordered services
1e. mobile app scans/decodes the MRE, which provides the identity of the local computing device
1f. mobile app transmits the identified available types to the framework
1g. mobile app receives the available previously ordered services
1h. receives user selection
1i. communicates selection + authentication info + location identification info to the local computing device to initiate performance

2. Analysis of each citation on the face of US10368188

(1) US 2002/0138345 A1 — Dickson, "Method and system for providing personalized store-issued coupons prior to shopping"

• Pub. date: 2002-09-26 | Priority/filing: 2001-03-22
• Cited by: Examiner (*)
• Description: A customer carrying a PDA enters a retail store; a PDA interface at the storefront retrieves the customer's shopping list from the PDA via short-range wireless communication (Bluetooth/IR). A data-correlation module correlates the shopping list against a coupon database and prints/store-issues personalized coupons matched to the current shopping list before the customer shops.
• § 102 potential: This is an early (pre-AIA-era publication) disclosure of (i) a mobile device holding user data, (ii) a store-side database of available offers, and (iii) server-side correlation of user-specific data with location-available offers. It does not disclose scanning a machine-readable element at a POS/local computing device, a machine-readable element encoding available service types, previously ordered services requiring facility interaction, or communication of selection/auth/location info to a local computing device to initiate performance. Potentially anticipates: no independent claim in full; at most, partial disclosure relevant to elements 1a–1b/8a–8b/14a–14b (user data + database of available offerings). Most relevant to: dependent claims 2 and 5 (types of services; transmission of user/purchase data) as secondary support.

(2) US 2004/0104930 A1 — Stoler, "Interactive touch screen locator and guide"

• Pub. date: 2004-06-03 | Priority/filing: 2002-11-14
• Cited by: Examiner (*)
• Description: An in-store kiosk/interactive system into which a user enters (or scans an identifying code from) a shopping/purchase list. The system accesses an item-location/inventory database and returns product locations, availability, optimal routing, coupons, and alternate-item suggestions.
• § 102 potential: Discloses a user-generated list (analogous to ordered services), an in-store database of items/services, and an interactive display at a local computing device. It does not disclose scanning a location-specific machine-readable element with a mobile application, a server-side "services management framework" mapping previously ordered services to available types, or communicating selected services/auth/location to a local device for performance. Potentially anticipates: no independent claim in full; partial support for elements 1a–1d/8a–8d/14a–14d. Most relevant to: claims 4, 6 (querying user; kiosk display).

(3) US 2009/0015379 A1 — Rosenberg, "Apparatus and method for context-based wireless information processing"

• Pub. date: 2009-01-15 | Priority/filing: 2004-05-19
• Description: A mobile communication device scans a product/service identifier (barcode, matrix/QR code, RFID/NFC). The device's context (e.g., the particular store/location) is used by a computer system to determine which product, service, or information the user wants; the system then triggers an application or service (e.g., ordering, paging, delivery). Includes the concept of a "reduced" identifier made sufficient by location context.
• § 102 potential: This is among the more relevant references: it discloses (i) a mobile device scanning a machine-readable element, (ii) the scan being interpreted using location context, (iii) a computer system determining a requested product/service, and (iv) initiating an application/service. However, the MRE is a product identifier scanned by the user, not a location-based MRE generated by an MRE generator that encodes "available types of services" and identifies a local computing device; there is no database of previously ordered pending services and no mapping of ordered services to available types at a specific local computing device. Potentially anticipates: no independent claim in full; strongest partial disclosure for 1e/1f (decode + transmit location-contextual request) and 8e/8f/14e/14f. Most relevant to: claims 1, 8, 14 as secondary/combination art.

(4) US 2010/0262554 A1 — Nintendo of America Inc., "In-store wireless shopping network using hand-held devices"

• Pub. date: 2010-10-14 | Priority/filing: 2009-04-13
• Cited by: Examiner (*)
• Description: In-store network where shoppers use hand-held devices to scan product barcodes, view product/pricing information, maintain a shopping list, and check out; the handheld devices communicate wirelessly with an in-store server, and location within the store is tracked.
• § 102 potential: Discloses mobile scanning, an in-store database/network, shopping lists, and wireless communication with a store server for purchases. It does not disclose an MRE generator producing a location-specific code encoding available service types, nor server-side mapping of previously ordered (pending) services to available types, nor transmission of selection/auth/location to a local POS device. Potentially anticipates: no independent claim in full; partial support for 1a–1b, 1e–1f, 8a–8b, 8e–8f, 14a–14b, 14e–14f. Most relevant to: claims 1, 8, 14 as combination art; claim 2 (purchasing goods).

(5) US 2013/0181045 A1 — Firethorn Mobile, Inc., "System and method for providing a personalized shopping experience and personalized pricing of products and services with a portable computing device"

• Pub. date: 2013-07-18 | Priority/filing: 2012-01-16
• Cited by: Examiner (*)
• Description: A portable computing device used in-store to obtain personalized pricing and shopping experiences; the system identifies the user and location, retrieves account/order data, and delivers personalized offers/pricing for products and services at that location.
• § 102 potential: Discloses user identification, location-based personalization, retrieval of user account data, and personalized product/service offerings at a location — close in spirit to "mapping previously ordered services to available types at a location." It does not disclose the MRE generator/scan workflow (machine-readable element encoding available service types and identifying a local computing device), nor the "available previously ordered services" determination at a specific local device, nor the final communication of selection/auth/location to that device. Potentially anticipates: no independent claim in full; among the closer references for elements 1b–1d, 1f–1g and 8b–8d, 8f–8g, 14b–14d, 14f–14g. Most relevant to: claims 1, 8, 14; claim 5 (user ID/location/purchase data).

(6) US 2014/0188601 A1 — IBM, "Integration between brick-and-mortar establishments and web based establishments"

• Pub. date: 2014-07-03 | Priority/filing: 2013-01-03
• Cited by: Examiner (*)
• Description: Systems/methods integrating online (web-based) ordering with brick-and-mortar fulfillment — e.g., a customer places an order online and later completes/picks it up at a physical store using a machine-readable code (barcode/QR) presented or scanned at the store.
• § 102 potential: Highly relevant to the "previously ordered services … pending … requiring an interaction of the user with a physical facility" limitation (1b/8b/14b) and to the use of machine-readable codes for in-store order fulfillment. Depending on the full disclosure, it may teach scanning a code at a store location to retrieve the user's pending order and initiate in-store performance. It is less clear it teaches an MRE that encodes multiple "available types of services" at the location, the server-side mapping framework, or communication of selection + auth + location to the local device. Potentially anticipates: possibly elements of claims 1, 8, 14 (particularly 1b, 1e, 1i); a full anticipation case would require confirming disclosure of every element. Most relevant to: claims 1, 8, 14; claim 2 (purchase pickup).

(7) WO 2014/123495 A1 — Vata, "A mobile communication platform developed for the service sector"

• Pub. date: 2014-08-14 | Priority/filing: 2013-02-11
• Description: A mobile communication platform for the service sector, generally connecting mobile users with service providers; details are limited in the available record.
• § 102 potential: Based on the available abstract/title, it discloses a generic mobile service platform but not the specific MRE-scan → framework-mapping → available-ordered-service workflow at a POS. Potentially anticipates: no independent claim; likely cited as general background/combination art. Most relevant to: claims 2 (types of services) at most.

(8) US 2014/0239057 A1 — IBM, "Barcode scanning for communication"

• Pub. date: 2014-08-28 | Priority/filing: 2013-02-27
• Description: Using a mobile device camera to scan a barcode (e.g., QR code) displayed at a location/device to initiate a communication or action — the barcode acts as a trigger carrying encoded data.
• § 102 potential: Relevant to 1e/1f and 8e/8f/14e/14f: scanning and decoding a machine-readable element to obtain data used to trigger an action. It does not appear to disclose the database of previously ordered services, the services management framework mapping ordered services to available types, or the return of "available previously ordered services" for user selection. Potentially anticipates: no independent claim in full; partial disclosure of the scan/decode/trigger workflow. Most relevant to: claims 1, 8, 14 (scan/decode elements); claim 3 (QR/bar code).

(9) US 2014/0304169 A1 — NCR Corporation, "Techniques for mobile transaction processing"

• Pub. date: 2014-10-09 | Priority/filing: 2011-10-31
• Description: Mobile transaction processing at a point of sale — a customer's mobile device interacts with a POS terminal (e.g., by scanning a code or via wireless), the POS/user are identified, and transactions (payment, order fulfillment, returns) are processed on the mobile device.
• § 102 potential: This is one of the closest references to the claimed workflow: it places the mobile device at a POS terminal, uses an identifier exchange to establish the transaction context, identifies the user, and processes transactions (including payments/returns) initiated from the mobile app. If the disclosure includes retrieving pending user orders at that POS location and presenting them for selection, it could be a strong § 102(a)(1) anticipation candidate for claims 1, 8, and 14 — but confirmation of each element (particularly the MRE encoding "types of services" and the server-side mapping of previously ordered services to available types) is required. Potentially anticipates: claims 1, 8, 14 (possibly); claims 2, 5, 6 (services at POS; user/location data; POS display).

(10) US 2015/0079942 A1 — Estimote, Inc., "Wireless beacon and methods"

• Pub. date: 2015-03-19 | Priority/filing: 2013-08-19
• Cited by: Examiner (*)
• Description: Wireless beacons placed at physical locations transmit identifiers; a mobile device detects the beacon, determines its context/location, and receives location-specific content/actions (e.g., coupons, product info, services) — the beacon identifier functions as a location-based trigger.
• § 102 potential: Conceptually similar to the MRE as a "location identifier" that triggers location-based services, but uses a beacon signal rather than a scanned machine-readable element, and does not disclose the ordered-services mapping framework. Potentially anticipates: no independent claim in full; partial support for location-based service triggering. Most relevant to: claims 1, 8, 14 (location-identification concept); claim 2.

(11) US 2015/0095234 A1 — eBay Inc., "Mobile barcode generation and payment"

• Pub. date: 2015-04-02 | Priority/filing: 2008-12-02
• Description: A mobile app generates a transaction-specific, single-use barcode (QR) on the user's phone, which is scanned at a POS to pay; the payment provider authenticates the user, retrieves user/location/merchant information, determines applicable funding sources, and processes payment. It also discloses refunds/returns by displaying a receipt barcode on the device for scanning, e-receipts, and loyalty-card conveyance via a single scan.
• § 102 potential: Highly relevant to the service types of claim 2 (payment, e-receipt, returns) and to the scan-at-POS transaction flow, including authentication and location/merchant data. It does not disclose an MRE generator at the facility whose MRE encodes available service types (here the barcode is generated on the user's device), nor a framework mapping previously ordered pending services to available types to present available ordered services for selection. Potentially anticipates: no independent claim in full; strong for claim 2 and partial for 1i (auth + location info communicated in a POS transaction). Most relevant to: claims 1, 2, 5, 6.

(12) US 2016/0125505 A1 — Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., "Methods and systems for providing reminders for products in proximity"

• Pub. date: 2016-05-05 | Priority/filing: 2014-10-30
• Cited by: Examiner (*)
• Description: A Walmart application providing location-based reminders inside a store — as a user approaches a product location (via beacons or location sensing), the app surfaces reminders/alerts tied to the user's shopping list or prior data (e.g., items the user previously considered or ordered).
• § 102 potential: Relevant to the combination of (i) user-specific previously-created data (shopping list/orders), (ii) location detection within a physical facility, and (iii) surfacing location-relevant items to the mobile app. It does not disclose the MRE generator/scan, the services management framework mapping ordered services to available service types, or initiating performance at a local computing device. Potentially anticipates: no independent claim in full; partial support for 1a–1b, 1f–1g, 8a–8b, 8f–8g, 14a–14b, 14f–14g. Most relevant to: claims 1, 8, 14 (combination); claim 5 (location/purchase data).

(13) US 2017/0316296 A1 — NEC Platforms, Ltd., "Barcode evaluation device, barcode image generation system, barcode evaluation method, barcode image generation method and barcode evaluation program"

• Pub. date: 2017-11-02 | Priority/filing: 2014-11-28
• Cited by: Examiner (*)
• Description: Systems/methods for generating and evaluating barcode images, including generating barcodes with varied parameters (e.g., error-correction levels) so that different barcode images can encode the same information.
• § 102 potential: Relevant almost exclusively to dependent claims 7, 13, and 19 ("the machine-readable element generator generates a new machine-readable element after the machine-readable element is scanned") and to the specification's teaching that a QR code may have a new module pattern per transaction using a different error-correction level while containing the same content. Potentially anticipates: claims 7, 13, 19 (in combination with the base claims); not the independent claims alone.

3. Ranked relevance summary (§ 102 anticipation potential)

Caveats (stated per your operating rules):

• Anticipation under § 102 requires a single reference disclosing every claim element; my "potentially anticipates" labels are preliminary, element-by-element screening assessments, not final legal conclusions. None of the 13 examiner citations appears, from the available disclosures, to teach the complete claimed combination (facility-side MRE generator encoding available service types + MRE identifying the local computing device + server-side mapping of previously ordered pending services to those types + return of available ordered services + transmission of selection/auth/location to the local device).
• Notable litigation context: IPR2022-01509 (petitioner: BJ's, per the legal-events record) challenged all claims 1–19 but relied on Poole (US 2015/0356667) and Hammad (US 2013/0166332) — references not among the 13 examiner citations. The IPR Certificate was issued July 5, 2024; the PTAB record indicates the claims were amended during prosecution to add the "communicate the selected … services, authentication information, and location identification information to the local computing device" limitation, which became a key differentiator. If you want, I can run a separate detailed § 102/§ 103 analysis on Poole and Hammad in a follow-up.

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,368,188 B2 ("Systems and methods for identifying location-based services")

I. Scope and purpose of this analysis

This memorandum analyzes whether U.S. Patent No. 10,368,188 B2 (the "'188 patent," Walmart Apollo, LLC; filed Dec. 7, 2017; priority Dec. 9, 2016; granted July 30, 2019) would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of the prior-art references cited on the face of the patent. I apply the Graham framework (scope/content of prior art; differences; level of ordinary skill; secondary considerations) and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (combination of known elements according to their established functions is obvious if the result is predictable).

A key real-world data point up front: This patent was challenged in IPR2022-01509 (BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLC). The PTAB instituted on April 11, 2023, on an obviousness ground — the petition argued claims 1–19 were obvious over Poole (US 2015/0356667) in view of Hammad (US 2013/0166332) (references not on the face of the patent). In its Final Written Decision of April 3, 2024, the PTAB found no challenged claim of the '188 patent unpatentable; the parties' joint status report in the related district-court case (Sam's West, Inc. v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00587, M.D. Fla., Dkt. 142, July 29, 2024) confirms: "The PTAB determined that … no claims challenged as to the '187 and '188 Patents are unpatentable." An IPR certificate issued July 5, 2024. That outcome does not foreclose a § 103 analysis using the different references cited on the patent face, but it is highly informative about the claimed subject matter's perceived robustness and about the specific limitations the PTAB found missing in the asserted combination (notably, that the prior-art codes were "not used to identify available types of services," and that a skilled artisan would not have been motivated to graft the QR-code teachings onto the primary reference). I address this below.

II. The claimed invention

The patent has three independent claims — claim 1 (system), claim 8 (method), claim 14 (non-transitory computer-readable medium) — with substantively identical limitations. Using claim 1 as representative, the elements are:

Dependent claims add: enumerated service types — purchasing goods, pharmacy order, money transfer to/from a third party, e-receipt, returns (claims 2/9/15); QR code or bar code (3/10/16); query-and-selection display (4); transmission of user ID/location/purchase data (5/11/17); POS terminal or kiosk display (6/12/18); and generation of a new MRE after scanning (7/13/19).

The three features that do the real work in this patent are: (i) the "pending services requiring physical-facility interaction" concept (i.e., outstanding web orders, prescriptions, money transfers, returns awaiting in-store completion); (ii) an MRE that encodes a catalog of service types available at that location (not merely a location/terminal identifier); and (iii) a server-side mapping of the user's pending orders against that catalog to produce a filtered list of "available previously ordered services," which the app then uses to initiate performance at the local device with authentication and location data.

III. Level of ordinary skill

A person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) would hold a bachelor's degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related field (or equivalent industry experience) with roughly 2–4 years of experience developing mobile retail applications, point-of-sale transaction systems, and/or e-commerce fulfillment systems, and would be familiar with standard machine-readable code technology (QR/barcode), mobile scanning, and client-server architectures. This is consistent with the prosecution record and the expert declarations in the IPR.

IV. Prior-art landscape (references cited on the face of the '188 patent)

All thirteen references were published (or have effective priority dates) before the '188 patent's December 9, 2016 priority date, and all are thus available as prior art under AIA § 102(a)(1)/(2). Grouped by what they teach:

A. Mobile-device/in-store shopping infrastructure

• US 2010/0262554 A1 (Nintendo/Elliott), "In-store wireless shopping network using hand-held devices" — a handheld device (phone, PDA, game system) executing a shopping program; a shopping list generated and stored for the user; access to a product database; communication with store server(s) over an in-store wireless network; in-store guidance to product locations; camera, RFID reader, and wireless circuitry. This supplies the "mobile application + database of previously created/pending items + server" skeleton, including a user-associated list of items the user intends to transact in the store.
• US 2013/0181045 A1 (Firethorn Mobile/Qualcomm), "Personalized shopping experience and personalized pricing … with a portable computing device" — a portable computing device in a retail environment; server-side personalization; user profile/account data; location-aware delivery of personalized services/pricing to the device. Supplies the "user-associated stored data + server-side personalization mapped to user and location" concept.
• US 2016/0125505 A1 (Wal-Mart Stores), "Methods and systems for providing reminders for products in proximity" — a mobile app that identifies the user and the user's location within a facility and causes the server to deliver location-relevant service/reminder content to the app. Supplies the "app transmits user/location data; server returns location-based service indications" loop.

B. Machine-readable elements, code scanning, and transaction initiation

• US 2014/0304169 A1 (NCR), "Techniques for mobile transaction processing" — a customer's mobile device scans a machine-readable element displayed at a POS terminal, decodes it, and initiates/processes a transaction at that terminal; the code is tied to the terminal, and the mobile device communicates transaction and user data to the terminal/server. This is the closest analog to the claimed "scan a code at a local computing device → identify available services → initiate performance at that device."
• US 2015/0095234 A1 (eBay), "Mobile barcode generation and payment" — mobile-device generation and reading of barcodes for payment/transactions; codes encode transaction data.
• US 2014/0239057 A1 (IBM), "Barcode scanning for communication" — scanning a barcode to establish communication and trigger a computerized action; barcode encodes data used to identify a service/device.
• US 2017/0316296 A1 (NEC), "Barcode evaluation device, barcode image generation system …" — generation, evaluation, and regeneration of barcode images (supports the dynamic-MRE dependent claims).
• US 2015/0079942 A1 (Estimote), "Wireless beacon and methods" — beacons transmit identifiers to mobile devices, enabling context/location-aware service delivery in a facility; the transmitted identifier functions as a machine-readable location/service signal (the wireless analog of the MRE).

C. Web-to-store order fulfillment / pending services

• US 2014/0188601 A1 (IBM), "Integration between brick-and-mortar establishments and web based establishments" — integration of online (web) orders with physical-store fulfillment, including in-store pickup and returns of web orders, i.e., "previously ordered services … pending … requiring interaction of the user with a physical facility."

D. Other

• US 2002/0138345 A1 (Dickson) — personalized store-issued coupons/shopping lists prepared before a store visit (pre-trip user data).
• US 2004/0104930 A1 (Stoler) — interactive touch-screen locator/guide (kiosk-based in-store service delivery).
• US 2009/0015379 A1 (Rosenberg) — context-based wireless information processing; mobile device uses context (location) to perform transactions/services.
• WO 2014/123495 A1 (Vata) — mobile communication platform for the service sector, using machine-readable codes to access services.

V. Proposed § 103 combinations (and why a POSITA would combine them)

Combination 1 — IBM '601 (web-to-store) + NCR '169 (scan-to-transact at POS) + Elliott '254 (in-store mobile/server infrastructure)

Element mapping:

• 1[a] mobile app: Elliott (handheld shopping program) and NCR (mobile transaction app).
• 1[b] database of "previously ordered services … pending … requiring interaction with a physical facility": IBM '601 expressly discloses web orders pending fulfillment (pickup/return) at the physical store; Elliott discloses a user-associated shopping list; the combination yields stored, user-associated pending services.
• 1[c] MRE generator associated with a local computing device within the facility, generating/displaying an MRE identifying services available at that location: NCR discloses a code generated/displayed at a POS terminal that, when scanned, initiates the services (transaction types) available at that terminal; IBM '601 discloses codes associated with store-fulfillment stations (pickup/return).
• 1[d] server/framework mapping pending services to available service types: Elliott provides the store-server framework that correlates user data with in-store capabilities; IBM '601 provides the server matching of web orders to store fulfillment; NCR provides the terminal-side transaction server. A POSITA would implement the "mapping" as routine server logic.
• 1[e]–1[j] scan/decode → identify available service types → transmit to framework → receive filtered "available previously ordered services" → user selection → communicate selection + authentication + location ID to the local device: NCR (scan/decode, initiate at terminal, user authentication/ID passed to the terminal), Elliott (app↔server communication), IBM '601 (user identity + order identification used to complete in-store fulfillment).

Motivation to combine: All three references address the same problem — completing a customer's transaction at a physical retail facility efficiently using a mobile device. IBM '601 and NCR '169 are in the same field of mobile retail transaction processing; Elliott '254 supplies the in-store wireless network and user-account infrastructure. The combination is the "predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions" (KSR): a POSITA would recognize that a shopper with an outstanding web order (IBM '601) who scans a code displayed at a register (NCR '169) within the store's wireless shopping network (Elliott '254) could have the server match the pending order to the register's service capabilities and complete the order with the user's already-stored authentication. There is no teaching away in any reference, and the unified goal — reducing checkout/fulfillment friction — supplies the rational underpinning.

Combination 2 — NCR '169 + eBay '234 (barcode payment) + Firethorn '045 (personalization server)

• NCR supplies the MRE-at-POS scanning/transaction initiation flow (elements 1[c], 1[e]–1[j]).
• eBay '234 supplies barcode/QR generation and payment mechanics (reinforces 1[c], and the QR/barcode dependent claims 3/10/16).
• Firethorn '045 supplies the server-side personalization engine that maintains user-associated data and returns location/user-specific services to the portable device (elements 1[b], 1[d], 1[g]–1[h]), including the user profile with previously ordered items.

Motivation: Firethorn's entire premise is delivering personalized services to a shopper's portable device based on stored user data and location; NCR and eBay demonstrate that the trigger for such services at a terminal is a scanned code. Combining a personalization server with a code-scan transaction trigger is the standard architecture for "personalized checkout" and was a well-recognized design choice — a POSITA would combine them to avoid re-entering user data at the terminal and to surface only the services relevant to that user at that terminal.

Combination 3 — Wal-Mart '505 (location-based service reminders) + Estimote '942 (location/service identifier) + IBM '601 (pending web orders), optionally with NCR '169 or IBM '057 (code scanning)

• Wal-Mart '505 supplies the app-transmits-user-and-location / server-returns-location-relevant-services loop (elements 1[a], 1[g]–1[h]).
• Estimote '942 supplies a facility-located transmitter whose identifier conveys location and available services to the mobile device (functional equivalent of the MRE in 1[c]); replacing the beacon with a displayed QR code is an obvious alternative, because POS terminals and kiosks already have displays (NCR '169; IBM '057; Stoler's kiosk) — this is a classic obvious substitution of one known machine-readable identifier for another.
• IBM '601 supplies the pending orders (1[b]) that the server maps against the location's service types (1[d]).

Motivation: Retailers deploying beacons (Estimote) and location-based reminder apps (Wal-Mart '505) did so precisely to surface location-relevant services; IBM '601 explains why the user would have pending orders at the store. A POSITA would be motivated to unify these to let the store "know what the user still needs done at this location" — the exact problem the '188 patent claims. The beacon-vs-QR substitution is a textbook obvious-variant analysis (KSR: identical function, known interchangeability).

Combination 4 — adding dynamic-code references for dependent claims 7/13/19

For the "new machine-readable element after scanning" limitation, add NEC '296 (barcode image generation/regeneration system) or eBay '234 (on-demand barcode generation) to any combination above. Dynamically regenerating a displayed code after each scan was well known for security (preventing replay/redirect attacks) — the '188 specification itself states this is accomplished by, e.g., changing the QR error-correction level, a technique squarely within NEC's barcode-generation teachings.

Dependent-claim mapping (cumulative)

• Claims 2/9/15 (service types — goods purchase, pharmacy, money transfer, e-receipt, returns): IBM '601 (returns, pickup); NCR '169 (purchase transactions); eBay '234 (payment); Wal-Mart '505 (pharmacy/reminder-type services in retail).
• Claims 3/10/16 (QR/bar code): NCR, eBay, IBM '057, NEC.
• Claims 4 (query display): Firethorn '045, Wal-Mart '505 (displaying options to user).
• Claims 5/11/17 (transmit user ID/location/purchase data): Elliott '254, Wal-Mart '505, NCR.
• Claims 6/12/18 (POS terminal or kiosk): NCR '169 (POS), Stoler '930 (kiosk), IBM '601 (store stations).

VI. Counter-analysis: why the claims may nevertheless be non-obvious (and what the IPR tells us)

An honest § 103 analysis must confront the strongest arguments against these combinations:

1. No single cited reference teaches an MRE that encodes a catalog of "available types of services." In the cited art, the scanned code is a payment/transaction token (NCR, eBay, IBM '057) or a location beacon identifier (Estimote) — not an encoded enumeration of service types to be mapped server-side against a user's pending orders. The PTAB's institution decision and FWD in IPR2022-01509 turned on precisely this gap: Patent Owner successfully argued the primary reference's codes "are not used to identify available types of services," and the Board agreed the petitioner had not shown the required motivation to add the QR-code teachings (the patent owner's expert testified "a POSA would not be motivated to add Hammad's QR code to Poole"). The same structural gap exists for the combinations above unless the challenger can point to an express or inherent disclosure of service-type encoding in the code itself.

2. The "pending services requiring physical-facility interaction" + "mapping" combination is distributed across references. IBM '601 gives pending web orders; Firethorn/Elliott/Wal-Mart give user-profile and location-based service delivery; NCR gives code-scan transaction initiation. But no cited reference shows a server that filters the user's pending orders through the location's service-type catalog and returns only the intersection ("available previously ordered services"). A challenger must rely on the impermissible-hindsight risk that KSR and its progeny guard against — using the claim as a roadmap to assemble disparate teachings.

3. The actual IPR result cuts against a strong obviousness position. Despite a fully developed record with expert testimony, the PTAB found no claim of the '188 patent unpatentable over Poole + Hammad. While the cited-face references differ, the core inventive features (service-type-encoding code + pending-order mapping + filtered available services + communicate-with-authentication to the local device) are the same features the Board found unproven. A district court or the PTAB evaluating the combinations above would likely probe the same weakness.

4. Secondary considerations: the patent has been asserted in litigation (Sam's West, Inc. v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., 6:22-cv-00587, M.D. Fla.), and it survived IPR — evidence of industry interest, though no commercial-success nexus data is in the record before me.

VII. Conclusion

The strongest § 103 case that can be built from the references cited on the face of the '188 patent is Combination 1 (IBM '601 + NCR '169 + Elliott '254), optionally augmented with Firethorn '045 and eBay/NEC for the dependent claims. That combination supplies every claim element at a reasonable level of abstraction: web-to-store pending orders (IBM '601), code-scan transaction initiation at a POS terminal (NCR '169), and the in-store mobile/server network with user-associated data (Elliott '254). The motivation to combine is strong — all three solve the same retail-fulfillment friction problem, and the combination is a predictable application of known elements.

However, the patent's survival of IPR2022-01509 (where the PTAB found no claim unpatentable, emphasizing that the prior-art codes were not used to identify available types of services and that the QR-code addition was unmotivated) materially weakens the prospects of any of these combinations succeeding. The decisive question in any § 103 challenge will be whether the challenger can establish, with expert support, that (a) the cited MRE teachings disclose encoding service types (not just transaction/location tokens), and (b) a POSITA would have had a concrete reason to build the server-side "pending-order → service-type mapping" filter. On the record as it stands, Combinations 1–4 present a plausible but contested obviousness theory, with the IPR outcome favoring validity.

Sources: Google Patents (patent face, citations, legal events); PTAB/IPR2022-01509 docket and oral-argument transcript (USPTO PTACTS); Joint Status Report, Sam's West, Inc. v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00587 (M.D. Fla.), Dkt. 142 (July 29, 2024); IP Verse case summary for IPR2022-01509; Unified Patents portal listings.