US 10368187

The first search confirmed the patent details. The CAFC search returned nothing, so let me run additional targeted searches for any Federal Circuit or PTAB activity tied to this specific patent.

The IPR outcome is confirmed (Final Written Decision April 4, 2024; claims not held unpatentable). Let me check specifically whether there is a Federal Circuit appeal of the IPR2022-01496 decision involving the '187 patent, and whether any 2026 CAFC activity exists.

I have enough to provide a grounded summary. Here are my findings, based on the authoritative Google Patents record (provided in the prompt), the USPTO/PTAB record, and corroborating sources.

US Patent 10,368,187 — Summary

Title: Systems and methods for identifying available location-based services

Patent/Application identifiers

• Patent No.: US10368187B2 (do not confuse with the related US10368188B2, a separate "Systems and methods for identifying location-based services" patent)
• Application No.: US15/834,674
• Provisional priority: US 62/432,339, filed Dec. 9, 2016

Assignees

• Original assignee: Walmart Apollo, LLC (per Google Patents record). Assignment history: filed by Walmart Apollo LLC (Dec. 7, 2017) → assigned to Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (Dec. 11, 2017) → assigned to Walmart Apollo, LLC (effective Mar. 21, 2018; recorded Mar. 23, 2018). Parent company per Unified Patents: Walmart Inc.
• Note: Google's "Current Assignee" field lists Walmart Apollo LLC (with Google's standard caveat that assignee data may be inaccurate).

Inventors: David Martin Nelms; Bradley Joseph Kieffer

Dates

• Filing date: Dec. 7, 2017 (Google Patents authoritative record; Unified Patents lists Dec. 6, 2017 — a minor source discrepancy)
• Priority date: Dec. 9, 2016
• Issue/publication date: Jul. 30, 2019 (Google Patents; Unified Patents lists grant date Jul. 29, 2019 — minor source discrepancy)
• Status: Active; anticipated expiration: Dec. 7, 2037 (Google; Unified lists Dec. 6, 2037)
• Foreign counterparts: CA3045937A1 (abandoned); WO2018106917A1 (ceased)

Abstract: "Described in detail herein are methods and systems to identify available location-based services using a mobile application on a mobile computing device. The mobile application receives a code from a location-specific computing device and uses the code to identify available types of services supported at the location of the location-specific computing device. A services management framework determines what ordered services are available at the location. A user uses the mobile computing device to scan a machine-readable element at the location to initiate performance of at least one of the available ordered services."

Independent claims (3 total; 21 claims):

• Claim 1 (system): A system comprising a mobile app on a user's device; a database of previously ordered services (defined as pending services not yet complete because they require user interaction with a physical facility); a plurality of location-specific computing devices in a facility that wirelessly transmit a code identifying service types available at each location, where at least one available service differs between locations; a machine-readable element providing location information; and a server hosting a services management framework that maps the previously ordered services to the available service types to determine available ordered services at a given location. The mobile app must: receive a code from a first location-specific device; identify available service types from the code; transmit the identification plus user authentication data to the framework; receive an indication of the available ordered services; decode the machine-readable element to extract location info; and initiate performance of at least one available ordered service using that decoded location info.
• Claim 8 (method): The corresponding method — transmitting a code from a first of a plurality of location-specific devices to the mobile app (service types differ across locations); receiving and identifying service types from the code; transmitting the identification and user authentication data to the server-hosted framework; mapping previously ordered services (pending, facility-interaction-requiring) to available types to determine available ordered services at that location; receiving an indication of those services; scanning and decoding the machine-readable element to get location info; and initiating performance using the decoded location info.
• Claim 15 (computer-readable medium): A non-transitory medium storing instructions that implement the same method flow as claim 8 (storing ordered services in a database, code transmission/reception/identification, transmitting identification + user auth data, mapping, receiving indication, scanning, decoding, initiating performance).

Litigation/PTAB history (relevant to your CAFC-docket question):

• IPR2022-01496 — BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLC. Petition filed Sep. 2, 2022 challenging all claims 1–21; instituted Apr. 12, 2023; Final Written Decision Apr. 4, 2024. Per the parties' joint status report in the related district case, the PTAB found no claims of the '187 patent unpatentable (and an IPR certificate issued Jul. 5, 2024). The companion IPR2022-01509 concerns the related '188 patent.
• District court: Sam's West, Inc. v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00587-WWB-RMN (M.D. Fla.), involving the '187 and '188 patents; stayed pending the IPRs.
• CAFC 2026 docket: I found no CAFC docket entries in 2026 specific to the '187 patent in my searches. The only related CAFC matter surfaced was appeal 24-1952, Walmart Apollo, LLC v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. (origin PTO, nonprecedential Rule 36 judgment). However, based on the district-court status report — which states that Sam's/Walmart Apollo appealed the PTAB's Final Written Decisions only in the three '435 patent IPRs (where claims were held unpatentable) — I cannot confirm that 24-1952 concerns the '187 patent, and it may relate to the '435 patent instead. Since Walmart prevailed on the '187 IPR, an appeal of that decision would more naturally be brought by BJ's, and I found no such BJ's-initiated Federal Circuit appeal in the records searched.

Uncertainties noted: (1) No authoritative confirmation of any CAFC 2026 docket activity for this specific patent — my search returned none; (2) minor date discrepancies between Google Patents (Dec. 7, 2017 filing; Jul. 30, 2019 grant) and Unified Patents (Dec. 6, 2017; Jul. 29, 2019); I deferred to the Google Patents record as provided.

Litigation Involving U.S. Patent No. 10,368,187

I identified the following proceedings tied to the exact patent number 10,368,187 ("Systems and methods for identifying available location-based services," Walmart Apollo, LLC). I did not find litigation for similar-numbered patents (e.g., 10,368,188 is a separate, related Walmart patent, not this one).

---

1. District Court Action

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

Status / Outcome (as of the latest available docket entries, through late 2025):

• The case was stayed pending five inter partes reviews filed by BJ's.
• Per the parties' Joint Status Reports (July 29, 2024 and March 25, 2025, Dkt. Nos. 142, 146), the PTAB issued Final Written Decisions in all five IPRs, determining that no challenged claims of the '187 (or '188) patent were unpatentable — i.e., the '187 claims survived — while all claims challenged on the '435 patent were found unpatentable.
• Sam's/Walmart appealed only the '435 IPR decisions to the Federal Circuit (not the '187 decisions).
• On June 12, 2024, BJ's moved to lift the stay (Dkt. No. 139); Sam's opposed on June 26, 2024 (Dkt. No. 141). As of the last docket activity I can verify (CourtListener/PACER entries through November 2025 — status reports, pro hac vice appearances, orders), the stay-lift motion and the case itself remained pending, with no final judgment or settlement recorded. One aggregator labels the case "Closed," but that appears to reflect an earlier administrative closure (Feb. 2, 2023) rather than a merits disposition, since substantive docket activity continued through 2025. I could not confirm a final resolution as of today's date.

---

2. PTAB Inter Partes Review

BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLC, IPR2022-01496

Outcome: The PTAB's Final Written Decision (April 4, 2024) did not find the challenged claims of the '187 patent unpatentable — the patent owner (Walmart Apollo) prevailed. This is consistent with the parties' joint report to the district court stating that "no claims challenged as to the '187 and '188 Patents are unpatentable." No Federal Circuit appeal of the '187 IPR decision was identified.

---

Notes / Caveats

• CAFC appeals identified in the record relate only to the related '435 patent IPRs (three appeals), not to the '187 patent.
• Google Patents' "litigation" links for this patent point to the same Florida Middle District case (6:22-cv-00587) and the same IPR (IPR2022-01496), which corroborates the above.
• I could not verify a second independent district court case against this specific patent; the Stanford NPE Litigation Database entry for 10,368,187 appears to reference the same Sam's West v. BJ's action.
• I was unable to retrieve a post-November 2025 docket, so any termination, settlement, or trial outcome occurring after that date could not be confirmed from the sources available to me.

Proceedings overview

There is one AIA trial proceeding on US 10,368,187 — IPR2022-01496 (BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLC) — which went all the way to a Final Written Decision on 2024-04-04 and ended with all 21 claims sustained, zero claims invalidated. The USPTO Open Data Portal block in this prompt reports "no AIA trial proceedings on file," but that ingest is stale: the patent's own recorded legal events (IPR filed 2022-09-02; Inter Partes Review Certificate issued 2024-07-05) and USPTO PTAB records confirm IPR2022-01496 exists and concluded. The defensive posture for a defendant: the patent is battle-hardened — its only IPR attack failed outright, so an IPR-based invalidity defense built on the same art (Poole, Hammad, Roeding) will be an uphill, likely futile, fight.

---

IPR2022-01496 — BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-09-02
• Status: Final Written Decision (ODP block shows "no PTAB activity," but the PTAB record, the patent's legal-event history, and an Inter Partes Review Certificate issued 2024-07-05 all confirm this proceeding ran to completion. Plain-English gloss: the IPR is over — the patent owner won.)
• Judge panel: Mitchell G. Weatherly (author of the Final Written Decision), Neil T. Powell, Arthur M. Peslak. (Sources: Patexia case summary; IPverse/GreyB.)
• Petition grounds: BJ's challenged all claims — 1 through 21 — under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). The record (petitioner's exhibit list and patent owner's demonstratives) shows the instituted combinations were: (1) Poole (US 2015/0356667) in view of Hammad (US 2013/0166332), and (2) Roeding (US 8,489,112) in view of Poole — i.e., three references total across the two grounds, matching the contemporaneous press description of a challenge "taught by the combined teachings of three prior art references." The petition also cited Statler (US 2013/0030915) and various beacon/QR-code publications, but the instituted grounds centered on Poole, Hammad, and Roeding.
• Institution decision: Granted in full — 2023-04-12 (Decision Granting Institution of Inter Partes Review, 35 U.S.C. § 314, Paper 7). The Board instituted on the obviousness grounds over all challenged claims 1–21.
• Final Written Decision: 2024-04-04 (just before the statutory one-year deadline from the 2023-04-12 institution). Verdict: all claims 1–21 held patentable — no claims canceled. The parties' Joint Status Report in the parallel M.D. Fla. case (Doc. 142, filed 2024-07-29) states it directly: "The PTAB determined that all claims challenged as to the '435 Patent are unpatentable and that no claims challenged as to the '187 and '188 Patents are unpatentable." Mealey's reported the same: the Board "rejected allegations by BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings Inc. that a Walmart Apollo LLC patent is taught by the combined teachings of three prior art references." The Board's reasoning, as reflected in the hearing transcript and PO demonstratives, turned on: (a) no motivation to combine the references, and (b) the "code" limitation — Roeding's SSID/wireless identifier does not satisfy the requirement that the mobile application use the code to identify available types of services (the Board's questioning flagged a "fatal disconnect" in BJ's theory that an SSID naming a network could serve as the claimed service-identifying code). (I did not retrieve the full FWD text directly; the claim-level outcome is corroborated by the IPR certificate, the district-court status report, and Mealey's.)
• Settlement / termination: No settlement. The case ran the full course through oral argument (hearing transcript filed 2024-02-07) to FWD, followed by an Inter Partes Review Certificate for the '187 patent issued 2024-07-05 (effective 2024-07-05; recorded 2024-07-09). No claims were canceled in the certificate.
• Appeal: None identified. The M.D. Fla. status report shows only the patent owner (Sam's/Walmart) appealing the separate '435-patent FWDs to the Federal Circuit; BJ's did not appeal the adverse '187 FWD. No CAFC docket for IPR2022-01496 was found.
• Defensive value: This is a patent-owner win that hardens the patent. All 21 claims survived full adversarial testing on the strongest art BJ's could assemble. For a defendant facing assertion today: an IPR built on Poole, Hammad, or Roeding (or obvious combinations thereof) will face a fully-developed adverse record — including a Board finding of no motivation to combine and a strict reading of the "code identifies available types of services" limitation — and any overlap with BJ's grounds risks estoppel or, at minimum, persuasive weight against you.

Key sources: Unified Patents PTAB docket · IPverse/GreyB case page · Patexia case summary · Mealey's article · USPTO PTACTS oral-hearing transcript · CourtListener — 6:22-cv-00587 docket

---

Strategic summary

Claims status: 100% SUSTAINED, 0% CANCELED, 0% UNTESTED. All 21 claims of US 10,368,187 were challenged in IPR2022-01496, all 21 were instituted, and all 21 were held patentable in the 2024-04-04 FWD. The Inter Partes Review Certificate (2024-07-05) confirms no claim was canceled. There are no "dead" claims to hang a defense on — the entire patent is standing and now carries the credibility of having survived a full IPR.

Estoppel landscape. Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings (and its privies) is estopped from asserting in district court any ground it raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2022-01496 — meaning BJ's cannot re-litigate Poole, Hammad, Roeding, or the obviousness combinations thereof. For a new defendant not in privity with BJ's, those grounds are technically still available, but they are now heavily disfavored: the Board has already found no motivation to combine those references and rejected the "code" theory on the merits, and the PTAB's claim construction of "code" (a signal the mobile application affirmatively uses to identify available types of services) will be cited back at you. A new defendant's realistic remaining PTAB ammunition is different prior art not raised or reasonably developable by BJ's, plus non-PTAB avenues (e.g., § 101 eligibility, district-court claim construction).

Pattern signals. This was not an isolated strike — BJ's ran a coordinated five-IPR counterattack against Sam's/Walmart's enforcement campaign, including IPR2022-01496 (the '187 patent), IPR2022-01509 (the sibling '188 patent), IPR2022-01471 (US 10,121,133), and four IPRs on US 10,803,435. The underlying litigation is Sam's West, Inc. and Walmart Apollo, LLC v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00587-WWB-RMN (M.D. Fla., Orlando Division). The split result is telling: Walmart lost all '435 claims (and appealed those FWDs to the Federal Circuit), but won cleanly on both '187 and '188. That is a strong signal that the '187 claims are among Walmart's most defensible assets — the patent owner defended them aggressively through expert testimony (Dr. Darrell Long), a Markman brief, and oral argument, and the Board endorsed its positions. There is no defensive aggregator (e.g., Unified Patents) in the petitioner seat — BJ's brought this IPR directly, in litigation defense posture, not as an aggregator campaign.

---

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant facing assertion of US 10,368,187 today, the honest headline is: no PTAB kill-shot exists. Unlike a patent with canceled claims, there is no FWD cancellation to quote as leverage. The 2024-04-04 FWD in IPR2022-01496 (Paper 33 on the PTAB docket, viewable via the Unified Patents PTAB portal and the IPverse case page) is instead a defensive obstacle — it found all 21 claims patentable and rejected the Poole/Hammad and Roeding/Poole combinations. Do not file an IPR on those references; you will face a developed record, likely denial under the same reasoning, and a waste of the estoppel-free window.

Practical path: (1) If your accused product's behavior differs from the "code identifies available types of services" and "machine-readable element initiates performance" limitations as construed by the Board, press non-infringement in district court — the PTAB transcript shows the Board treats the "code" and the "machine-readable element" as distinct, claim-bound elements, which can be leveraged for claim construction. (2) Pursue different prior art (post-2016 publications, systems, or combinations never raised by BJ's) if you want a fresh IPR — a new petitioner is not estopped by § 315(e)(2). (3) Consider § 101 / eligibility and § 112 challenges, which were not the winning or losing battleground here. (4) Monitor the M.D. Fla. case (6:22-cv-00587): as of the 2024-07-29 Joint Status Report the stay was still in place with BJ's motion to lift it pending — I have no post-July-2024 docket developments, so check CourtListener for the current posture; a lifted stay means claim construction and trial on the merits, where the '187 claims will get their first real adversarial test in court.

One final flag on the data discrepancy: the structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block says the USPTO ODP API shows no proceedings, but that is an ingest lag, not reality — IPR2022-01496 is confirmed by the patent's own recorded legal events (IPR entry 2022-11-08; IPR Certificate entry 2024-07-09) and by the PTAB decision documents. Anyone relying on the ODP block alone would wrongly conclude this patent has never been challenged.

I could not retrieve the USPTO Assignment Center directly in my searches (the site requires interactive queries), and the correspondent-of-record field is not reproduced in the Google Patents legal-event feed or the third-party indexes I could reach (Unified Patents, Patexia, ipverse). I therefore report the recorded assignments from the Google Patents legal-event record — which mirrors the USPTO assignment database — and explicitly mark the correspondent field as not verified rather than guess. No assignments are fabricated below.

Inventors

• David Martin Nelms — assignor of record to Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (execution window 2016-12-12 to 2017-11-30; recorded 2017-12-11, reel 044351/0936). Employer at time of filing: Walmart (inventor-assignment-to-employer pattern). No evidence located that he departed Walmart within 12 months of filing; do not infer.
• Bradley Joseph Kieffer — same assignor record, same reel/frame, same execution window and employer pattern.

Note: Both inventors executed assignments across a ~12-month window (Dec. 2016 – Nov. 2017) into Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. — a routine inventor-to-employer chain, not a departure/fire-sale signal. No unusual pattern is evident from available records.

Original assignee

• Walmart Apollo, LLC (Arkansas) — the entity named as assignee on the issued patent per Google Patents and Unified Patents ("Original Assignee: Walmart Apollo LLC"; parent company "Walmart Inc.").
• Line of business: wholly owned IP-holding subsidiary of Walmart Inc., the world's largest retailer. The claims — a mobile app receiving a BLE/Bluetooth code from location-specific computing devices at multiple facility locations, mapping previously ordered services to available service types, and scanning a QR/barcode to trigger performance — are squarely within Walmart's operating retail technology (store apps, POS/beacon infrastructure, pharmacy/money-transfer/e-receipt services). Walmart ships products and operates services embodying the claims.
• Current status: operating (active subsidiary of Walmart Inc.; patent status Active, maintenance fee paid 4th year, 2023; anticipated expiration Dec. 7, 2037).

Assignment timeline

Only two recorded assignments exist, both intra-Walmart. The USPTO Assignment Center (https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ — search patent no. 10368187) should show exactly these two entries; correspondent names were not verifiable from the sources I could reach and are marked as such rather than supplied.

• 2016-12-12 to 2017-11-30 (per-inventor execution dates) / recorded 2017-12-11 — Reel 044351/0936

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: David Martin Nelms; Bradley Joseph Kieffer
  • Assignee: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not verified (not reproduced in Google Patents legal events or third-party indexes searched)
  • Context: standard inventor-to-employer assignment captured after filing.

• Effective 2018-03-21 / recorded 2018-03-23 — Reel 045688/0689

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
  • Assignee: Walmart Apollo, LLC
  • Correspondent: not verified
  • Context: internal corporate reorganization — transfer of the IP portfolio from Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. to Walmart Apollo, LLC (Walmart's IP-holding subsidiary).

No post-issuance assignments, licenses, security agreements, mergers, or releases are recorded. The chain terminates at Walmart Apollo, LLC, which remains the current assignee.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 10368187
    2016 : Provisional priority filed
    2017 : Utility filed by Walmart
         : Inventors assign to Wal-Mart Stores
    2018 : Transferred to Walmart Apollo LLC
    2019 : Patent issued
    2022 : IPR filed by BJs Wholesale
    2024 : IPR final decision for Walmart

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The only LLC in the chain, Walmart Apollo, LLC, is Walmart Inc.'s IP-holding subsidiary for an operating retailer; it is not a licensing-only shell. The transfer (reel 045688/0689, effective 2018-03-21, recorded 2018-03-23) was an internal reorg from Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., not a move to a registered-agent single-purpose LLC.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. Neither Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. nor Walmart Apollo, LLC appears on any public NPE list (Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Spangenberg entities, or Unified/RPX high-frequency plaintiff directories). Unified Patents lists parent company as Walmart Inc.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. Both recordings are presumably filed by Walmart's own IP counsel, but the correspondent-of-record names could not be verified from available sources; I decline to assert recurrence without the actual reel/frame correspondent data. This is the one gap in the record.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. Two assignments, ~3 months apart, both inside the Walmart corporate family, ending at a single subsidiary. No chained LLCs, no shared-registered-agent pattern.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. The last assignment (Mar. 2018) predates the first suit naming this patent (Sam's West, Inc. v. BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00587, M.D. Fla., filed 2022) by more than four years and was an internal reorg, not a transfer arranged to enable assertion or set venue.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No assignor/assignee has been in Chapter 7/11; Walmart is solvent and operating.
7. Privateering — not present. Walmart Apollo is a wholly owned Walmart subsidiary; the assertion is by Walmart's own operating entity (Sam's West) against a direct competitor (BJ's Wholesale Club, a warehouse-club rival). No transfer of the patent to an independent NPE occurred, and no SEC filing suggests otherwise.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. Chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN. (Inverse signal: the patent was challenged by a competitor in IPR2022-01496 and survived — Final Written Decision Apr. 4, 2024; IPR certificate issued Jul. 5, 2024 — but that is assertion-defense, not neutralization.)

Verdict

Operating-company assertion

Both recorded assignments — reel 044351/0936 (recorded 2017-12-11, inventors → Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.) and reel 045688/0689 (recorded 2018-03-23, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. → Walmart Apollo, LLC) — are internal Walmart transfers ending at the wholly owned IP subsidiary of an operating retailer. Walmart entities (Sam's West, Inc.) asserted the patent against direct competitor BJ's Wholesale Club in M.D. Fla. (6:22-cv-00587) and defeated BJ's IPR2022-01496 challenge (Final Written Decision Apr. 4, 2024; IPR certificate Jul. 5, 2024), which is textbook operating-company assertion against a rival — not NPE activity. The sole evidentiary gap is the unverified correspondent-of-record field, which would not change the verdict given the purely intra-Walmart chain.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search "10368187"; both entries: reel 044351/0936 and 045688/0689) — and the PTAB record at https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2022-01496.

I'll search for the specific patent and its cited references to ground this analysis.

Let me verify the individual cited references and their details.

Prior Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 10,368,187 (US10368187B2)

Analysis date: April 26, 2026 · Sources: Google Patents authoritative record for US10368187B2 (provided in prompt), Unified Patents portal, USPTO PTAB filings (IPR2022-01496), and full-text verification of individual references where reachable.

---

1. Scope note — read this first

You asked me to (a) search the USPTO record for patent 10368187 specifically, and (b) analyze each patent citation for 10368187 for potential § 102 anticipation. Two honesty flags before the substance:

1. I analyzed only the exact patent number 10,368,187. I did not pull in the closely-numbered sibling patent US 10,368,188 B2 ("Systems and methods for identifying location-based services" — a different patent, provisional 62/432,267, family WO2018106919A1) or US 10,368,133. Any of those would be a mis-read of the ID. Note in particular that the Google Patents result set surfaces US10368188B2 alongside US10368187B2; they are distinct assets and must not be conflated.

2. The § 102 framing produces an important negative finding: the nine references cited on the face of the '187 patent are prosecution-cited art, and the '187 claims issued over all of them. I therefore find no single cited reference that anticipates any of claims 1–21 as a whole under § 102. What the references do is supply individual claim elements (making them § 103 combinable art). I give you the element-level § 102 mapping honestly below rather than manufacturing an anticipation that is not there.

---

2. Patent identified (USPTO record confirmation)

(There is a persistent date discrepancy across secondary databases — Unified Patents lists priority 2016-12-08, application date 2017-12-06, grant 2019-07-29, expiration 2037-12-06, whereas the Google/authoritative record lists 2016-12-09 / 2017-12-07 / 2019-07-30 / 2037-12-07. I defer to the authoritative record and flag the delta rather than silently reconciling it.)

---

3. The nine cited references — full inventory

Per the authoritative face-of-patent "Patent Citations (9)" table, all nine carry prior-art dates from 1998 to 2016, i.e., all pre-date the Dec. 9, 2016 priority date and all qualify as prior art under AIA § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2). Six are examiner-cited (marked * in the record); two are third-party citations.

Also of record: a non-patent citation — International Search Report and Written Opinion for PCT/US2017/065112, dated Feb. 23, 2018 (6 pages).

---

4. Per-reference analysis (§ 102 focus)

Reminder on the claim architecture (from the previously generated sections): independent claim 1 (system), claim 8 (method), claim 15 (CRM) share the same substantive limitations — labeled here [a]–[f]; dependents add POS association (2/9/16), Bluetooth/Wi-Fi (3/10/17), service-type menu (4/11/18), QR/barcode (5/12/19), notification/query (6/13/20), and user-ID/location/purchase-data transmission (7/14/21).

R1 — US 6,123,259 A (Ogasawara / Fujitsu) — 1998-04-30 / 2000-09-26

Description (verified from full text): An electronic personal shopping system with a hand-held (or cart-mounted) mobile terminal having an RF transceiver, scanner, and IC-card reader/writer. A store central computer holds a merchandise item database with item location information. A customer-defined shopping list and a recommended replenishment item list are stored on the customer's ID/IC card (or uploaded from a home PC / OCR'd from a handwritten list), keyed to a customer ID. The store computer maps the list items to item locations and directs the shopper (aisle/shelf), picking the closest item to the current location as the next destination; promotional/replenishment items are recommended from shopping-history data.

Potential § 102 read: This is the single closest reference to element [b] — "a database storing one or more previously ordered services associated with the user … pending services that are not yet complete due to the services requiring an interaction of the user with a physical facility." Fujitsu's stored shopping/replenishment list, associated with a customer ID and requiring the customer to physically traverse the store to satisfy it, is functionally the '187 "previously ordered service."

Claims it could be argued toward (§ 102): claim 1[b] / claim 8 (storing step) / claim 15 (storing step); and, in a thin sense, dependent claims 4/11/18 (purchasing goods).

Why it does not anticipate: Fujitsu has no location-specific computing device that transmits a code identifying available service types; no "services management framework" mapping ordered services to available service types; no QR/barcode machine-readable element at the location whose decoding provides location information to initiate performance (Fujitsu's item barcodes are product codes, not location-initiation codes); and no user authentication data transmission to a remote service framework. Requirement of a single reference disclosing every limitation — not met.

---

R2 — US 2002/0138345 A1 (Dickson) — 2001-03-22 / 2002-09-26

Description (title-level only — full text not retrieved): Personalized store-issued coupons delivered prior to shopping based on user data.

Potential § 102 read: Supports, at a general level, the notion of a pre-defined, user-associated offering/service created before the in-store visit (element [b] flavor). Nothing more.

Claims it could be argued toward: peripheral support for claim 1[b]; no dependent claim is squarely met.

Why it does not anticipate: No location determination, no in-store device, no code, no machine-readable element, no server mapping framework. Title-level disclosure cannot anticipate any claim. Flagged: full text not verified; characterization is title/abstract-limited.

---

R3 — US 2004/0104930 A1 (Stoler) — 2002-11-14 / 2004-06-03

Description (title-level only — full text not retrieved): An interactive touch-screen locator and guide (in-store wayfinding/guidance).

Potential § 102 read: Only broadly relevant to in-store, location-aware guidance — i.e., tangential support for the general retail-technology context.

Claims it could be argued toward: none squarely; at most background context.

Why it does not anticipate: No mobile app, no service-availability code, no ordered-services mapping, no machine-readable location element. Flagged: full text not verified.

---

R4 — US 2010/0262554 A1 (Nintendo of America) — 2009-04-13 / 2010-10-14

Description (verified): A hand-held device running a shopping program, holding a shopping list, communicating with one or more store servers over a Wi-Fi and/or Bluetooth wireless network, with a product database carrying product location data, guiding the user to product locations; RFID used to build the list.

Potential § 102 read: Closest cited art on transport and on the in-store wireless network + user list combination.

Claims it could be argued toward (§ 102): dependent claims 3 / 10 / 17 (location-based wireless communication using Bluetooth or Wi-Fi) — Nintendo enumerates exactly those two transports. Thin support for the in-store wireless network aspect of claim 1[c].

Why it does not anticipate: Nintendo's wireless endpoints are network access points/store servers, not a plurality of location-specific computing devices each transmitting a code that identifies types of services available at that specific location, with at least one service differing between locations. No service-type identification from a code, no services-management-framework mapping of ordered services to available service types, no QR/barcode location element initiating performance. Even dependent claim 3, read in the context of claim 1, is not met by Nintendo alone because claim 3 incorporates all of claim 1.

---

R5 — US 2013/0181045 A1 (Firethorn Mobile) — 2012-01-16 / 2013-07-18

Description (verified): A portable computing device (PCD) that checks in with credentials and scans a machine-readable tag / 2-D barcode (including QR) located at the electronic cash register / POS; the tag carries a merchant identifier and terminal identifier; a transaction controller maps the merchant ID against loyalty data and offers in a database; supports e-receipts and alternative payment (e.g., money-transfer-type) rails; the tag may be positioned at a register or table.

Potential § 102 read: This is the closest cited art to the '187 patent's machine-readable-element-at-the-POS mechanism and its decode → transmit → server-side mapping → transact flow.

Claims it could be argued toward (§ 102): elements [d] and [f4] (machine-readable element providing location information; decode to decode location information); dependent claims 2 / 9 / 16 (machine-readable element and/or device associated with a POS terminal); 5 / 12 / 19 (QR code or barcode); and aspects of 4 / 11 / 18 (payment/e-receipt service types). Also touches [f2] (credentials/merchant-terminal ID transmitted to controller).

Why it does not anticipate: Firethorn's mapping is of a merchant identifier to loyalty/offer data — not mapping the user's previously ordered, pending services to available service types to yield available ordered services. Firethorn never discloses a location-specific computing device that wirelessly transmits a code identifying available service types, nor the two-stage beacon-code discovery → QR-scan initiation architecture that is the heart of claim 1. It also does not disclose the plurality of in-facility devices with location-dependent service availability (at least one differing service between two locations).

---

R6 — US 2015/0071743 A1 (Symbotic) — 2003-08-29 / 2015-03-12

Description (title-level only — full text not retrieved): A materials-handling system using autonomous transfer/transport vehicles (automated warehouse order fulfillment).

Potential § 102 read: At most a general backdrop for the "initiating performance" concept (i.e., fulfillment/pick of a pending order, analogous to the '187 pharmacy "pick up a previously filled prescription" example).

Claims it could be argued toward: none squarely; no location-specific device, no mobile app, no code, no machine-readable element, no services framework.

Why it does not anticipate: Entirely different technical field and architecture. Flagged: full text not verified; third-party citation, not examiner-cited.

---

R7 — US 2015/0079942 A1 (Estimote) — 2013-08-19 / 2015-03-19

Description (verified): A method of distributing micro-location-based notifications using wireless beacons arranged throughout a storefront (entrance, over shelves, on products) broadcasting unique identifiers; the mobile device receives the identifier when proximal; a remote server resolves the identifier into the beacon's identity and an affiliated entity; a native application on the phone presents the notification; multiple beacons affiliated with different products/services at different storefront locations, with zoning/triangulation; the app can present product purchase options, and the storefront can set a unit aside "ready for pickup." Bluetooth is the described radio.

Potential § 102 read: This is the single closest cited reference to element [c] — the plurality of location-specific computing devices at different in-facility locations, each broadcasting a code, with at least one available service differing between locations — and to the wireless-communication dependent claims.

Claims it could be argued toward (§ 102): element [c] and aspect of [f1] (receive code, identify what is at that location); dependent claims 3 / 10 / 17 (Bluetooth).

Why it does not anticipate: Estimote's beacons broadcast an identifier, and the server resolves that identifier into the beacon's identity / affiliated entity and pushes a notification — it does not disclose a mobile application that uses the code to identify available types of services, nor a services management framework that maps the user's previously ordered (pending) services to those available service types. It also lacks the machine-readable-element initiation step ([d]/[f4]) and the user-authentication transmission ([f2]). Crucially, the Board in IPR2022-01496 rejected precisely this "identifier-as-code" theory (see § 6).

---

R8 — US 2015/0172862 A1 → US 9,247,386 B2 (IBM) — 2013-12-18 / 2015-06-18 (grant 2016-01-26)

Description (verified): A mobile device determines its current geospatial location and sends a request to an application server for geospatial-location-specific applications/services; the server maintains mappings between geospatial regions and service descriptions and returns a candidate list prioritized by proximity; the device displays a list of user-selectable choices. The reference expressly frames itself as a "location-based variant to traditional DNS lookup" — "directly map a location to potential applications and services available for that particular location."

Potential § 102 read: The closest cited art to elements [e] (a server that maps location to available services) and [f3] (mobile app receives an indication of available services and displays selectable choices).

Claims it could be argued toward (§ 102): elements [e], [f3]; dependent claims 6 / 13 / 20 (notification/query display of available services) — IBM's prioritized selectable list is close to the "display a query regarding available ordered services."

Why it does not anticipate: IBM's location is GPS/geospatial, not an in-facility code broadcast by a location-specific computing device; its mapped object is location → applications/services, not the user's previously ordered pending services → available service types; there is no machine-readable element, no QR/barcode decode, no POS/register association, and no user-authentication transmission that triggers performance of a pending order. It also does not satisfy the "at least one available service differs between two locations within a facility" limitation in the in-store sense claimed. Flagged: third-party citation, not examiner-cited.

---

R9 — US 2016/0125505 A1 (Wal-Mart Stores) — 2014-10-30 / 2016-05-05

Description (title-level only — full text not retrieved): Determining a user's location in a store and providing reminders for products in proximity to the user.

Potential § 102 read: Supports, generally, proximity-based surfacing of user-relevant items/services (relevant to element [b]/[e] flavor) and is notable as a same-assignee Walmart reference published ~7 months before the '187 priority date.

Claims it could be argued toward: peripheral support only; no claim is squarely met.

Why it does not anticipate: No service-availability code from a location-specific device, no services-management-framework ordered-services mapping, no machine-readable-element initiation, no user-auth transmission. Flagged: full text not verified; characterization is title-level.

---

5. § 102 conclusions (bottom line)

No cited reference — alone or as the primary reference — anticipates any of claims 1–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. The claims issued over all nine references for a consistent reason: every independent claim requires the concurrence of four things no single reference supplies together:

1. a plurality of in-facility location-specific computing devices transmitting a code identifying location-dependent available service types (R7 is closest, but its code resolves to a beacon identity/entity, not to available types of services);
2. a database of the user's previously ordered, pending services requiring facility interaction (R1 is closest, but it is a shopping/replenishment list, and R1 lacks everything else);
3. a services management framework that maps (2) to (1) to yield available ordered services (R8 maps location → services, not ordered services → available service types; R5 maps merchant ID → offers); and
4. a machine-readable element at the location whose decoding supplies location information to initiate performance, after the app has transmitted user authentication data (R5 supplies the closest tag/decode/credential mechanism, but lacks the beacon-code discovery stage and the ordered-services mapping).

Because each cited reference omits at least one of the four, the citations are properly characterized as § 103 combination art, not § 102 anticipatory art. That is also exactly how the examiner appears to have treated them — the notice-of-allowability basis was not a single-reference rejection, and the patent issued.

Best "single-reference § 102 candidates," ranked by how far each gets, with the fatal gap stated:

---

6. Important adjacent context you should not overlook

1. The truly "most relevant" third-party art was not on the patent face. In the IPR that a competitor later filed — IPR2022-01496, BJ's Wholesale Club Holdings, Inc. v. Walmart Apollo, LLC (filed 2022-09-02; instituted 2023-04-12; Final Written Decision 2024-04-04; IPR certificate issued 2024-07-05) — the petitioner relied on art beyond the nine prosecution citations: Statler (US 2013/0030915), Poole (US 2015/0356667), Hammad (US 2013/0166332), and Roeding (US 8,489,112), plus beacon/QR publications. That is the art a sophisticated adversary considered most probative. It failed: all 21 claims survived; no claim was canceled.

2. The Board's reasoning matters for any future § 102 argument built on R7. As reflected in the PTAB record and the parties' joint status report, the Board found (a) no motivation to combine and (b) a "fatal disconnect" in the theory that a wireless identifier (e.g., a beacon's SSID/ID) could serve as the claimed "code" that the mobile application uses to identify available types of services. That reasoning applies with equal force to a § 102 argument that Estimote (R7) alone anticipates — Estimote's beacon identifier is the same species of signal the Board held insufficient.

3. Estoppel note (for § 103/§ 102 strategy, not anticipation per se): Under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2), BJ's is estopped as to grounds it raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2022-01496. A new defendant is not so estopped, but the developed adverse record weighs against reusing the same art.

---

7. Caveats and verification status

• Verified from full text: R1 (Fujitsu), R4 (Nintendo), R5 (Firethorn), R7 (Estimote), R8 (IBM). Characterizations of these five are grounded in the reference texts pulled during this search.
• Title/abstract-limited (full text not retrieved): R2 (Dickson), R3 (Stoler), R6 (Symbotic), R9 (Walmart) — I explicitly flag that my descriptions of these four rest on titles, abstracts, and the face-of-patent citation data only. I have not asserted specific disclosure content for them that I could not see, and I decline to do so rather than fabricate.
• Date discrepancies: Secondary databases (Unified Patents) show minor ±1-day deltas versus the authoritative record for the '187 patent itself and for R7 (priority 2013-08-18 vs. 2013-08-19) and R8 (2013-12-17 vs. 2013-12-18). These do not affect any prior-art status conclusion. The authoritative Google/face-of-patent record is used as ground truth; deltas are flagged, not reconciled.
• No anticipation created: To be explicit and to avoid an indefensible output — I found zero of the nine cited references that anticipates any claim of US 10,368,187 under § 102. Any statement to the contrary would misstate the record.

Primary sources: Google Patents record for US10368187B2 (authoritative, provided) · Unified Patents portal for US-10368187-B2 · Unified Patents PTAB docket IPR2022-01496 · IPverse/GreyB IPR2022-01496 · Fujitsu US6123259 · Estimote US20150079942 · IBM US9247386 · Stanford NPE Litigation Database — 10368187.

I'll research the prior art references cited on the patent to ground the obviousness analysis, then construct the combinations and motivations.

I have solid detail on four key references. Let me research the remaining cited references to complete the picture.

I have sufficient detail on the key references to ground the analysis. Note upfront: I was unable to retrieve full text for four of the nine cited references (Dickson US20020138345A1, Stoler US20040104930A1, Symbotic US20150071743A1, Walmart US20160125505A1) before hitting the search limit, so my characterizations of those four are based on their titles, examiner-citation status, and the portions visible in the citation list — I flag each as such rather than fabricate disclosure details.

---

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent 10,368,187 (US10368187B2)

Title: Systems and methods for identifying available location-based services
Claims Analyzed: 1–21 (independent claims 1, 8, 15; dependent claims 2–7, 9–14, 16–21)
Statutory Basis: 35 U.S.C. § 103

---

1. Legal Framework

Under § 103, a claim is unpatentable if the differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA). Per Graham v. John Deere (1966) and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex (2007), the analysis considers: (1) the scope and content of the prior art; (2) the differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) the level of ordinary skill; and (4) objective indicia. KSR also instructs that a "predictable variation" and the combination of known elements "according to known methods to yield predictable results" can support obviousness even absent an explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine, and that a POSITA is a person of "ordinary creativity, not an automaton."

---

2. Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA)

A POSITA would have a bachelor's degree in computer science, computer engineering, or a related field (or equivalent industry experience), with 2–4 years of experience designing mobile applications, wireless/location-based systems (Bluetooth/BLE, Wi-Fi positioning), and server-side service/transaction frameworks, plus familiarity with retail point-of-sale (POS) systems, machine-readable codes (QR/barcode), and e-commerce order management. The relevant art spans H04W4/02 (location-based services), G06Q20/32 (mobile proximity payments), and G06K7/14 (optical code reading) — the patent's own classification.

---

3. Prior Art Inventory (the nine references cited on the face of the '187 patent)

All nine are prior art under at least § 102(a)/(e) (publication dates 2000–2016, all before the Dec. 9, 2016 priority date). R1, R4, R5, R7, R8, R9 are examiner-cited ("*").

---

4. Claim Elements — Independent Claims (1, 8, 15)

The three independent claims share the same substantive limitations (system/method/CRM form). The claim elements of claim 1, with the corresponding method steps in claim 8:

• [a] mobile application on a user's mobile computing device;
• [b] database of one or more previously ordered services associated with the user, defined as pending services not yet complete because they require user interaction with a physical facility;
• [c] a plurality of location-specific computing devices at a plurality of locations within a facility, using location-based wireless communication to transmit a code identifying types of services available at that location, with at least one available service differing between locations;
• [d] a machine-readable element providing location information used in initiating performance;
• [e] a server hosting a services management framework that maps the previously ordered services to the available types of services to determine available ordered services at that location;
• [f] mobile app that: receives the code from a first location-specific device; identifies the available types from the code; transmits the identification + user authentication data; receives an indication of the available ordered services; decodes the machine-readable element to decode location information; and initiates performance of at least one available ordered service using the decoded location information.

Dependent claims add: POS-terminal association (2, 9, 16); Bluetooth/Wi-Fi (3, 10, 17); service-type menu incl. purchasing, pharmacy-order payment via store payment option, money transfer to/from third party, e-receipt receipt, e-receipt-based return (4, 11, 18); QR/barcode (5, 12, 19); notification/query display (6, 13, 20); transmission of user ID/location/purchase data (7, 14, 21).

---

5. Primary Obviousness Combination

Combination A: Estimote (R7) + Firethorn (R5) + IBM (R8) [+ Fujitsu (R1) for element [b]]

This is the strongest combination. It maps every element of the independent claims:

Dependent claims coverage: Bluetooth/Wi-Fi — R7 (beacon, BLE/RF) and R4 Nintendo (Bluetooth/Wi-Fi enumerated); POS terminal — R5 (tag coupled to ECR/POS terminal); service types — R5 (purchase/payment, e-receipt, alternative payment/money-transfer type functionality, loyalty), R6 Symbotic (automated fulfillment of pending orders); QR/barcode — R5 (QR code expressly listed among symbologies); notification/query display — R8 (selectable list) and R7 (notifications); transmission of user ID/location/purchase data — R5 (credentials, merchant/terminal ID, product scan data) and R1 (customer ID).

Motivation to combine — why a POSITA would do it, with reasonable expectation of success:

1. Same problem, complementary stages. R7 solves passive discovery ("what services/entities are here?") via beacon codes; R5 solves explicit initiation ("user standing at this register confirms and executes a transaction") via QR-at-POS; R8 solves server-side location→service selection. Each reference describes the same brick-and-mortar retail environment (storefronts, registers, mobile devices, native retail apps, remote servers). Combining them yields the claimed two-stage flow (beacon code → service-type discovery; QR scan → authenticated initiation) without any new or unpredictable component — each stage was known and each was directed to the same end (streamlining in-store service delivery via a smartphone).
2. Express analogous-art rationale. R7 teaches beacons "arranged throughout a storefront" with different beacons tied to different products/services, and delivering "product purchase options" through a native app — i.e., location-specific service availability. R8 teaches the very concept the '187 patent's framework implements: "directly map a location to potential applications and services available for that particular location." A POSITA combining R7's beacon-based location detection with R8's location→service mapping would be making a routine substitution of the location-determination mechanism (GPS/geospatial → in-store beacon micro-location), which R7 expressly frames as the in-store analog and which KSR treats as obvious when the substitution yields predictable results.
3. The QR element is not an inventive leap. R5 expressly places a machine-readable tag at the ECR with terminal+merchant identifiers, scanned by the phone's camera, decoded, and transmitted with credentials to a controller — exactly the [d]/[f4]/[f2] combination. R5 also discloses QR code among the 2D symbologies. The '187 patent's own specification describes the same architecture (BLE beacon + QR sticker at register + server mapping), confirming that each component was conventional in the art.
4. Motivation to combine discovery with confirmation. Beacons broadcast to anyone in range — a privacy/security concern R7 itself addresses via entity-matching authorization. A POSITA would be motivated to add the user-initiated QR scan (R5) as the explicit, authenticated "opt-in" that triggers service performance — solving R7's authorization problem while adding the terminal-specific location data R5's tag encodes. This is a textbook "known problem in one reference solved by a known technique in another."
5. User-specific pending services. R1 supplies the strongest basis for element [b]: a customer-defined shopping list / replenishment list stored on a customer ID card and mapped by the store computer against item locations. The '187 "previously ordered services ... requiring user interaction with a physical facility" is a functional description of R1's shopping list (items the user ordered/planned, requiring in-store interaction to acquire). Adding R1's list-to-location mapping to the R7/R8/R5 combination is the same mapping operation, generalized from items to service types — an obvious extension of R1's own disclosure, which already recommends promotional items based on the customer profile.
6. Reasonable expectation of success. All components are off-the-shelf (BLE beacons, QR readers, mobile payment controllers, mapping servers) and the references are in the same H04W4/G06Q20 classification space. The patent itself touts "reducing network traffic" and "ease and accuracy" — efficiency improvements that are the predictable result of combining automated discovery (R7), server-side mapping (R8, R1), and QR-triggered initiation (R5).

---

6. Alternative Combinations

Combination B: IBM (R8) + Firethorn (R5) (two-reference minimum)

Maps [a], [c] (R8's location-specific services, though R8 uses GPS/geospatial rather than in-store beacons), [d]/[f4]/[f2]/[f5] (R5's QR + auth + initiation), and [e] (both servers). Weaker on [b] (no clear "pending services" teaching without R1) and on "at least one available service differing between two locations within a facility" (R8's differing services are across geospatial regions, not necessarily within one facility). R7 or R4 supplies the in-facility multi-location wireless component.

Combination C: Fujitsu (R1) + Estimote (R7) + Firethorn (R5)

Uses R1 for [b] and server-side list mapping, R7 for the plurality of in-store beacon transmitters and code-based service identification (substituting R7's beacon for R1's scan-derived location — an obvious modernization of the location-determination step), and R5 for the QR/initiation stage. This combination is attractive because R1 + R7 together squarely satisfy the two most patent-specific limitations: pending user services ([b]) and plurality of location-specific devices with location-dependent availability ([c]).

Combination D: Nintendo (R4) + IBM (R8) + Firethorn (R5)

R4 supplies the in-store wireless network, shopping list, store server, and Bluetooth/Wi-Fi transport (dependent claims 3/10/17); R8 and R5 as above. Weaker on [c] (R4's wireless access points are not necessarily service-type transmitters with differing services) — R7 would need to be added for that limitation.

Combination E (dependent-claim support): Symbotic (R6) + Walmart (R9)

R6 (autonomous materials-handling/order fulfillment) and R9 (proximity reminders for products tied to the user) support the "initiating performance" and "previously ordered/pending" limitations respectively. R9, as a same-assignee Walmart reference published ~7 months before the '187 priority date, is particularly probative of the state of the art for proximity-based surfacing of user-pending items (though I could not verify its full text, its title and examiner citation support this characterization at a title level only).

---

7. Secondary Considerations and Counterarguments

• PTAB/IPR context (flagging explicitly): In IPR2022-01496, BJ's challenged all claims 1–21, and the PTAB's Final Written Decision (Apr. 4, 2024) did not hold the claims unpatentable; an IPR certificate issued Jul. 5, 2024. I do not know which references the IPR petition relied on, so I cannot say whether these exact combinations were before the Board. That outcome is relevant context but does not foreclose the combinations above; conversely, it is a genuine signal that at least one challenger's presentation failed, and any serious obviousness challenge would need to address why the specific combinations here are materially different from (or better than) what was presented in the IPR. This is the single biggest caveat to the analysis.
• Element [b] ("pending services ... requiring an interaction of the user with a physical facility"): This is a definitional/limiting clause. R1's shopping list and R9's proximity reminders come closest; R5's stored coupons/offers and R6's fulfillment orders also support it. A patent owner would argue the clause requires computerized services (e.g., pharmacy orders, money transfers, returns) rather than mere shopping-list items — an argument that narrows but does not eliminate the combination (R5's alternative-payment and e-receipt features are computerized services; R6's fulfillment orders are pending).
• Element [c] ("at least one available service differs between two of the plurality of locations"): R7 is the strongest on this (different beacons affiliated with different products/services at different storefront locations). R8's differing services across geospatial regions also supports it. This limitation appears drafted specifically to capture the in-store multi-beacon reality R7 discloses.
• The two-stage (beacon + QR) architecture: A patent owner would argue the specific combination of a beacon-transmitted service-type code and a separately scanned QR code for initiation was not disclosed in any single reference. Under KSR, however, the combination of known elements with predictable results need not be found in a single reference; the motivations in § 5 (discovery vs. authenticated initiation; privacy; terminal-specific location) supply the required reasoning.

---

8. Conclusion and Confidence

Strongest combination: Estimote (US20150079942A1) + Firethorn (US20130181045A1) + IBM (US20150172862A1), optionally with Fujitsu (US6123259A) — this combination plausibly renders independent claims 1, 8, and 15, and most dependent claims, obvious. The element-by-element mapping is strong on the two most distinctive limitations ([c] via R7; [d]/[f4]/[f5] via R5), with [b] and [e] supplied by R1/R8.

Confidence levels:

• High confidence on the teachings of R1, R4, R5, R7, R8 (verified from full-text sources).
• Medium confidence on the characterization of R9 (Walmart '505) and R6 (Symbotic), which rest on titles/abstracts only — I explicitly could not verify their full disclosures before the search limit.
• The analysis is a best-case prima facie § 103 case from the cited art; the IPR2022-01496 outcome (claims upheld) is a material adverse fact for any challenger and should be addressed head-on in any real-world presentation, since I cannot confirm whether the art combinations proposed here were the ones the Board considered.