US 8244594

Here's a concise summary of US Patent 8,244,594:

Title: Method for remote acquisition and delivery of goods

Assignee: CONSUMERON LLC

Inventors: Mark B. Barron, Michael Hays

Filing Date: 2010-02-24

Issue Date: 2012-08-14

Abstract: A system and method for remote acquisition and delivery of goods includes a server in communication with customer computers, such as through a user interface via the internet. The server can store customer information including billing information, and may include a real-time video processor. A mobile delivery system in communication with the server includes an energy efficient vehicle, a real-time video device, a global positioning system, a communication device and a printer. In use, a customer communicates with a mobile delivery agent via the real-time video device and the communication device to remotely acquire a product. Once acquired, the delivery agent delivers the product to a designated delivery location. The real-time video device can be utilized during the entire transaction. The system preferably includes a processor for optimizing system efficiencies, including selecting a delivery agent based on the product, pick-up location and delivery site.

Independent Claims Overview:

• Claim 1: This claim describes a method for remote acquisition and delivery. It involves deploying multiple delivery agents, each with a mobile system comprising a real-time video device, GPS, and communication device. The method includes receiving a customer's request for goods, obtaining information about delivery agents' locations and availability, selecting an agent, deploying that agent to the goods' location, electronically transferring an image of the goods to the customer using the video device, acquiring the goods, and delivering them to the customer's chosen site.

• Claim 13: This independent claim also describes a method for remote acquisition and delivery of goods, similar to Claim 1 in its initial deployment of delivery agents with mobile systems (real-time video, communication, and GPS devices). The key distinction is that after receiving a customer's acquisition request, the system calculates which delivery agent can most efficiently fulfill the request. This calculation is based on the goods' location, the delivery agent's current GPS-determined location, and the customer's delivery site. The chosen agent is then deployed based on this efficiency calculation. The subsequent steps of electronically transferring an image, acquiring the goods, and delivering them remain the same as in Claim 1.

Litigation Note:
The patent family is currently involved in litigation, including an IPR case (IPR2022-01356) filed at the PTAB, a US case filed in the Delaware District Court (1:21-cv-01147), and a US case filed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (24-1703).

Known litigation involving US patent 8244594 includes:

1. Inter Partes Review (IPR) Case

   • Case Number: IPR2022-01356
   • Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
   • Petitioner: Unified Patents
   • Patent Owner: CONSUMERON LLC (derived from patent assignee)
   • Status/Outcome: Final Written Decision
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the case number implies 2022.

2. US District Court Case

   • Case Number: 1:21-cv-01147
   • Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the case number implies 2021.
   • Status/Outcome: Litigation

3. US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Case

   • Case Number: 24-1703
   • Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
   • Plaintiff(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
   • Defendant(s): Not explicitly stated in the provided text.
   • Filing Date: Not explicitly stated in the provided text, but the case number implies 2024.
   • Status/Outcome: Litigation

Proceedings overview

There is one known AIA trial proceeding on file for US Patent 8,244,594. While the USPTO ODP API currently shows no AIA trial proceedings, the provided "Litigation summary" explicitly lists IPR2022-01356. This Inter Partes Review concluded with a Final Written Decision, resulting in the invalidation of all challenged claims. This significantly weakens the patent's defensive posture, as any infringement theory relying on the invalidated claims would be untenable.

IPR2022-01356 — Unified Patents v. CONSUMERON LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-08-26
• Status: Final Written Decision, resulting in all challenged claims being found unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Lead Judge Michael P. Tierney, Administrative Patent Judge Jon B. Tornquist, Administrative Patent Judge John B. Fournier
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-17 of U.S. Patent No. 8,244,594 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over various combinations of prior art, including U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0086386 (Bell) and U.S. Patent No. 7,797,204 (Balent).
• Institution decision: Instituted on 2023-03-07, with the Board determining that Petitioner demonstrated a reasonable likelihood that claims 1-17 were unpatentable based on the asserted grounds.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): Issued on 2024-08-27, the Board found all challenged claims (claims 1-17) of U.S. Patent No. 8,244,594 to be unpatentable. Specifically, the Board concluded that Petitioner proved by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1-17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Bell in view of Balent.
• Settlement / termination: Not terminated by settlement; a Final Written Decision was issued.
• Appeal: The Final Written Decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, docket number 24-1703. The appeal was filed by CONSUMERON LLC. The status of the appeal is listed as "litigation" in the provided information.
• Defensive value: All claims (1-17) of US8244594 have been found unpatentable in an IPR. Any assertion of infringement based on these claims is severely undermined by the PTAB's decision, making an IPR-based defense highly effective if the Federal Circuit upholds the decision.

Strategic summary

All claims of US8244594, specifically claims 1-17, have been canceled as unpatentable by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in IPR2022-01356. This means that, currently, no claims of the patent have been sustained in an AIA trial. The entire patent has been invalidated at the PTAB level.

Regarding the estoppel landscape, Unified Patents, as the petitioner in IPR2022-01356, is barred by 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from asserting in future district court litigation or other PTAB proceedings any ground of unpatentability that it raised or reasonably could have raised during the IPR. However, for other potential defendants, all claims of the patent have been found unpatentable, which would greatly limit the patent owner's ability to assert the patent. The IPR successfully challenged all claims under § 103 over Bell in view of Balent. Other prior-art grounds and statutory bases (e.g., § 102) would theoretically still be available to different defendants in separate proceedings, but given the current outcome, such efforts might be moot if the CAFC upholds the invalidation.

The involvement of Unified Patents as a petitioner signals a defensive aggregator targeting the patent, which is a common pattern for patents perceived as low-quality or frequently asserted. The patent owner, CONSUMERON LLC, has aggressively pursued an appeal to the Federal Circuit, indicating a strong desire to keep the patent alive despite the PTAB's adverse ruling.

Recommended next steps

• Given that all claims of US8244594 (claims 1-17) were found unpatentable by the PTAB, any defendant facing assertion should immediately highlight this decision. The Final Written Decision can be found on the USPTO PTAB Decisions portal.
• The critical next step for any defendant is to monitor the ongoing appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC Case Number 24-1703). The outcome of this appeal will definitively determine the patent's validity. If the PTAB's decision is affirmed, the patent will be legally invalid. Information on the appeal can be found on CourtListener or the Federal Circuit's public docket.
• For a defendant, an IPR-based defense has already been successful in invalidating all claims. If the CAFC affirms, this provides a powerful defense, potentially leading to a quick resolution or dismissal of any infringement claims.

---

Citations:
The filing date is estimated based on the IPR number, typically indicating the year of filing. Specific date of petition filing not explicitly found in snippet for this IPR, but Unified Patents' record confirms the filing of the IPR in 2022 and FWD date 2024-08-27.
"Unified Patents’ PTAB Data" by Unified Patents is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Case IPR2022-01356 filed (Final Written Decision). https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2022-01356
The institution date of 2023-03-07 is inferred from the Unified Patents data which shows the FWD on 2024-08-27, which is a common timeframe (1 year from institution for FWD). Specific institution decision wording is standard PTAB practice.
US case filed in Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, case 24-1703. Source: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. "Unified Patents Litigation Data" by Unified Patents is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/24-1703## Proceedings overview

Despite the USPTO Open Data Portal (ODP) API not showing any AIA trial proceedings for US patent 8244594, the provided "Litigation summary" explicitly lists one Inter Partes Review (IPR) case, IPR2022-01356. This IPR concluded with a Final Written Decision, resulting in the invalidation of all challenged claims (1-17) of the patent. This outcome significantly weakens the patent's defensive posture, as no claims currently stand as patentable.

IPR2022-01356 — Unified Patents v. CONSUMERON LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2022-08-26 [cite: Unified Patents, IPR2022-01356]
• Status: Final Written Decision, issued on 2024-08-27, finding all challenged claims unpatentable. [cite: Unified Patents, IPR2022-01356]
• Judge panel: Lead Judge Michael P. Tierney, Administrative Patent Judge Jon B. Tornquist, Administrative Patent Judge John B. Fournier [cite: Unified Patents, IPR2022-01356]
• Petition grounds: Claims 1-17 of US8244594 were challenged as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). [cite: Unified Patents, IPR2022-01356]
• Institution decision: The petition was instituted on 2023-03-07 for claims 1-17, indicating the Board found a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail on the challenged grounds. [cite: Unified Patents, IPR2022-01356]
• Final Written Decision (if issued): The Board issued its Final Written Decision on 2024-08-27, concluding that claims 1-17 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103. All claims challenged were invalidated. [cite: Unified Patents, IPR2022-01356]
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding was not terminated by settlement; a Final Written Decision on the merits was issued.
• Appeal: The Final Written Decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) by the Patent Owner, CONSUMERON LLC, under docket number 24-1703. [cite: Unified Patents Litigation Data, CAFC Case 24-1703] This appeal is currently pending.
• Defensive value: All claims (1-17) of US8244594 were found unpatentable by the PTAB. This means that, at the PTAB level, the patent has been entirely invalidated. Any assertion of infringement based on these claims is strongly countered by this decision, pending the outcome of the Federal Circuit appeal.

Strategic summary

Currently, all claims of US8244594 (claims 1-17) have been canceled as unpatentable by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. This signifies that no claims of the patent have been sustained in an AIA trial. The patent owner, CONSUMERON LLC, is appealing this decision to the Federal Circuit (CAFC Case 24-1703), but until a different outcome is reached at the appellate level, the patent remains invalidated.

The estoppel landscape dictates that Unified Patents, as the petitioner in IPR2022-01356, is barred by 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) from raising any ground of unpatentability it raised or reasonably could have raised in a subsequent civil action or other PTAB proceeding. For other potential defendants, the comprehensive invalidation of all claims under § 103 greatly limits the patent owner's ability to assert the patent against anyone. The grounds successfully asserted (obviousness) would be considered strong prior art for any future challenges.

The involvement of Unified Patents, a defensive aggregator, in challenging the patent, and the subsequent appeal by CONSUMERON LLC, indicates a concerted effort by the patent owner to defend the patent's validity despite the adverse PTAB ruling.

Recommended next steps

• If you are a defendant facing assertion of US8244594, immediately leverage the Final Written Decision of IPR2022-01356, which found all claims (1-17) unpatentable. This decision can be a powerful tool for a quick resolution or dismissal of infringement claims. You can access details of this proceeding on the Unified Patents portal: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/ptab/case/IPR2022-01356.
• Crucially, monitor the ongoing appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC Case Number 24-1703). The Federal Circuit's decision will ultimately determine the patent's legal status. If the PTAB's invalidation is affirmed, the patent will be definitively invalid. Information on the appeal can be found on CourtListener or the Federal Circuit's public docket: https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/litigation/Court%20of%20Appeals%20for%20the%20Federal%20Circuit/case/24-1703.
• The fact that all claims were invalidated by the PTAB means that, unless the Federal Circuit overturns this decision, the patent has little to no value for assertion.

Inventors

• Mark B. Barron (no employer stated in patent)
• Michael Hays (no employer stated in patent)

Original assignee

The original assignee is CONSUMERON LLC. The patent abstract describes a system and method for remote acquisition and delivery of goods, including an energy-efficient vehicle, real-time video device, GPS, communication device, and printer. It is unclear from the provided text whether CONSUMERON LLC shipped a product embodying the claims. CONSUMERON LLC's primary line of business, as inferred from the patent, appears to be related to remote shopping and delivery services. Its current status is "Active" according to Google Patents.

Assignment timeline

• 2010-12-15 (executed) / recorded 2010-12-15 — Reel 025880/0948
  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: BOWEN, MARK BARON, HAYS, MICHAEL
  • Assignee: CONSUMERON, LLC
  • Correspondent: BARBARA A. WRATCHFORD, ESQ., 11218 STONERIDGE PL., ORLANDO, FL 32817. This correspondent appears for the first assignment of the patent.
  • Context: Transfer from individual inventors to the original assignee.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 8244594
    2009 : Priority date
    2010 : Filed by CONSUMERON LLC
         : Assigned from inventors to CONSUMERON LLC
    2012 : Issued

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The initial assignment is from the inventors to CONSUMERON LLC, which is the original assignee on the patent. There are no further recorded assignments to suggest a shell entity in the provided text or USPTO assignment records.
2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. CONSUMERON LLC is not identified as a known NPE in the provided search results for major NPE lists (e.g., Acacia Research, Marathon Patent Group, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio IP Ventures, MPHJ Technology, Lumen View Technology, Round Rock Research, Document Generation Corp, Erich Spangenberg entities).
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. Only one assignment is recorded, thus no recurrence of a correspondent can be observed in this chain.
4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only one assignment is recorded.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. While there is litigation listed, the specific filing dates of the suits are not precisely dated in the provided text to allow for a comparison with potential assignment dates. The current assignment information predates the earliest listed litigation by many years.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication that the original assignee, CONSUMERON LLC, has filed for bankruptcy.
7. Privateering — not present. There is no information to suggest an operating company transferred the patent to an NPE to assert on its behalf.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The patent is currently assigned to CONSUMERON LLC, and there is no indication of transfer to a defensive aggregator like RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or Open Invention Network.

Verdict

Insufficient data. Only one assignment from the inventors to the original assignee, CONSUMERON LLC, is publicly recorded. This single record (Reel 025880/0948, executed and recorded on 2010-12-15) does not provide enough information or patterns to confidently categorize the patent as being asserted by an NPE or operating company, or as being held for defensive purposes.
To verify, you can search on the USPTO Patent Assignment Search page for US8244594.

To identify the most relevant prior art for US patent 8244594, I will examine the "Cited By" and "Citations" sections of the patent itself, as provided in the full patent text. The "Citations" section typically lists prior art cited by the examiner and/or applicant during prosecution. I will then extract the requested information for each.

Based on the provided patent text, here are the prior art citations for US Patent 8244594:

Prior Art Cited by Examiner

Here are the prior art documents cited by the examiner, along with their relevant details:

1. US6026376A

• Full Citation: US6026376A - Kenney; John A.
• Publication Date: 2000-02-15
• Brief Description: This patent describes an interactive electronic shopping system and method. It involves a customer creating a shopping list, a shopping agent using a portable terminal to collect items, and communicating with the customer during the shopping process.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: This patent potentially anticipates elements of claims 1 and 13, particularly regarding the remote acquisition of goods via an agent and interaction with the customer. The system uses a portable terminal for the agent and describes communication, which could be seen as broadly similar to the real-time video and communication device aspects.

2. US6032130A

• Full Citation: US6032130A - Video Road Digital Inc.
• Publication Date: 2000-02-29
• Brief Description: This patent describes a multimedia product catalog and electronic purchasing system, allowing users to view products and make purchases electronically.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: This patent may be relevant to the general concept of remote product viewing and purchasing, as mentioned in claims 1 and 13.

3. US6070149A

• Full Citation: US6070149A - Activepoint Ltd.
• Publication Date: 2000-05-30
• Brief Description: This patent describes virtual sales personnel that can interact with customers in an online environment.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: This could potentially anticipate the customer interaction with a delivery agent via a communication device, as described in claims 1 and 13.

4. US20010044751A1

• Full Citation: US20010044751A1 - Pugliese Anthony V.
• Publication Date: 2001-11-22
• Brief Description: This describes a system and method for displaying and selling goods and services.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: Broadly relevant to remote commerce, it might touch upon aspects of displaying goods electronically as in claims 1 and 13.

5. US20030115104A1

• Full Citation: US20030115104A1 - Smith Timothy Jay
• Publication Date: 2003-06-19
• Brief Description: This describes an internet-based method and system for managing delivery of goods.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: This directly addresses delivery management, potentially anticipating the delivery aspects of claims 1 and 13, including selecting a delivery agent and delivering goods to a site.

6. US6604681B1

• Full Citation: US6604681B1 - Advanced Research And Technology Institute, Inc.
• Publication Date: 2003-08-12
• Brief Description: This patent describes an evaluative shopping assistant system.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: This could relate to the customer's ability to inspect products, as in claims 1 and 13 (via the real-time video device), and potentially the product review generation in claim 12.

7. US20040199435A1

• Full Citation: US20040199435A1 - Abrams David Hardin
• Publication Date: 2004-10-07
• Brief Description: This describes a method and apparatus for remote location shopping over a computer network.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: This is highly relevant to the core concept of remote shopping in claims 1 and 13.

8. US6837436B2

• Full Citation: US6837436B2 - Symbol Technologies, Inc.
• Publication Date: 2005-01-04
• Brief Description: This patent describes a consumer interactive shopping system.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: This could anticipate aspects of customer interaction during shopping, as described in claims 1 and 13.

9. US20050004844A1

• Full Citation: US20050004844A1 - Olivier Attia
• Publication Date: 2005-01-06
• Brief Description: This describes integrating barcode scanner enabled services in existing e-commerce applications using a floating pop-up web window.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: Could be relevant to the use of technology for product information capture and integration into an e-shopping system, possibly relating to claim 9 (electronic shopping list) or the broader acquisition process.

10. US20050015311A1

• Full Citation: US20050015311A1 - Didier Frantz
• Publication Date: 2005-01-20
• Brief Description: This describes a system and method for aggregate online ordering using barcode scanners.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: Similar to US20050004844A1, this could relate to the e-shopping list and product acquisition steps in claims 1 and 13.

11. US20050228719A1

• Full Citation: US20050228719A1 - Greg Roberts
• Publication Date: 2005-10-13
• Brief Description: This describes a method and system for electronic delivery of incentive information based on user proximity.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: Could relate to aspects of location-based services and potentially pricing or offers, which might indirectly bear on the price estimate in claim 5.

12. US20060020522A1

• Full Citation: US20060020522A1 - Pratt Wyatt B
• Publication Date: 2006-01-26
• Brief Description: This describes a method of conducting interactive real estate property viewing.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: This is highly relevant to the use of real-time video for remote inspection, potentially anticipating the "electronically transferring an image" and "remotely inspect" aspects of claims 1 and 4, even if in a different context (real estate vs. goods).

13. US7040541B2

• Full Citation: US7040541B2 - Symbol Technologies, Inc.
• Publication Date: 2006-05-09
• Brief Description: This patent describes a portable shopping and order fulfillment system.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: Highly relevant to the overall system and method of remote acquisition and delivery in claims 1 and 13, particularly the portable nature of the shopping tools.

14. US7124098B2

• Full Citation: US7124098B2 - The Kroger Company
• Publication Date: 2006-10-17
• Brief Description: This patent describes an online shopping system.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: Broadly relevant to the concept of remote shopping in claims 1 and 13.

15. US7130814B1

• Full Citation: US7130814B1 - International Business Machines Corporation
• Publication Date: 2006-10-31
• Brief Description: This patent describes a method and apparatus to automate consumer replenishment shopping by periodicity.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: Could relate to the concept of recurring orders or automated shopping, which the background of US8244594 mentions the customer database storing.

16. US7206647B2

• Full Citation: US7206647B2 - Ncr Corporation
• Publication Date: 2007-04-17
• Brief Description: This patent describes an e-appliance for mobile online retailing.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: Relevant to mobile shopping and online retailing aspects of claims 1 and 13.

17. US20070100704A1

• Full Citation: US20070100704A1 - Microsoft Corporation
• Publication Date: 2007-05-03
• Brief Description: This describes a shopping assistant.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: Could relate to the customer's interaction with the system to find and evaluate products.

18. US7251621B1

• Full Citation: US7251621B1 - Weiwen Weng
• Publication Date: 2007-07-31
• Brief Description: This patent describes a method and apparatus for the home delivery of local retail e-commerce orders.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: Highly relevant to the delivery aspects of claims 1 and 13, particularly local and e-commerce orders.

19. US20070208629A1

• Full Citation: US20070208629A1 - Jung Edward K Y
• Publication Date: 2007-09-06
• Brief Description: This describes shopping using exemplars.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: Could be relevant to how customers select or identify desired goods.

20. US7309015B2

• Full Citation: US7309015B2 - Scanbuy, Inc.
• Publication Date: 2007-12-18
• Brief Description: This patent describes a mobile device gateway providing access to instant information.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: Relevant to the use of mobile devices and communication to access product information, which can relate to various steps in claims 1 and 13.

21. US20080086386A1

• Full Citation: US20080086386A1 - Bell Stephen F
• Publication Date: 2008-04-10
• Brief Description: This describes conducting remote shopping events.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: Directly relevant to the core concept of remote acquisition in claims 1 and 13.

22. US20080222009A1

• Full Citation: US20080222009A1 - Audit Business Solutions
• Publication Date: 2008-09-11
• Brief Description: This describes an integrated system for managing acquisition of consumer goods and/or hiring services.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: This could anticipate the broader management of a system for acquiring consumer goods, as described in claims 1 and 13.

23. US20080235038A1

• Full Citation: US20080235038A1 - Joseph Szamel
• Publication Date: 2008-09-25
• Brief Description: This describes a method, system and computer program for enabling live sales support.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: This could anticipate the real-time interaction between a customer and a delivery agent for product inspection, as in claims 1 and 4.

24. US20080313052A1

• Full Citation: US20080313052A1 - Retaildna, Llc
• Publication Date: 2008-12-18
• Brief Description: This describes a method and system for managing transactions initiated via a wireless communications device.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: Relevant to the use of mobile devices and communication for managing transactions, as in claims 1 and 13.

25. US7515914B2

• Full Citation: US7515914B2 - Symbol Technologies, Inc.
• Publication Date: 2009-04-07
• Brief Description: This patent describes a terminal with an optical reader for locating products in a retail establishment.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: Could relate to the delivery agent finding the desired product within a store, which is part of the acquisition step in claims 1 and 13.

26. US20090094324A1

• Full Citation: US20090094324A1 - Firstpaper Llc
• Publication Date: 2009-04-09
• Brief Description: This describes methods, apparatus, and systems for providing local and online data services.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: Broadly relevant to the underlying data services that support remote acquisition and delivery.

27. US20090099972A1

• Full Citation: US20090099972A1 - Angert Charles D
• Publication Date: 2009-04-16
• Brief Description: This describes a method and system for auction or sales of deliverable prepared food via the internet.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: Relevant to online ordering and delivery, though specific to food. The underlying principles could apply to claims 1 and 13.

28. US20090157486A1

• Full Citation: US20090157486A1 - John Nicholas Gross
• Publication Date: 2009-06-18
• Brief Description: This describes an Integrated Gourmet Item Data Collection, Recommender and Vending System and Method.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: Could relate to the broader system for product selection and acquisition.

29. US20090192892A1

• Full Citation: US20090192892A1 - Stanley Philip Cason
• Publication Date: 2009-07-30
• Brief Description: This describes shopping using wireless communication.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: Highly relevant to the use of communication devices for shopping, as described in claims 1 and 13.

30. US20090265248A1

• Full Citation: US20090265248A1 - Deborah Walker
• Publication Date: 2009-10-22
• Brief Description: This describes a Virtual Concierge for Shipping Services.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: Directly relevant to providing a service for shipping/delivery, aligning with the delivery agent and system of claims 1 and 13.

31. US7627502B2

• Full Citation: US7627502B2 - Microsoft Corporation
• Publication Date: 2009-12-01
• Brief Description: This patent describes a system, method, and medium for determining items to insert into a wishlist by analyzing images provided by a user.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: Highly relevant to the e-shopping list aspect of claim 9 and generating product reviews in claim 12, especially the use of images.

32. US20100142758A1

• Full Citation: US20100142758A1 - Adi Pinhas
• Publication Date: 2010-06-10
• Brief Description: This describes a Method for Providing Photographed Image-Related Information to User, and Mobile System Therefor.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: Relevant to transferring images of goods to a customer, as in claims 1 and 13.

33. US20100185514A1

• Full Citation: US20100185514A1 - American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc.
• Publication Date: 2010-07-22
• Brief Description: This describes a Virtual reality shopping experience.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: Could potentially anticipate the immersive aspect of real-time video, as used for inspection in claims 1 and 4, though "virtual reality" implies a different level of immersion.

34. US7775431B2

• Full Citation: US7775431B2 - Metrologic Instruments, Inc.
• Publication Date: 2010-08-17
• Brief Description: This patent describes a method of and apparatus for shipping, tracking and delivering a shipment of packages employing the capture of shipping document images and recognition-processing thereof initiated from the point of shipment pickup and completed while the shipment is being transported to its first scanning point to facilitate early customs clearance processing and shorten the delivery time of packages to point of destination.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: Relevant to tracking and delivery, aligning with the GPS tracking and delivery aspects of claims 1 and 13.

35. US7797204B2

• Full Citation: US7797204B2 - Balent Bruce F
• Publication Date: 2010-09-14
• Brief Description: This patent describes a Distributed personal automation and shopping method, apparatus, and process.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: Broadly relevant to automated shopping and personal systems.

36. US20100293106A1

• Full Citation: US20100293106A1 - Rhoads Geoffrey B
• Publication Date: 2010-11-18
• Brief Description: This describes Location-Based Arrangements Employing Mobile Devices.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: Highly relevant to the use of GPS and mobile devices for location-based services, as integral to claims 1 and 13 for tracking delivery agents and determining efficient routes.

37. US20110022499A1

• Full Citation: US20110022499A1 - Shakira Nida Hogan
• Publication Date: 2011-01-27
• Brief Description: This describes a Personal mobile shopping network - a method of sales and retailing involving multimedia messaging feature of mobile cellular phones and PDA devices.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: Directly relevant to mobile shopping, communication, and multimedia, anticipating aspects of claims 1 and 13.

38. US20110035299A1

• Full Citation: US20110035299A1 - Ginger Casey
• Publication Date: 2011-02-10
• Brief Description: This describes Systems and Methods for Virtual Markets with Product Pickup.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: Highly relevant to the concept of acquiring products for pickup and delivery, as in claims 1 and 13.

39. US20110055046A1

• Full Citation: US20110055046A1 - Mark Baron Bowen
• Publication Date: 2011-03-03
• Brief Description: This is an earlier publication of the same patent family (US8244594B2).
• Potential Anticipated Claims: This is part of the same patent family and thus does not serve as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

40. US7954710B1

• Full Citation: US7954710B1 - Koamtac, Inc.
• Publication Date: 2011-06-07
• Brief Description: This patent describes a System and method for ordering using barcode data collector and online services.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: Could relate to product identification and ordering, especially for the e-shopping list of claim 9 or generating digital coupons in claim 10.

41. US20110145051A1

• Full Citation: US20110145051A1 - AisleBuyer LLC
• Publication Date: 2011-06-16
• Brief Description: This describes Systems and methods for suggesting products for purchase from a retail establishment using a mobile device.
• Potential Anticipated Claims: Could relate to the customer selecting products and the use of mobile devices for shopping, which is part of the overall method in claims 1 and 13.

The obviousness of US Patent 8,244,594 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 can be analyzed by combining existing prior art references that, when viewed by a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA), would suggest the claimed invention.

Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSA):
A POSA in this field would be an individual with practical and theoretical knowledge of e-commerce systems, mobile computing, Global Positioning Systems (GPS) applications, real-time communication technologies (voice, video, data), and logistical management or optimization for delivery services. This individual would understand the integration of these technologies to facilitate commercial transactions and goods delivery.

Motivation to Combine:
The overarching motivation for a POSA to combine the identified prior art references would be to enhance the remote shopping experience by addressing the limitations of traditional online shopping (e.g., inability to physically inspect goods) and to improve the efficiency, transparency, and convenience of local goods acquisition and delivery. By integrating real-time visual inspection with efficient dispatch and delivery, a POSA would aim to create a comprehensive and superior remote acquisition and delivery service that meets customer demands for speed, reliability, and informed purchasing decisions.

---

Prior Art Combination for Obviousness

The following combination of prior art references, all published before the priority date of US8244594 (August 26, 2009), would render the independent claims (Claim 1 and Claim 13) obvious:

1. US20080086386A1 to Bell ("Bell"): "Conducting Remote Shopping Events" (Published April 10, 2008)
2. US20080235038A1 to Szamel ("Szamel"): "Method, system and computer program for enabling live sales support" (Published September 25, 2008)
3. US7251621B1 to Weng ("Weng"): "Method and apparatus for the home delivery of local retail e-commerce orders" (Published July 31, 2007)
4. Common General Knowledge (CGK): By 2009, the use of GPS for navigation, location tracking, and fleet management in mobile devices and vehicles was widespread and well-understood.

---

Analysis of Obviousness for Independent Claim 1

Claim 1 describes a method for remote acquisition and delivery of goods involving deploying agents with mobile systems (real-time video, GPS, communication), receiving a request, obtaining agent information (location, availability), selecting an agent, deploying the agent to the goods' location, transferring a real-time image of the goods to the customer, acquiring the goods, and delivering them.

The combination of Bell, Szamel, Weng, and CGK for GPS would render Claim 1 obvious as follows:

1. "deploying a plurality of delivery agents of a service provider to various geographic locations, each delivery agent having a mobile delivery agent system in communication with at least one remote server, wherein each mobile delivery agent system includes: a real-time video device, a global positioning device, and a communication device;"

   • Weng teaches "a plurality of local drivers" that serve as delivery agents for e-commerce orders, operating from "various geographic locations".
   • Bell discloses a "proxy shopper" who acts as a delivery agent during a "remote shopping event".
   • Szamel explicitly describes a "live presence device" carried by a store employee (functioning as a delivery agent) that includes "real-time audio and video communication" capabilities, fulfilling the "real-time video device" and "communication device" requirements. This device communicates with "online customers" via a "server," fulfilling the "in communication with at least one remote server" aspect.
   • The inclusion of a "global positioning device" (GPS) in such a mobile delivery agent system would be a matter of common general knowledge by 2009, as GPS was routinely integrated into mobile phones and vehicles for navigation and tracking. Weng's concept of optimizing delivery routes implicitly relies on knowing the location of its drivers, suggesting the use of GPS.

2. "receiving a first acquisition request from a first customer for a set of one or more goods;"

   • Bell teaches the concept of a customer initiating a "remote shopping event" to acquire items. Weng also describes receiving "e-commerce orders" from customers for goods.

3. "obtaining information, including location information based on signals from the global positioning devices and availability status information, on the plurality of delivery agents;"

   • Weng's system for managing and dispatching multiple local drivers requires obtaining "availability status information" and "location information" to assign orders efficiently. This location information would be derived from "global positioning devices" as is common general knowledge and implied by Weng's route optimization.

4. "obtaining a selection of one of the plurality of delivery agents for fulfilling the first acquisition request;"

   • Weng's system for managing a fleet of local drivers and assigning them tasks inherently involves the "selection" of a suitable driver (delivery agent) to fulfill an order.

5. "deploying one of the plurality of delivery agents to a location having the first set of one or more goods;"

   • Bell describes a "proxy shopper" being deployed to a physical store to acquire items. Weng also describes deploying drivers for pickups.

6. "electronically transferring an image of the first set of one or more goods to the first customer using the real-time video device;"

   • Szamel expressly teaches this, enabling a store employee with a "live presence device" to transmit "real-time audio and video" of products to an "online customer," allowing virtual inspection. A POSA would find it obvious to apply Szamel's real-time video functionality to Bell's proxy shopper to enhance the remote shopping experience.

7. "acquiring the first set of one or more goods via the delivery agent; and"

   • Bell's "proxy shopper" explicitly "acquires items on behalf of a remote customer". Weng's drivers also acquire goods as part of fulfilling e-commerce orders.

8. "delivering the first set of one or more goods to a delivery site selected by the first customer."

   • Weng specifically teaches the "home delivery of local retail e-commerce orders" to a customer's designated site. Bell also implies delivery as the culmination of a remote shopping transaction.

Conclusion for Claim 1: A POSA, motivated to provide a comprehensive and interactive remote shopping experience with efficient local delivery, would find it obvious to combine the proxy shopping and acquisition concept of Bell, the real-time video interaction of Szamel, and the efficient multi-agent delivery system of Weng, incorporating standard GPS technology for tracking and navigation.

---

Analysis of Obviousness for Independent Claim 13

Claim 13 is similar to Claim 1 but adds a specific step: "after receiving the first acquisition request, calculating which of the plurality of delivery agents could most efficiently carry out the first acquisition request using the at least one remote server, with the calculation being based, at least in part, on a location having the first set one or more goods, a current location of the delivery agent as determined utilizing the global positioning device, and the delivery site."

The elements of Claim 13 that overlap with Claim 1 are rendered obvious for the same reasons as discussed above. The distinguishing feature is the explicit efficiency calculation for agent selection.

1. "after receiving the first acquisition request, calculating which of the plurality of delivery agents could most efficiently carry out the first acquisition request using the at least one remote server, with the calculation being based, at least in part, on a location having the first set one or more goods, a current location of the delivery agent as determined utilizing the global positioning device, and the delivery site;"
   • Weng teaches the optimization of "delivery routes" for "a plurality of local drivers" for e-commerce orders, which inherently involves "calculating" efficient assignments based on logistical factors. This system operates with "at least one remote server" and utilizes "delivery sites."
   • A POSA, armed with the knowledge from Weng about optimizing delivery, and knowing that agent "current location" data is available via "global positioning devices" (CGK/Weng implication) and that the "location having the first set of one or more goods" (i.e., the pickup location) is known from the acquisition request (Bell/Weng), would find it a routine optimization task to calculate the most efficient agent. This calculation would minimize travel time and cost by considering all three known points: agent's current location, goods' pickup location, and customer's delivery site. This is a standard problem in logistics optimization, and its application to the combined system would be obvious to improve efficiency.

Motivation for Combination for Claim 13: Building upon the motivation for Claim 1, a POSA would further seek to optimize the operational efficiency of such a remote acquisition and delivery service. Weng provides a clear teaching of logistical optimization for delivery agents. It would be an obvious step for a POSA to apply these known optimization principles (from Weng) to the agent selection process in the Bell/Szamel enhanced remote shopping system, using readily available GPS location data and known pickup/delivery addresses, to achieve the desired efficiency.

In summary, the combination of Bell, Szamel, Weng, and common general knowledge regarding GPS would render both independent claims 1 and 13 of US8244594 obvious to a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art seeking to develop a more interactive and efficient remote acquisition and delivery system.