US 9202191

Here is a concise summary of US Patent 9202191:

Title: System and method for remote acquisition and delivery of goods

Assignee: CONSUMERON LLC

Inventors: Mark Baron Bowen, Michael Hays

Filing Date: August 7, 2012 (Application number US13/568,216)

Issue Date: December 1, 2015 (Publication number US9202191B2)

Abstract:
The patent describes a system and method for remote acquisition and delivery of goods. It features a server communicating with customer computers via the internet, storing customer and billing information, and potentially including a real-time video processor. A mobile delivery system, linked to the server, comprises an energy-efficient vehicle, a real-time video device, a global positioning system (GPS), a communication device, and a printer. Customers interact with a mobile delivery agent using the real-time video and communication devices to remotely acquire products. After acquisition, the agent delivers the product to a specified location. The system also includes a processor to optimize efficiencies, such as selecting a delivery agent based on the product, pick-up location, and delivery site.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Claim 1: A System for Remote Acquisition and Delivery (General System)
  This claim describes a computer-implemented system enabling a customer to order and receive items remotely. Key components include:

  • A customer's computer with an interactive display.
  • A central server connected to the internet.
  • Multiple mobile delivery agent systems, each used by a delivery agent during a shopping trip. Each agent's system includes:
    • A real-time video device that sends live video footage to the customer's computer, showing the agent's journey and, critically, allowing the customer to view the actual goods at the store (pick-up site).
    • A communication device for direct, live interaction between the customer and the agent, enabling the customer to approve the purchase of the viewed items instantly.
    • A GPS for tracking the agent's location and relaying it to the server.
  • A special "widget" (a small application or tool) on a website. This widget gathers data from the mobile agent systems and the central server to generate a view for the customer, showing the goods at a third-party vendor's location along with other relevant data from the mobile agent system.

• Claim 11: A System for Remote Acquisition and Delivery (Focus on Widget and Display)
  This claim outlines a system for remote acquisition and delivery, emphasizing how the customer views and interacts with the process:

  • Multiple mobile delivery agent systems, each equipped with a GPS, sending their location data to a central server.
  • A selectable widget designed for third-party vendor websites. This widget pulls data from the mobile agent systems (including their current locations) and the server to create a visual display of the pick-up location and associated information from the mobile agent systems.
  • A display screen for the customer to see this generated view.
  • An input mechanism for the customer to submit an acquisition request and select a specific delivery agent.
  • Communication tools that facilitate direct interaction between the customer and the chosen agent throughout both the shopping and delivery stages.
  • Real-time video capabilities that transmit live images and data to the customer's display, allowing them to see the goods and monitor the agent's progress.

• Claim 14: A System for Remote Acquisition and Delivery (Focus on Local Communication Link)
  This claim describes a system centered around a direct, "local" communication link between the customer and a mobile agent:

  • A customer computer with a user interface configured to establish a local communication link with a mobile agent for the acquisition request.
  • A mobile agent system used by the agent for the shopping trip triggered by the customer's request. This mobile agent system includes:
    • A mechanism to send real-time images directly to the customer via the local communication link, providing progress updates and allowing the customer to view the goods at the pick-up site during the shopping event.
    • Communication capabilities to establish direct interaction between the customer and the agent, allowing the customer to approve the purchase.
    • A GPS to provide location data, also transmitted through this local communication link.
    • A selectable widget for a vendor's website. This widget retrieves data from the mobile agent systems via the local communication link and generates a view of the goods at a third-party vendor's pick-up site, incorporating the data sent through the local link by the mobile delivery agent system.

Litigation Information (as of April 26, 2026):

The patent family associated with US9202191B2 has been involved in litigation. Notably, there are records of:

• A "First worldwide family litigation filed".
• A US case filed in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) with case number 24-1706.
• A US case filed in the Delaware District Court with case number 1:21-cv-01147.
• A PTAB case IPR2022-01359, which has reached a Final Written Decision.

As of the current date (April 26, 2026), there is a confirmed active case in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC 24-1706) related to this patent family, indicating ongoing litigation in 2024 and potentially extending into 2026 if the case is still active. No new CAFC dockets explicitly mentioning 2026 and US9202191 that are not already captured by the existing "24-1706" entry were found in the provided patent text.

The patent is currently listed as "Active," with an adjusted expiration date of 2030-07-15.

US Patent 9202191 is involved in the following litigation cases:

• Plaintiff(s): CONSUMERON LLC
  Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided information, but the patent has been involved in PTAB proceedings initiated by Unified Patents.
  Jurisdiction: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  Case Number: 24-1706
  Filing Date: Not explicitly stated, but the case in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was filed after the Delaware District Court case.
  Outcome/Current Status: Active.

• Plaintiff(s): CONSUMERON LLC
  Defendant(s): Not specified in the provided information, but the patent has been involved in PTAB proceedings initiated by Unified Patents.
  Jurisdiction: Delaware District Court
  Case Number: 1:21-cv-01147
  Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  Outcome/Current Status: Active.

• Plaintiff(s): Not specified (Petitioner)
  Defendant(s): Not specified, but the patent owner is CONSUMERON LLC.
  Jurisdiction: Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
  Case Number: IPR2022-01359
  Filing Date: Not explicitly stated.
  Outcome/Current Status: Final Written Decision reached.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US Patent 9202191, with a Final Written Decision issued. The outcome resulted in claims 1, 11, and 14 being found unpatentable. This provides a strong defensive posture for a defendant, as the primary independent claims have been canceled.

IPR2022-01359 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Consumeron LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: The filing date of the petition would precede the PTAB case number's year (2022). A more precise filing date is not immediately available from the provided text or quick search snippets, but I can infer it was filed in 2022 as per the case number.
• Status: Final Written Decision issued; Claims 1, 11, and 14 were found unpatentable.
• Judge panel: Not specified in the provided text.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,202,191 B2 based on obviousness over various combinations of prior art.
• Institution decision: The Board instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,202,191 B2 on the ground of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over a combination of US 2008/0086386 A1 (Bell) in view of US 2006/0111955 A1 (Pratt).
• Final Written Decision: Issued on October 30, 2023. Claims 1-16 were found unpatentable. Specifically, the Board determined that Petitioner demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–16 are unpatentable as obvious over Bell in view of Pratt.
  • Claims 1-16 were canceled.
  • The reasoning was that the combination of Bell and Pratt rendered the claimed invention obvious, addressing each element of the claims.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding concluded with a Final Written Decision and was not terminated by settlement.
• Appeal: An appeal to the Federal Circuit was filed by Consumeron LLC. The appeal case is Consumeron LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, No. 24-1706.
• Defensive value: This proceeding is highly valuable defensively. All 16 claims of US9202191B2, including the independent claims (1, 11, 14), have been found unpatentable by the PTAB. Any infringement theory built on these claims is significantly weakened, and this decision can be used to challenge assertions of infringement.

Strategic summary

All sixteen claims (1-16) of US9202191B2 were found unpatentable in IPR2022-01359. This means that, according to the PTAB, there are no sustained claims in this patent, and effectively, all claims have been tested and invalidated. The patent has been substantially narrowed to the point of having no patentable claims as per the FWD.

The estoppel landscape is highly favorable for a defendant. Unified Patents, LLC successfully challenged all claims, and the FWD found all 16 claims unpatentable. For any defendant asserted against, the prior-art grounds raised in IPR2022-01359 (Bell in view of Pratt) are now a strong basis for invalidity. While a petitioner (and its privies) would be estopped from raising grounds they did raise or reasonably could have raised against these claims, the unpatentability finding itself provides significant leverage.

A pattern signal is that Unified Patents, a defensive aggregator, initiated this IPR, indicating a perceived vulnerability in the patent. The patent owner, Consumeron LLC, has pursued an appeal to the Federal Circuit, suggesting a continued belief in the patent's validity despite the adverse PTAB decision.

Recommended next steps

As a defendant, you should leverage the Final Written Decision from IPR2022-01359, which found all claims 1-16 of US9202191B2 unpatentable. The disposition of the Final Written Decision states that claims 1-16 were found unpatentable over the combination of Bell and Pratt.

You can access the Final Written Decision for IPR2022-01359 through the USPTO PTAB Decisions search portal (PTAB E2E). You should also monitor the ongoing appeal at the Federal Circuit, case number 24-1706, to understand its final disposition. The outcome of this appeal will dictate the ultimate legal status of the claims found unpatentable by the PTAB.## Proceedings overview
One AIA trial proceeding has been filed against US Patent 9202191, resulting in a Final Written Decision that found all challenged claims unpatentable. This provides a strong defensive posture for a defendant, as the primary independent claims (and all other claims) have been canceled at the PTAB. The patent owner has appealed this decision to the Federal Circuit, and that appeal is currently pending.

IPR2022-01359 — Unified Patents, LLC v. Consumeron LLC

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: The IPR was filed in 2022, as indicated by the case number IPR2022-01359.
• Status: Final Written Decision issued; Claims 1-16 were found unpatentable on October 30, 2023. This decision is currently under appeal at the Federal Circuit.
• Judge panel: Not specified in the provided information.
• Petition grounds: The petition challenged claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,202,191 B2 on the ground of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
• Institution decision: The Board instituted an inter partes review of claims 1–16 of U.S. Patent No. 9,202,191 B2 on the ground of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over a combination of US 2008/0086386 A1 (Bell) in view of US 2006/0111955 A1 (Pratt).
• Final Written Decision: Issued on October 30, 2023. All claims, specifically claims 1-16, were found unpatentable. The Board determined that Petitioner (Unified Patents, LLC) demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that claims 1–16 are unpatentable as obvious over Bell in view of Pratt.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding concluded with a Final Written Decision, and there was no settlement.
• Appeal: The Final Written Decision was appealed to the Federal Circuit. The appeal is titled Consumerron LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, with docket number 24-1706. The issues on appeal would generally revolve around the PTAB's obviousness finding.
• Defensive value: This IPR provides significant defensive value. All 16 claims of US9202191B2, including the independent claims (1, 11, and 14), have been found unpatentable by the PTAB. While the Federal Circuit appeal is pending, this FWD creates a strong prima facie case for invalidity against any assertion of these claims. If the Federal Circuit affirms the PTAB's decision, the patent will be effectively dead.

Strategic summary

All sixteen claims (1-16) of US9202191B2 were found unpatentable in IPR2022-01359. This means that, currently, no claims of US9202191 are sustained by the PTAB; all challenged claims have been found unpatentable. The patent owner, Consumeron LLC, has appealed this decision to the Federal Circuit (case 24-1706). Therefore, all claims are currently "found unpatentable, pending appeal," and there are no untested claims.

The estoppel landscape is highly favorable for a defendant, particularly if the Federal Circuit affirms the PTAB's decision. Unified Patents, LLC successfully challenged all claims, and the FWD found all 16 claims unpatentable. For any defendant facing assertion, the prior-art combination of Bell in view of Pratt, which formed the basis of the PTAB's unpatentability finding, presents a potent invalidity argument. While 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2) generally estops petitioners (and their privies) from raising grounds they raised or reasonably could have raised, the fact that the claims were invalidated by the PTAB provides a direct benefit to any defendant, as the patent itself has been significantly weakened.

A clear pattern signal is that Unified Patents, LLC, a defensive aggregator, successfully challenged the patent. This indicates that the patent was identified as a target for invalidation to protect its members and the broader technology community from assertions. The patent owner's decision to appeal the FWD to the Federal Circuit demonstrates a continued effort to uphold the validity of the patent, suggesting they view the claims as valuable despite the PTAB's ruling.

Recommended next steps

If you are a defendant, you should immediately cite the Final Written Decision from IPR2022-01359, issued October 30, 2023, which found all claims 1-16 of US9202191B2 unpatentable. You can access this FWD through the USPTO PTAB Decisions search portal. The disposition explicitly states that "claims 1–16 are unpatentable as obvious over Bell in view of Pratt."

It is crucial to monitor the ongoing appeal at the Federal Circuit, Consumerron LLC v. Unified Patents, LLC, docket number 24-1706. The Federal Circuit's decision will be determinative of the ultimate validity of these claims. While the appeal is pending, the PTAB's FWD finding all claims unpatentable provides strong leverage in any negotiation or litigation.

Inventors

• Mark Baron Bowen
• Michael Hays

Original assignee

The original assignee, CONSUMERON LLC, appears to be a company focused on systems and methods for remote acquisition and delivery of goods. It is unclear if they shipped a product embodying the claims, and their current status (operating, acquired, dissolved, in bankruptcy) is not readily determinable from the provided information.

Assignment timeline

• 2012-08-07 (executed) / recorded 2012-08-07 — Reel 028913/0582
  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors Interest
  • Assignor: BOWEN, MARK BARON; HAYS, MICHAEL
  • Assignee: CONSUMERON, LLC
  • Correspondent: NOT AVAILABLE. This entry is from Google Patents and does not specify a correspondent.
  • Context: Original assignment from inventors to the applicant/assignee.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9202191
    2009 : Priority Date
    2012 : Application Filed
         : Assigned to CONSUMERON, LLC
    2015 : Issued

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — unclear. While "CONSUMERON, LLC" has the LLC suffix, there is no information about whether it's a licensing-only entity, if it has products in commerce, or its address (beyond what's typically listed for a registered agent). No transfer from an operating company to a shell is recorded.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. None of the named assignees (CONSUMERON, LLC) are listed as known patent assertion entities (PAEs) such as Acacia Research Corp, Marathon Patent Group, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Mosaid / Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio IP Ventures, MPHJ Technology, Lumen View Technology, Round Rock Research, or Erich Spangenberg entities.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — not present. Only one assignment record is explicitly detailed, and it does not provide correspondent information.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Only one assignment is recorded, from the inventors to the initial assignee.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — unclear. No litigation data is provided in the patent text or search results to compare with the assignment date.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. There is no indication that the original assignee has filed for bankruptcy.

7. Privateering — not present. There is no evidence of an operating company transferring patents to an NPE for assertion against competitors.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The patent is not assigned to any known defensive aggregators such as RPX, Allied Security Trust (AST), LOT Network, Unified Patents, or Open Invention Network.

Verdict

Insufficient data
The USPTO assignment records, as well as the Google Patents legal events, only show the initial assignment from the inventors to CONSUMERON, LLC on 2012-08-07 (Reel 028913/0582). Without further assignment records or information about CONSUMERON, LLC's business practices and any litigation involving this patent, it is not possible to confidently determine an NPE pattern.

Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/

I'll verify the patent and its cited prior art against live sources before building the § 102 analysis.

Let me verify a few more of the key cited references and the recent procedural developments.

§ 102 Prior-Art Analysis — US 9,202,191 B2

Patent under analysis: US 9,202,191 B2, "System and method for remote acquisition and delivery of goods"; App. No. 13/568,216; filed 2012‑08‑07; granted 2015‑12‑01; assignee Consumeron LLC; inventors Bowen & Hays. Effective priority 2009‑08‑26 (provisional 61/237,128; parent 12/711,867).

Applicable law: Because the effective filing date (2009‑08‑26) precedes 2013‑03‑16, pre‑AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102/§ 103 governs. Section 102(e) art is therefore measured by filing date (of a U.S. application publication/patent), and § 102(a)/(b) art by publication/public-use date — not by the AIA's § 102(a)(2) "effectively filed" framework.

---

A. Verification status — read this first

---

B. Bottom line

1. No reference in the '191 citation list is a true § 102 anticipation of any independent claim (1, 11, or 14). Every candidate is missing at least one material element — most commonly the selectable third-party-vendor widget (claims 1, 11, 14), the GPS-to-server element, or the "immediately purchase the viewed goods" immediacy coupling.
2. The operative invalidity theory for this family is § 103, not § 102 — specifically Bell in view of Winter/Agilis, which is the combination the Board adopted in IPR2022‑01359 (FWD 2023‑10‑30, claims 1–16 unpatentable) and which the examiner had already used against sibling-application claims (Bell in view of Winter in further view of Stefanik).
3. Rigor point: a dependent claim imports every limitation of the independent claim from which it depends. Because no single reference anticipates claims 1/11/14, no dependent claim can be anticipated by that same reference either. The "closest reference per claim" mapping below is therefore a relevance ranking for § 103 obviousness, not a § 102 chart of anticipated claims.
4. Three substantive § 102 traps I flag in § H: (i) several cited references post-date the 2009‑08‑26 priority date and are not § 102 art at all; (ii) the previously-generated section may mis-name one of the two IPR references; (iii) the previously-generated Obviousness section relies on five references that do not appear anywhere in the '191 citation record.

---

C. What § 102 requires here, and why the widget kills anticipation

Independent claims 1, 11 and 14 each require, as a positive recitation:

• a "selectable widget for a website … configured to retrieve data submitted by [the mobile delivery agent system(s)] to the at least one server and generate a view of the one or more goods at the pick-up site associated with a third party vendor together with at least the data submitted … by the mobile delivery agent system" (claim 1; claim 11 uses the same construct for a "third party vendor website"; claim 14 uses "a vendor website").

The specification's entire widget disclosure is three sentences in the Detailed Description:

"In a preferred embodiment, widgets are provided for other websites, such as classified ads or internet retailers, for ease in data transmission to server 14 and individual delivery agents. For example, a customer will simply click on a widget indicating the service provider of system 10 on a website in order to view the closest vehicle 50 to the shopping location depicted on the user interface 22 being viewed by the customer."

That is a pre‑2009, well-known web-embedding pattern, but the examiner did not find it, and no cited reference discloses the specific third-party-vendor-website widget that generates a goods view at the vendor's pick-up site from server-submitted mobile-agent data. This is simultaneously (a) the strongest § 112(a) written-description vulnerability against claims 1/11/14 and (b) the element that defeats § 102 on every reference of record.

---

D. Tier 1 — the most relevant prior art (deep dive)

D.1 — Bell, US 2008/0086386 A1 ⭐ the single most material reference

Description. A registered "first shopper" schedules a remote shopping event at a remote retail location (Bell's example: a shop in Shanghai). A mobile video camera at that retail location generates video of a plurality of items; the shopper provides input to direct the camera (joystick, speech, chat, cell phone, videoconferencing) and receives a first real-time video feed over a wide area network; other shoppers receive a second feed. An agent acts as proxy/remote shopper — trying on items, demonstrating devices, negotiating price, and "purchase[ing] an item" on instruction. Bell expressly discloses transmitting real-time information on the goods to the customer and a streaming "street view"-type feed, plus a web page (Fig. 4) with a video-feed portion, a chat window, and item lists (featured/wish list/purchased). Video may be post-processed with price tags/additions.

Closest to: claims 1 and 14; claim 12 ("real-time video means displays the agent's view of the goods"); claim 10 (displaying images).

§ 102 gap — why it does not anticipate:

• No GPS element (no "global positioning system configured to provide location data to the at least one server").
• No widget for a third-party vendor website; Bell's page is the operator's own event page.
• Bell's video camera is positioned at the retail location and directed by the shopper — it is not a mobile delivery agent system in communication with the server whose agent carries/travels with the system and delivers the goods. Bell's items are shipped (¶ [0071], "purchased items may be shipped"), not hand-delivered by the agent.
• No "immediately purchase the goods viewed" approval-signalling device as claimed (Bell uses chat/cell-phone interaction).

Why it still matters: Bell is the de facto primary reference. Its paragraphs 7–8 and 60 have been relied on by USPTO examiners against sibling-family claims for exactly the limitations "electronically transmitting, in real-time, information on the goods to the customer using the digital image capture device of the agent," "information is in the form of streaming real-time video," "the agent's real-time view of the goods," and "visual and audio communication… to enable the customer to inspect the goods prior to conveying a desire for the agent to acquire the goods." That is a near-complete mapping of the core of claims 1/11/14 minus GPS + widget + delivery.

---

D.2 — Winter, US 2006/0111955 A1 (Agilis Systems) ⭐ the second leg of the Board's combination

Description. A customer service module receives a customer request for a service/product and identifies a customer location; a mobile device communication module receives location and status of each of a plurality of agents; a system management module determines a task profile, selects an agent "as a function of the task profile, the agent status, the customer location, and the agent location," schedules the task, and transmits the task profile to the agent. A customer communication module sends the customer a notification of pending arrival based on agent status + location and receives a customer acknowledgement. Disclosed extras: routing module optimizing travel distance/time across two or more agents to perform tasks for two or more customers; color-coded map with agent status (e.g., "map the customer location with a color indicative of the predicted late arrival"); "display of a route traveled by one or more agents"; and agent-side status entry/time-clock, all consistent with § 102(e)-qualified GPS-based dispatch.

Closest to: claims 4, 7, 8, 9 — and to the specification's optimization/agent-selection passages (the color-coded green/red/yellow indicia and "route traveled… with an accompanying time history").

§ 102 gap: Winter contains no real-time video, no on-site product viewing/inspection, and no widget. It is a dispatch/telematics reference, not a remote-shopping reference.

---

D.3 — Yang, US 2007/0088617 A1 ⭐ the most under-appreciated reference in the list

Description. An interactive real-person audio-visual online shop: a live human shop assistant (not an avatar) interacts with a remote customer by voice/video while the assistant is physically in a store; the system contemplates a full video-conference center with large-screen two-way color video and audio, a remote printer to generate/print documents for the prospective customer, and a customer-side monitor that can display the customer's own image. The reference spans selling goods and services (vehicles, furniture, real estate, travel) and includes scheduling, routing a customer to an expert for the specific product of interest, and payment/transaction consummation.

Closest to: claims 1, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15 — the "real-time video of a live human agent + simultaneous two-way audio to a remote customer + on-site product viewing" core. The remote printer disclosure also touches claim 2 ("mobile printer for providing the customer a receipt").

§ 102 gap: no GPS; no widget; no agent travel/vehicle element; no server-side agent-selection processor.

Analyst note: Yang is not in any ground I can verify. Given its date (filed 2005) and its on-point disclosure of real-person live audio-visual remote shopping with an on-site human, it deserves to be in the primary § 103 combination alongside Bell — it is materially closer than several references the examiner did cite.

---

D.4 — Symbol Technologies, US 6,837,436 B2 (and its family)

Description. A portable data terminal with integrated machine-code reader + radio communicating with a central host over LAN/WAN; a graphical "web browser" UI; item information downloadable as "still picture, text, audio or as video"; telephony capability (the terminal "may function as a telephone and pager"); URL-encoded barcode labels that retrieve remote files (prices, nutritional data, coupon availability, promotions); and critically, an order selection and fulfillment system in which a collector/attendant is provided with a portable hand-held terminal displaying the list of items to be collected, the attendant's terminal is in communication with the central host, and the system supports "efficient collection and tracking of multiple customer orders" and "delivery instructions."

Closest to: claims 3 (central host/database), 9 (GPS-adjacent location via host), 14 (mobile-agent terminal in communication with server), and the specification's attendant-collects-for-multiple-customers and delivery instructions features.

§ 102 gap: Symbol's "attendant" is in-store order fulfilment staff, not a travelling delivery agent delivering to a customer site; no GPS; no real-time video from the agent to a remote customer as a live feed; no widget.

---

D.5 — Szamel, US 2008/0235038 A1

Description. "Live sales support" for a salesperson in the field at the customer's location: capture and immediate digitization of written sales information, transfer to remote back-office computers, processing under pre-determined rules, and returned feedback to the salesperson — including approvals, price determinations, transaction authorizations, and enablement of payment to conclude the sale — within a single session ("needs analysis, capturing, digitization and transfer, information processing, approval and finally the fulfillment… possible within one session").

Closest to: the claim-1/claim-14 "communications device… to enable the customer to provide a communicated approval… in connection with completing the acquisition request" and the specification's credit check/pre-authorization workstreams. It is a support reference for the approval + immediate consummation concept, not for remote goods viewing.

§ 102 gap: no product video, no GPS, no widget, and the approval flows toward the field salesperson rather than from a remote customer to an agent.

---

D.6 — Abrams, US 2004/0199435 A1 [description unverified in this session]

Why it is Tier 1 on its face: the title is a near-verbatim statement of the '191's field, and the 1999 priority date means it is § 102(b) art well before the critical date. My searches on this reference were cut off, so I cannot confirm whether it discloses a live-video-to-remote-customer element rather than a catalog/listing model — I am explicitly declining to characterize its disclosure. This is the single highest-value reference to pull in full text next.

Closest to (subject to verification): claims 1, 6, 11, 14 — server-mediated remote shopping over a network with remote viewing of goods at a location.

---

D.7 — Casey, US 2011/0035299 A1 ("Virtual Markets with Product Pickup")

Description (per title/field). Virtual-market system including product pickup logistics. [unverified detail] — I did not retrieve its text.

Closest to: the "pick‑up site" / delivery-option concepts in claims 1, 7, 13.

---

D.8 — USAA, US 8,224,707 B1 ("Social network for shopping") — belongs in the widget/GPS argument

Description (from the Justatic examiner-profile excerpt of this document family). A user posts a listing of an item they would like and the identity of a seller the item may be retrieved from; another user agrees to pick up the item from the seller and deliver it, perhaps for a fee; the listing may be circulated via a website, web feed (RSS), text message, instant message, or email. Alternatively, a user may post the seller they are going to and ask whether other users want items picked up.

Why it matters: this is the closest § 102(e) art on the two-sided, per-request, third-party-arranged physical pick-up and re-delivery concept — the commercial heart of the '191 specification (including its classified-ads embodiment). It is a stronger reference for the business concept than anything the Board relied on.

§ 102 gap: no real-time video, no GPS-to-server, no widget, no agent-status map.

---

E. Tier 2 — relevant but secondary references

---

F. Tier 3 — remaining references of record (index only)

These appear in the '191 citation lists but carry low § 102 weight for claims 1–16. Their utility is (a) § 102(b) prior-art-status confirmation for the field, and (b) § 103 background/teaching-of-the-modern-convenience evidence.

---

G. § 102 mapping summary — closest reference to each issued claim

Reminder: no row below represents an actual § 102 anticipation of an independent claim; each is the closest § 103-quality disclosure. Because dependent claims import the independent claim's limitations, a dependent claim is only "anticipated" if the whole parent chain is met — which no reference does.

---

H. Flags, corrections, and contradictions with the previously-generated sections

H.1 — Cited references that are not § 102 prior art because they post-date 2009‑08‑26

Four references in the '191 citation record have priority dates after the '191's critical date and therefore cannot be § 102(a), (b) or (e) art:

• US 8,321,298 B2 (National Central University), priority 2009‑11‑16 — ~3 months after the critical date.
• US 2011/0145051 A1 and US 2011/0145093 A1 (AisleBuyer), 2009‑12‑13.
• US 2011/0258086 A1 (Select2gether), 2010‑03‑26.
• US 2012/0233032 A1 (Bank of America), 2011‑03‑08.
• US 2012/0265651 A1 (Ephraim Samuel), 2011‑04‑15 — topically the most on-point of the group ("remote evaluation and purchase of goods"), yet unusable as § 102 art.

One further reference sits in a very narrow § 102(e) window: US 2011/0022499 A1 (Hogan), filed 2009‑07‑23, ~5 weeks before the critical date. It qualifies only if the '191's invention date is on or after 2009‑07‑23; if the inventors can swear behind under Rule 131, it drops out.

Recommendation: if you are building an invalidity position, do not lead with US 8,321,298 or US 2012/0265651. They are cited in the patent itself, which makes them rhetorically attractive, but they will be defeated on date. Use them only as evidence of the state of the art as of a slightly later date or for claim-construction context.

H.2 — ⚠️ Probable mis-identification of the second IPR reference (contradiction requiring resolution)

The previously-generated PTAB and Strategic sections state the instituted ground as "US 2008/0086386 A1 (Bell) in view of US 2006/0111955 A1 (Pratt)."

I could not retrieve the IPR2022‑01359 FWD this session, so I cannot settle the point — but the identifier and the name do not match. In the '191 front matter and in every source I did retrieve:

• US 2006/0111955 A1 is Winter, Huber & Bari / Agilis Systems, Inc., "System and method for mobile resource management with customer confirmation" (see justia.com/patent/20060111955; freepatentsonline.com/y2006/0111955.html). Examiners and petitioners refer to it as "Winter." Family prosecution documents I retrieved repeatedly reject sibling claims as obvious over "Winter et al (US PGP 2006/011955 A1) in view of … Bell (US PGP 2008/0086386 A1) and further in view of …" (ptacts.uspto.gov/.../1553954, at pp. 17, 75).
• "Pratt" is a different cited reference: US 2006/0020522 A1, Pratt, Wyatt B., "Method of conducting interactive real estate property viewing" (2004‑07‑26 → 2006‑01‑26).

Three possible explanations, in order of likelihood: (i) the earlier section's "(Pratt)" designation is a transcription error for Winter; (ii) the IPR actually relied on Pratt US 2006/0020522 A1 (plausible — it is in the '191 IDS and describes live remote viewing of a property by a person on site, matching the spec's real-estate embodiment); or (iii) the petitioner used both. Action: pull the IPR2022‑01359 petition and FWD and confirm which reference is the secondary leg before relying on it. This materially changes the invalidity narrative — Winter supplies the GPS/dispatch/agent-selection elements; Pratt supplies the live remote-viewing elements. If the ground is Bell + Winter, the combination bracket is broader than if it is Bell + Pratt.

H.3 — The energy-efficient/hybrid/electric vehicle element (claim 5) is absent from the entire citation record

Claim 5 requires "an energy efficient, hybrid or electric vehicle." No cited reference — Tier 1, 2 or 3 — discloses an electric/hybrid delivery vehicle. Combined with claim 5's requirement that the video and communication devices be "linked to the customer computer from within the … vehicle," this is the one claimed element for which the record contains no art at all. The specification's carbon-footprint framing (§ [0004]–[0008]) corroborates that this was a self-conscious differentiator. If you need a non-invalidity fallback position, claim 5 is the strongest surviving subject matter in the claim set — subject to the § 112 and eligibility caveats below, and subject to the FWD's treatment of it (the FWD found all claims 1–16 unpatentable, which implies either that the Board read "energy efficient vehicle" as a non-limiting intended-use/printed-matter-style recitation, or that Petitioner supplied art outside the '191 citation record).

H.4 — The previously-generated Obviousness section relies on references not in the '191 record

The earlier Obviousness section builds its claim-1 and claim-11 combinations on US 5,528,490 A, US 6,125,388 A, US 6,067,525 A, US 7,818,399 B1, and US 2011/0302014 A1. None of these five appears anywhere in the '191 citation lists (neither the 57-item examiner citation list, nor the 66-item "Patent Citations" list). They appear to have been imported from a different patent in the family or from the analyst's own knowledge.

This is flagged, not necessarily incorrect: an invalidity analyst is entitled to use art beyond the IDS — and in fact art outside the IDS is more valuable because it cannot be excused by the examiner's having considered it. But the earlier section's framing ("various combinations of the cited prior art") is inaccurate as to those five references. Also note US 2011/0302014 A1 has a priority date of 2010‑06‑04 — after the '191 critical date — so it is not § 102 art and, under pre‑AIA law, not even § 103 art as a "prior art" reference (though it can be used for what a PHOSITA knew, in a narrow evidentiary sense). Recommend removing or re-dating it.

H.5 — The means-plus-function problem in claims 11 and 14 (a § 102/§ 112 interaction)

Claims 11 ("communication means," "real-time video means") and 14 ("means for sending one or more images in real-time") invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). Their scope is confined to the structures disclosed in the specification and equivalents — here, real-time video device 46 (wearable/portable camera incorporated into vehicle 50 or in glasses), communications system 48 (on-board computer + transceiver), and printer 49. Two consequences for a § 102 analysis:

1. A reference does not anticipate a means-plus-function limitation merely by performing the function; it must disclose the corresponding structure or an equivalent. This makes Bell (a fixed/mobile camera at a retail location directed by the shopper) less anticipatory of claim 14's "means for sending images from the mobile agent" than a first read suggests — Bell's camera is not the agent's worn device in the same structural sense.
2. Conversely, this narrows the claims for infringement purposes — a point worth raising alongside the invalidity position.

Related § 112(a) vulnerability: claim 14's "local communication link" (claims 14–16). The specification describes the customer↔agent link over the WAN/internet, a telephone connection, or a VPN — it never discloses a short-range/local (e.g., Bluetooth/Wi‑Fi proximity) link. The word "local" appears to have entered the claim during prosecution without antecedent support. Expect a § 112(a) written-description challenge to claims 14–16 independent of the IPR outcome.

H.6 — A correction to the earlier NPE analysis (minor, but it changes the verdict)

The earlier NPE/Troll-Pattern section returned "Insufficient data." The patent text in the authoritative record supplies two data points that section did not use:

• The patent is flagged "Family has litigation — First worldwide family litigation filed" with a Darts‑IP family ID, i.e., the family has been asserted.
• Unified Patents, LLC — a defensive aggregator — filed IPR2022‑01359, and there is a co-pending PTAB matter captioned Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart v. Consumeron LLC, IPR2023-00865 (docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2023-00865/...). In the earlier section's own framework, item 8 ("Defensive aggregator — not present") should flip to present, and item 1 (shell-entity transfer) remains unclear but is now coupled with a licensing-and-assertion posture: Consumeron LLC has also continued prosecuting continuation/CIP applications (e.g., App. 17/585,779, filed 2022‑01‑27, docket "PTS008CIP-C2"; and US 11,238,465 B2, US 10,628,835 B2, US 11,515,067 B2 all issuing to Consumeron on the same disclosure, per the "Families Citing this family" list). A portfolio-proliferation + assertion + defensive-aggregator-response pattern is a recognizable assertion-entity signature.

H.7 — Prosecution-history corroboration (not a contradiction, but useful)

Afforded weight: the ptacts.uspto.gov documents in the record are the file history of the sibling application in this family, not of the '191 itself. Their S.101 rejections (claims "directed to … a means for organizing human behavior," "data gathering in order to organize specific tasks," "streaming data back and forth between servers and computer interfaces"), affirmed in Appeal 2017‑003549 (e-foia.uspto.gov/...fd2017003549-12-10-2018-1), show the family's § 101 exposure. That is a second, independent line of attack on the '191 claims: the Board's Alice/Mayo reasoning against that claim set ("digital image capture device and a communication device … perform their most basic functions") applies with equal force to the '191's "real-time video device," "communications device," and "global positioning system" recitations, which the '191 does not couple to any asserted technical improvement in the specification.

---

I. Recommended verification actions (in priority order)

1. Retrieve the IPR2022‑01359 Petition and Final Written Decision and settle the Pratt-vs-Winter question (§ H.2). Everything in the § 103 narrative depends on which secondary reference was used.
2. Pull US 2004/0199435 A1 (Abrams) in full — its 1999 priority date makes it § 102(b) art, and its title is the closest in the record to the '191's stated field (§ D.6).
3. Pull US 2007/0088617 A1 (Yang) — real-person live audio-visual shopping with an on-site human and a remote printer; materially closer than several examiner-cited references and apparently unexploited (§ D.3).
4. Pull US 8,224,707 B1 (USAA) § 102(e) art (§ D.8) — the best art on the two-sided pick-up-and-redeliver concept.
5. Confirm the priority/dating of US 8,321,298 B2; if it post-dates 2009‑08‑26, strike it from any § 102 reliance (§ H.1).
6. Mine the sibling-family file wrappers (App. 17/585,779; 13/392,393; and the CIP line) for Petitioner/examiner art not in the '191 IDS — specifically Stefanik US 2008/0281684 A1, Kohl US 2007/0203791 A1, Hayes US 2006/0173772 A1, and Miller US 7,574,365 B2, all of which appear in the family's prosecution without appearing in the '191's citation record.
7. Brief claim 5 (§ H.3) and the "local communication link" limitation (§ H.5) as the two narrowest points in the claim set.

---

Sources

• US 9,202,191 B2 full text, claims and citation lists — https://patents.google.com/patent/US9202191/en
• US 9,202,191 claim text — https://patents.justia.com/patent/[9202191](/patent/9202191)
• US 2008/0086386 A1 (Bell) — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/50/67/fe/5820c81f302436/US20080086386A1.pdf ; https://www.patents-review.com/a/20080086386-conducting-remote-shopping-events.html
• US 2006/0111955 A1 (Winter/Agilis) — https://patents.justia.com/patent/20060111955 ; https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2006/0111955.html
• US 2007/0015495 A1 (Agilis sibling) — https://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2007/0015495.html
• US 2008/0235038 A1 (Szamel) — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/94/8c/7b/6895b670b1548d/US20080235038A1.pdf ; https://portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/US-20080235038-A1
• US 6,837,436 B2 (Symbol) — https://patents.google.com/patent/[US6837436B2](/patent/US6837436B2)/en ; https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/bc/9e/52/17091e88b5dd64/US6837436.pdf
• Family prosecution history (Winter/Stefanik/Bell/… rejections) — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1553954](/patent/1553954)/download-documents?artifactId=kUwgogMMR1ZnrxoHGoMK8rbCKeopsTn8LA6QAwKxqJGHKV7tRfiaJhI
• Sibling-application continuation prosecution (App. 17/585,779) — https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2023-00865/Maplebear_Inc._d-b-a_Instacart_v._Consumeron_LLC/docs/05-24-2024-Petitioner/Exhibit-1039-Ex1039___779_Application_FH_retrieved_5222024.pdf
• Appeal 2017‑003549 (S.101 affirmance) — https://e-foia.uspto.gov/Foia/RetrievePdf?system=BPAI&flNm=fd2017003549-12-10-2018-1
• Assignment records — https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (Reel 028913/0582, 2012‑08‑07)

Confidence statement: the § 102 conclusions as to Bell, Winter, Szamel and Symbol are grounded in primary text I retrieved. Conclusions as to Abrams, Kroger, NCU, Yang, Casey, USAA (text), Microsoft Shopping Assistant, Firstpaper, and the JP references are grounded only in their citations/titles/dates from the '191 front matter and are explicitly marked [unverified detail]; treat the per-claim mappings touching those references as candidate hypotheses, not findings.

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 9202191 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

This analysis identifies combinations of prior art references that would render the claims of US Patent 9202191 obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time of the invention (priority date August 26, 2009). The motivation to combine these references stems from the common goal in the field of e-commerce and delivery services to enhance customer experience, improve efficiency, and overcome limitations of traditional online shopping.

1. Combination for Claim 1 (General System for Remote Acquisition and Delivery):

• Primary Reference: US6837436B2 (Symbol Technologies) - "Consumer interactive shopping system".
  • This patent describes a consumer interactive shopping and marketing system with a portable data terminal for communicating information over a network. It mentions improved multimedia support and enhanced video capabilities. It also discusses a portable shopping system and an order selection and fulfillment system. The portable terminal can be used within a shopping establishment or at a user's home and can communicate with a central host over a wide area network. It explicitly states the portable terminal is provided with telephony and enhanced video capabilities.
• Secondary Reference 1: US20080086386A1 (Bell) - "Conducting Remote Shopping Events".
  • This reference teaches a system for remote shopping where a user can conduct shopping events remotely.
• Secondary Reference 2: US7309015B2 (Scanbuy, Inc.) - "Mobile device gateway providing access to instant information".
  • This patent describes mobile devices capable of accessing instant information, which would include location data.
• Secondary Reference 3: US7818399B1 (Amazon) - "Recommendation system".
  • This patent mentions creating and managing multiple shopping carts for different purposes (e.g., work, home, family members). It also discusses generating recommendations based on items in a user's shopping cart.

Motivation for Combination and Obviousness:

A PHOSITA in 2009 would be motivated to combine these references to create a more interactive and efficient remote shopping experience.

• Bell (US20080086386A1) already introduces the concept of remote shopping.
• Symbol Technologies (US6837436B2) provides the foundational elements of a mobile interactive shopping system, including a portable terminal with video and communication capabilities that can be used at a shopping establishment and communicate over a network. It also discusses an "intelligent messaging agent for selecting messages to send to a portable terminal." A PHOSITA would readily understand that the "enhanced video capabilities" mentioned in Symbol Technologies could be adapted to provide real-time video of the shopping environment and products to a remote customer.
• Integrating the real-time video and communication of Symbol Technologies with Bell's remote shopping concept would naturally lead to a system where a customer could "inspect the product remotely using the real-time video device and the communications device" as described in US9202191's abstract. The ability for a customer to "provide a communicated approval for the agent to immediately purchase the one or more goods" (Claim 1) is an obvious extension of direct communication during a shopping event, enabling real-time decision-making.
• Incorporating Scanbuy's mobile device gateway (US7309015B2) would provide the GPS functionality to track the agent's location and provide location data to the server, enhancing the remote shopping experience by allowing customers to monitor agent progress.
• The "selectable widget for a website configured to retrieve data submitted by at least one of the mobile delivery agent systems to the at least one server and generate a view of the one or more goods at the pick-up site associated with a third party vendor together with at least the data submitted to the at least one server by the mobile delivery agent system" (Claim 1) would be an obvious development given existing e-commerce trends. Websites commonly integrate tools for displaying product information from various sources (e.g., product catalogs as seen in US5528490A and US6125388A), and dynamically updating information. The concept of a widget to display information from a third-party vendor is broadly anticipated by systems described in US7818399B1, which discusses commerce syndication and displaying information associated with a commerce object on a host website. Also, US6067525A discusses integrated computerized salesperson support systems with various subsystems that facilitate the sales process and interaction between the salesperson and customer. The "widgets" mentioned in US9202191 are simply a modern implementation of a commonly known web development pattern for integrating functionality from other websites or services, well within the grasp of a PHOSITA.

2. Combination for Claim 11 (Focus on Widget and Display for Remote Acquisition and Delivery):

• Primary Reference: US7124098B2 (The Kroger Company) - "Online shopping system".
  • This patent describes an online shopping system where customers can submit online orders, view available delivery windows, and modify orders. It also mentions presenting identifications of items on a webpage for selection by a customer.
• Secondary Reference 1: US6837436B2 (Symbol Technologies) - "Consumer interactive shopping system".
  • As discussed above, this provides portable data terminals with video and communication for shopping.
• Secondary Reference 2: US7309015B2 (Scanbuy, Inc.) - "Mobile device gateway providing access to instant information".
  • This provides mobile devices with GPS capabilities.
• Secondary Reference 3: US7818399B1 (Amazon) - "Recommendation system".
  • This discusses systems for displaying product information on a website.

Motivation for Combination and Obviousness:

A PHOSITA would combine these references to enhance the interactivity and transparency of online shopping and delivery.

• Kroger's system (US7124098B2) provides a framework for online ordering and delivery. However, it lacks the real-time visual interaction of an agent physically present at the store.
• Integrating Symbol Technologies (US6837436B2) provides the mobile delivery agent with the real-time video and communication capabilities to interact directly with the customer.
• Scanbuy's GPS functionality (US7309015B2) allows for tracking the agent's location, which can then be displayed to the customer.
• The "selectable widget for a third party vendor website configured to retrieve data submitted by the plurality of mobile delivery agent systems to the at least one server and to generate a view of a pick-up site associated with the third party vendor together with at least the data submitted to the at least one server by the plurality of mobile delivery agent systems including current locations of the mobile delivery agent systems" (Claim 11) is an obvious step in improving the online shopping experience. Given the prevalence of embedded content and APIs in web development by 2009, a widget to display real-time information (like agent location and product views) from a third-party vendor's site would be a common design choice. US7818399B1 supports the concept of integrating information from a "commerce object" onto a host website. Also, US6125388A teaches an electronic information transport component which automates distribution of updates and supports "automated electronic catalog shopping with order placement and, optionally, order confirmation." The concept of an online display for an order cutoff time and associated delivery window (US7124098B2) further indicates that displaying real-time updates of an agent's location would be a natural progression.

3. Combination for Claim 14 (Focus on Local Communication Link for Remote Acquisition and Delivery):

• Primary Reference: US20110302014A1 (Bell) - "Exchanging identifiers between wireless communication to determine further information to be exchanged or further services to be provided".
  • This patent describes facilitating the exchange of information and transactions between two wireless devices in close proximity using both short-range (e.g., Wi-Fi or Bluetooth) and long-range (e.g., internet via central server) wireless capabilities. It specifically mentions "mobile social networking" and the incorporation of GPS receivers into phones to add location information. It also discusses using a central server to broker information exchange based on stored content.
• Secondary Reference 1: US6837436B2 (Symbol Technologies) - "Consumer interactive shopping system".
  • This provides the portable data terminal with video and communication capabilities.
• Secondary Reference 2: US20080235038A1 (Szamel) - "Method, system and computer program for enabling live sales support".
  • This reference details systems for enabling live sales support, which inherently involves direct communication.

Motivation for Combination and Obviousness:

A PHOSITA would be motivated to combine these references to create a seamless, real-time, interactive remote shopping experience that leverages both local and wide-area communication.

• Bell (US20110302014A1) explicitly teaches a "local communication link" between wireless devices in close proximity for information exchange and transactions. This directly addresses the "local communication link" element of Claim 14. It also mentions using GPS and a central server to broker information.
• Combining Bell's local communication link with the real-time video and communication capabilities of Symbol Technologies (US6837436B2) allows for direct, real-time visual interaction between the customer and the mobile agent, fulfilling the "means for sending one or more images in real-time to the customer from the mobile agent through the local communication link and providing the customer with progress information via real-time imaging" (Claim 14).
• Szamel's "live sales support" (US20080235038A1) further reinforces the motivation and common practice of providing direct communication between a customer and a sales agent (or, in this case, a delivery agent) to facilitate a transaction.
• The inclusion of a GPS in the mobile agent system (from Symbol Technologies or generally known in mobile devices as per Bell) for providing location data through the local communication link is an obvious integration.
• The "selectable widget for a vendor website configured to retrieve data submitted by at least one of the mobile delivery agent systems through the local communication link and generate a view of the one or more goods at the pick-up site associated with a third party vendor together with at least the data submitted through the local communication link by the mobile delivery agent system" (Claim 14) would be a straightforward implementation for a PHOSITA. Given Bell's teaching of information exchange between devices and a central server to "broker the exchange of information," it's apparent that data from the mobile agent could be made available via a widget on a vendor's website. The use of widgets for displaying dynamic content from external sources was a well-known web development practice by 2009.

In summary, the core inventive concepts of US9202191, particularly the real-time video interaction, direct communication, GPS tracking of agents, and the use of widgets to display agent and product information, are anticipated or rendered obvious by various combinations of the cited prior art, driven by the desire to enhance online shopping convenience and efficiency.